Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
A more ecstatic feeling of fellowship. I don't know. Who knows? I don't know what it is. More of something good. That's all I can tell you. I've listened through this. It doesn't say. But the greatest thing I can conceive of as a reward would just be when you're done.
And that's why it's so hard. I don't understand why there can be levels of it. And we don't understand because we don't know what that is. So we can't understand what we don't know about. So all we can do is just trust that God says there's more rewards for some than not for others.
What does that mean? He doesn't tell us. Okay? He doesn't tell us. And probably if He did, we'd become idolaters in that area. He said, yeah, if you get more, whatever, a better glorified body with better biceps.
Hey, you want me to be your best man in New York? Who knows? We always tend to screw things up. That's for sure. Well, I sense it.
Ready? Yeah. Why are you so ugly? Were you born that way? Born that way. Then it got worse. I'm sorry. Human decay. Okay. So earlier you were talking about the eternal progression of God. And you said you could draw it out on the chalkboard.
It's impossible. Right. How it's impossible. And you've done that before. Could you do that again?
I think I'll illustrate something first, though. So this is a domino set, and it goes back. Infinite. Draw bigger. Huh? Draw bigger. Draw bigger. And these are just more dominoes. Okay. And that's an infinite.
That's time per minute. So this is, it doesn't really matter if it takes time or distance or whatever. So it goes back forever and forward forever. It's possible to have an infinite number of dominoes going back forever.
Maybe not. I'm not going to get into that right now. What if they were falling? One after another. We're sitting here next to this place, and they're falling. And the middle line of dominoes is infinitely long.
If it's infinitely long, and we're standing here, but they've come an infinite distance to get to here, that's impossible. Because you can't cross an infinite to get to that. The idea of an infinite number of domino falls.
So the dominoes we understand. So what we have is cause and effect. Cause and effect. Cause, effect. Cause, effect. So the cause, the fall, the effect, that falls, that has a cause, the cause of that fall.
So cause and effect goes on. Can it go on forever? No! Because you can never get to now. Okay. In Mormonism, you have an infinite regression of gods. Regression of gods goes backwards. Forever. You can't do that, because you can never have the time to get to now.
It's real simple. And that shows that the infinite regression idea of gods can't work. So logically, you'd have to, and we use this in Christian theology. You can't have an infinite number of uncaused causes.
There has to be a single being, who is the beginning, and that's the start of the events of the fall, of the dominoes. Hence, whatever events we're talking about. So Christianity can answer. Because God's already started these things, and he just was forever.
People apply the same thing to God, but that's another topic. But in Mormonism, the only way to solve this problem is to say there's a single uncaused cause. But that would have to be God, but you can't get to be a god without exaltation.
So it's impossible. Mormonism is self-refuting because of this. It cannot be true. Because you have to have the first exaltation of God, but you can't have that without God exalting him. But that would mean the exaltation would come back forever.
But you can't have that. It's impossible. It's called an actual infinite. You can't have an actual infinite, an actual infinite number of gods being formed, because it would mean from the actual infinite way back there to now, is cross an infinite amount of time.
I mean, you can't cross an infinite amount of time. Otherwise, it's not infinite. Therefore, it doesn't work. Therefore, Mormonism has just not been proven false. It can't work. I use this argument with atheists about the causation of the universe, and sufficient, not necessarily sufficient conditions for personal and impersonal causes.
Neither does Christ. Does that make sense? Yes. It's a good analogy. I like it, and I like the way you... Patrick on YouTube wants to know, John 4, the woman at the well, why didn't Jesus baptize her in the water?
Can't.
He couldn't baptize her. The well's like 150. It's a little well about this big around, and I've been there. So I've been to the well, and it's in... You know, when I was over in the Bible Land two or three years ago, and I'm going to go next year, too.
But I went to... I had to leave Israel, go into Palestine, I think it was, and then we went in South Africa, Bethlehem. We also went to the well, and it was the same well. It is the same well. And it's this deep.
You have to use a hand crank, and a rope, and it comes up. So that's why they didn't baptize her there, because there wasn't a place to get baptized at. Okay? I drank out of that well, too. It is the well that Jesus was baptized in.
It is cold. If you ever go to Israel, you won't regret it.
Okay, Tulip has asked a question, and we did see it, but we just haven't gotten to it. He says, Colossians 4 .16 says that this epistle is supposed to be read at the church of Laodicea, and likewise the church at Colossae.
Is he supposed to read the letter from the Laodiceans? Do we have this letter, and why is it not included in the canons?
We don't know why it's not included, except to say, God wouldn't want it included because it's not there. The epistle to the Laodiceans. I have been to Laodicea, and I've been to Colossae. And so when people say this, I can see them in my head.
But it would be read at those churches. So we don't have the epistle to Laodiceans. It got lost. That's all. Necessary for it to be retained. But what's interesting is, you know, if you think about it, the Laodicean area is big.
And, I mean, it's not big like American big, okay? You could probably walk from one end of the ruins to the other end in five or ten minutes. But think about that. This is nothing like the size of Rome.
Laodicea was, remember the columns, the pillars, the rooms down below, the housing areas. To walk around the whole thing would probably take four to five minutes an hour. Maybe if I knew it, it would be the right size.
But at any rate, so you think it's big enough. You think that a letter to them would have been retained somehow by Paul if he wrote it. Unless it was just something that God in his ordination said, no, we don't need to preserve this one.
And that's no big deal. It doesn't mean that every single thing Paul wrote was inspired. It was intended for codification or canonization, I should say.
Jose Rodriguez from YouTube asks, Matt, people are using scripture to support the flat earth theory. What are your thoughts on that? And I asked you earlier, but all you said was, abandon it. And then went on to the next question without explaining.
Because the earth is round and this Bible doesn't support it, I was enticed that it's just flat. It's just a bunch of people wasting time. Seriously, it's a waste of time. They twist thinking, logic. It doesn't matter what you say, how you say it.
They will reinterpret something a little bit differently so that it means flat earth, this or that. And it just becomes a complete waste of time. And, you know, someone showed me something from the flat earth group on why the flat area, dark on one side and light on another.
And he said he had been studying it for a while. And he actually showed me their writings about it. This was a week or so ago. And he showed a screen, a computer screen, and was showing this. It was absolutely ludicrous.
Seriously, it was incredible. The earth is round and disc, and there's a black area. That's the shadow. The sun's over here. Why is it black? I've seen that. Why is it black? And he said, they have some reason.
Why are you looking this way? It's just, why waste your time with it? Just why waste your time with it? Seriously. You've got a much better thing to do than worry about flat earth. I mean, I've been up in airplanes big enough to see that earth is a little curved.
Shoot a weapon in a far distance. What's that? When you shoot a weapon in a far distance, the further away it goes, the more you have to... Drop it down. Yeah, you have to take the curvature of the earth into trying to get it shot where you need it to go.
Hit whatever you need it to hit.
People keep wanting to drag me into this argument, and I'm like, just leave me out of it. You know? Stupid only goes so far. And I'm not getting into that realm.
And right next to him, he said, you can't fix stupid. Yeah, you can't fix stupid. It's just ridiculous.
No thanks. Not me. Peter from YouTube asks, are there many breakaway groups or other denominations of Mormonism?
There's over 100 groups that use the Book of Mormon as official scripture. And the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they're now called the... Oh, I just had it. I want to say Church of Christ, but it's something else, but it's close.
At any rate, they claim they actually have more legal right to the authenticity of the continuation of the apostolate of Mormonism, according to Mormonism. So, then there's these wacko groups. I've met a few.
Even more wacko. You know, small fringe groups here and there, pockets of 1, 2, 3, or 400 people who say they're the true Mormon church. And they use the Book of Mormon. Yeah, there's a lot.
Okay, this is a tricky one to ask. Santiago2331, who also met you at a spiritual gifts debate in Houston, Texas, asks, If God is sovereign over all things in the universe and everything that has happened, how is evil accounted for?
Exactly how it's accounted for. Because God is sovereign over everything. That's how you account for it. So, if God didn't create evil, he had to create the concept of evil, right?
The concept of evil would be known by God in the sense that contradicting his will would be something he'd be aware of. And so, when the evil one, Satan, fell, then it was actualized. That's all. He didn't create evil.
Even though Isaiah 457, he creates light and darkness, peace and calamity. Some say evil, because of the Hebrew word, Rahah, which means evil. But it also means calamity. And so, the juxtaposition in Isaiah 457, light, darkness, peace, shalom, Rahah.
So, they had to juxtapose the opposite. Light, darkness, peace, what's the opposite of peace? Calamity. That's why it's good. So, God creates that kind of mayhem sometimes. But not ontological evil.
Any progress? Oh, Dodie Mendoza asks, Any progress on the Iglesia Ni Cristo study? Iglesia Ni Cristo? In any chance on the debate.
Just keeping it in the back of your mind. Man, I've just got so much to do. What I actually do, this is no joke. I have so much to do, all the time, that I will do things like, if I'm going to get cleaned up to go to a cure or some place, turn the water on in the sink, I'll go down and turn this thing on over there, put that on over there, come back, the water's warmed up so I can come back in and do this.
I try and use my time as official, even just getting ready to go someplace. Because what I'll do is wait until the last possible minute to go do something, and then I have it mapped out of how many seconds, minute I'm going to take to do this, just to get ready to go someplace.
That's how busy I am. Except that I will sometimes just relax. Nothing happens during that period of time. But you know, you've got to rest. So, Gleisini Christo, I need to do it, along with masonry, along with some other stuff.
And my next goal after annihilationism, or conditional immortality, or conditionalism as it is called, is to tackle positive confession. That's a good one. Didn't even claim to grab it, stuff. Yeah, you do a lot of research on that.
So, I've actually started a Facebook group on it, called Exposing Prosperity Gospel. So, what it's for, is for people to go in there and post links to things, and describe what it is, so I can go research it later.
I need help, there's a lot to do.
John Marshall from YouTube asks, In Mormonism, if we are all spirit children of Elohim, what's the difference between Jesus and the rest of us? How come he was able to remain sinless and not us? How did he attain his Godhood?
I don't think that's a good question, actually. But I think a Mormon might answer this. Along the line, I'm saying because he was the firstborn, and he was closer to his father, and so therefore, in the pre-existence, he chose well, and then the father anointed him to be able to be the Messiah.
And so therefore, he didn't sin. He was first in line. He was first in line, there you go, the line thing. But the problem is, I just lost it. Jesus was sinless according to the Bible, even in Mormonism.
But, Elohim, not necessarily was sinless. Because Elohim could have been a sinner on another planet. He's a normal man. So, Jesus is more holy than Elohim in Mormonism. Huh? You got a problem with that?
That's good to know. Dodie Mendoza, who asks about the NIC, N-I-C? N-I-C.
N-G-L-A-C-I-O-N-I-C-R-I-S-T-O. Why did I forget? No, I didn't know it was I-N-C, but it's an acronym. Oh, gotcha. Yes.
I'm curious if you ever met, or when he visited in Houston, the late Harold Camping? Harold Camping's place? I drove by.
But you never met him? I love Harold Camping, but I never met him. You never met him. I'm going to look at my wife. It's winning. I want to go into churches and check them out. She's like, Um, we have to go over to the wedding.
Ryan's getting married today. You've got to go, Oh, I don't want to go to the wedding. I want to go to the church and ask questions. So she's sometimes good for me.
Philly Nasa from YouTube, What does it mean to dress modestly?
To dress modestly, within her mind, that the usage of her femininity in her body should not be such that she would in any way intentionally cause anybody to lust or to desire her in a way that's not an agape way.
So if a woman's got nice cleavage, big boobs and all that kind of stuff, and she's got very little on, and she's showing all that, then she's drawing attention to that. And so that would be immodest. But if she's got, she well-endows us, and she's covering it up, but it's obviously still there, well, okay, that's what it is.
I'm not going to go around in a balloon, but the idea of being modest. My wife is in good shape, and looks good, and so sometimes what she'll do is she'll say, she'll ask me, is this okay to wear or not?
It's not asking for my permission, but she's asking my view as a man that she does not want to be an intention for anybody to stumble. And I really like that about her, and she'll do that. Does that apply to men as well?
It applies to men as well. Men should be careful. Even though women aren't as susceptible to the visual as we are, they need to be careful too, and just be, you know, modest. What do we mean by modest for men?
Um, white feeder shirts, and short shorts. No speedos? No speedos. Probably not speedos. Run around? Mankini. Yeah. I know women, they couldn't fall asleep, but they would like it, because they always smile when I talk about it.
It's obvious that they like mankinis. Even now, Lindsay's smiling.
See, you should go to prison for life wearing a mankini or a speedo. Whoa. Mankini. Man, talk about repulsive.
Robert William asks, Matt, does regeneration precede faith? Temporally or logically? Doesn't say.
Um, yeah. It precedes faith. In Reformed theology, it's a logical procession. And, uh, what that means is, let me illustrate. Light bulb. You flip on a switch. Electricity enters the light bulb. Ten seconds later, light emerges out of the light bulb.
That would be an example of temporal priority. It takes time for the electricity to generate enough whatever for the photon to emit it, and therefore you have light. So, that's temporal priority, and that electricity, temporally, time-wise, precedes light.
Uh, in logical priority, you flip the switch on, and as soon as the electricity is present in the light bulb, light is also present. So, they happen simultaneously. You flip this light switch on, boom, light's there.
Just like that. So, that's in this illustration. So, we would say that electricity is logically prior to the light. Not temporally prior. The reason we would say that is because electricity must be there in order for light to be there, but they happen at the same time.
But it's not the case that light must be there in order for electricity to be there. So, one causes the other, but they're simultaneous. And that's called logical priority. And so, in Reformed theology, regeneration logically is prior to belief.
It is the thing that must be in place for faith to occur, but faith occurs because of regeneration. They happen simultaneously. That's the idea. So, in my perspective, what I believe is regeneration precedes faith.
But in the non-Reformed, it's faith precedes regeneration, and they mean it temporally. Which means, problematically, that faith would precede regeneration for two, three seconds, whatever it is, and you become regenerative because you believed first.
Then you would have someone who's a believer who's not regenerative for a little bit. And if it's reversed, where regeneration precedes faith temporally, then you have someone who's regenerative, but not a believer for a period of time.
The only logical way to say this is that they have to be simultaneous, and the Reformed perspective makes more sense.
Do you want any comments from Mark Rome tonight?
Only if we get really slow on stuff, and we want to be entertained with typical, not-that-well-thought-out Roman Catholic stuff.
He wants to argue about something you said in one of your CARM articles about baptism in 1 Peter 3 .21. Yeah, we already went over that. Okay, so you want to skip that part about the Ark?
Yeah, he just wants to say, because I ask, it says, Corresponding to that, Baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal for being conscious before God. Corresponding to that is the Greek word antituon, antitype, a type of representation.
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. Corresponding to what? Well, if you go to the previous verse, eight people who entered the Ark were brought safely to the water. So what saved Noah? Was it the Ark, or was it the water?
Obviously, it was the Ark. Therosotiates said, he's a Greek expert commentator, and he says that the antecedent of the word that, corresponding to that, baptism now saves you, but that is the Ark, because the Ark would have saved Noah and his family, not the water.
The water didn't save them. The water is what killed the unbelievers. Now, what Mark Rome said was, well, that's the thing that removed the bad. So that's what the water does. It removes the bad stuff.
And the water removes our sins, not the blood of Christ, which is ridiculous. And so my response was, no. It says, corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. You're saying water is what destroyed the unbelievers.
That didn't save them. The Ark would have saved them. The argument still fails. So we go back and forth with this guy. Come on. Repent.
Santiago2331 asks, Matt, when we die, do we go directly to heaven or hell, or do we remain, quote, sleeping or dormant until Christ's second coming? We're going to be with the Lord if you're a Christian.
Signify faith. And if you're an unbeliever, you go to a place that's bad. And there's no soul sleep. Okay, I think we're winding down. What is your view on Mary Magdalene being Jesus' wife? Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife?
She was? That's new to me. No, of course she was.
Yeah, it is. But Mormons believe it, too. That's it? We're about done? Of course. No more questions? Yeah, it's sold out. Everything's sold out. Maybe it's just summer. I don't know. Maybe they're tired of it.
It's like when the atheists did it on the radio show. They stopped calling them. Maybe these guys are antagonists. They go, I don't know what to say anymore.
So earlier you were talking about the seven-dayers and the J-dubs both believe that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. Where do they get that from? And if they believe it differently, in what way do they believe it differently?
I think in Daniel,.
I forget what the verse was, but the SBA affirmed that Michael the Archangel is not a created being, but he's God, but he's the begotten Christ. Where the Jehovah's Witnesses say Michael the Archangel is an actual created being.
So the SBA position is aberrant, but not heretical. The Jehovah's Witness position is aberrant and heretical. So the SBA position is aberrant in that it misidentifies the pre-incarnate Christ with Michael the Archangel, but it doesn't deny that he's divine.
It just says Michael the Archangel is the one who is the pre-incarnate Christ. So that's aberrant, but it's not heresy in that it forfeits salvation. The JWs, on the other hand, it does because they teach that Michael the Archangel became Jesus, who was not divine, and was male, and then became Michael the Archangel again.
There's a problem with that. Let me show you a chalkboard here to slow down the evening. So we have Michael the Archangel here, and then we have Jesus here. Then we have Michael the Archangel here. So the nature here is angel.
The nature here is man. The nature here is angel. The attributes of something emanate out of the nature. The attributes emanate out of the nature. The attributes emanate out of nature. So the attributes here and here of the same nature are going to be the same.
But the attributes of man are different. Because the nature itself is different. An angel is not the same thing as a man. Furthermore, part of the attributes or the properties of an angel is a mind. Alright?
And also a human, which is a mind. So I have a mind, but angels have a mind. God has a mind. Just because God and angels and humans have minds, doesn't mean they're the same thing. So what we're trying to say here is that if something is by nature an angel and becomes a man, and there's no union of natures, like in a hypothetical union where Jesus is both God and man together, so that the God nature continues, but nevertheless, in their view, what they're saying is that this nature stopped at a cessation, and then Jesus began, and then likewise had a cessation, and then the angelic goes on.
So, how can this be the same person as that? It can't. Because the person that is tied to your nature and if the nature ceases, you're the person that ceases. It's just how it is. So, this problem in Job's Witness theology means that Michael, the archangel, ceased.
There's no continuity from here to here. So therefore, they're not the same being. They're just a creation, an exact replicas of each other. So it's a logical problem, but Job's Witnesses aren't also known to be very deep thinkers about this kind of stuff.
But it's a huge problem. And it can be problematic for the soul-seekers, the people who would teach that you exist and you don't exist, and you exist if it's a soul-seeker's non-existence, which some do.
They call it soul-seeker, they call it non-existence.
Not many, but some do. Anyway. I saw a comment online a few weeks ago on a theology chat, and the person said, how is it logical if we are created and have a start date of existence, I guess, that we can then therefore live forever and never die and have an eternal life?
Well, they wondered how that's logical, to have a beginning and have a create date but not having a death and...
Well, because God made us, we start, and then he'll sustain us forever. He'll sustain us forever.
Is it illogical to believe that? No.
Nothing in the laws of logic says it's illogical to believe that God exists, that he's eternal by nature, that he's a creator, that he can sustain us forever. Would you consider it paradoxical at all?
No, not paradoxical. It doesn't make sense. Forever. Whatever. Whatever's not a big deal. Okay. Santiago2331 asks, What is the best way to witness to my Mormon friend? We are close, but he is also a devout Mormon, and he will be coming back from his mission trip soon.
Ask him how his mission trip went. Ask him. Just don't witness to him too quickly. Just take time. Be his friend. And ask him for the good,.
And then ask him for the bad. Ask him for any challenges and see what happens. And pray for him. And point him to Jesus. And talk about praying to Christ and forgiveness of sins. And you can ask him, Did his mission help him become a better Christian and closer to God?
Ask the question. See what he says.
Dodie Mendoza asks, Did you ever meet Walter Martin? Yes. Many times. And what were your thoughts on him? He was impressive.
I had to meet him. I remember two specific instances of meeting him. He knew who I was because I knew some people who trained me. And they worked with him. And they mentioned me to him. Not a big deal.
And one particular time, I remember with Walter Martin, I was working volunteer work at CRI, Christian Research Institute, in Southern California. And we were at a table, and we were going to be praying, and we were going to try to do fundraising, call people up for fundraising, to get the bigger building and stuff.
And so it was like, I don't know, eight of us, make some calls. And Walter Martin walked in. And Dan Schlesinger, who was in charge of us, who worked there, asked Dr. Martin to pray. Dr. Martin, do you want to pray?
I'm like, pray. I've met him before. And so he comes over and goes, Well, sure, I'll pray. And so I'm sitting here, and someone else is sitting here, and he puts his hand on this shoulder. And he goes, Hold on, I have one.
I don't have to watch this side. I still have knots. I can tell. You know, there's like bugs. He went next to me. He always sits on my right side. My wife does mine. Anyway, so he started praying. And I'm never going to forget this.
You know, okay. He moves his hand on me. Okay. I was impressed. And we don't say something else, too. But he started praying, and no lie. I stopped praying and started listening. I'd never heard anybody pray like that.
And I'm not just saying I was starstruck. No, there was something different. This guy had prayed. And I remember thinking, Well, that's what prayer is. He went into the presence of God and talked to Him.
I wouldn't describe it. And I was like, my goodness. So here's a little bit of a fun trivia, worthless connection thing. Walter Martin's old pastor married my mom and dad. Wow. That's neat. And he and I would talk every now and then.
He would tell you about Walter. And when Walter passed away, I helped do security at his funeral. They wanted people who were trained in recognizing cults. And so they said, Man, you and a couple others, would you like to come?
And I'd just do security. Just keep your eyes open for what looks suspicious. I'd love to. And so I did. No big deal, but, you know. And I'll tell you this story, one last thing. So we're at the church.
I think it was the same one in the Toronto area. I can't remember exactly. This is how I remember it. And so I'm walking up the main aisle, at the aisle inside the sanctuary. The doors are closed. They're having a ceremony.
Lots of people. But outside, there's a lobby area. And I stopped. Just happened to stop. And the doors opened up. And his wife was up there speaking. So I listened. And she said, So I went into the bathroom.
And there he was on his knees. And he had passed away. If I remember correctly. Something like this. And so I said, Come back to bed and stop praying. Come back to bed. And that's when I realized he was gone.
And the doors closed. I remember thinking, I was more stunned. Not that that's how she found him. But, oh, come back to bed and stop praying. That's what he was known for. The doors opened. It was said, the doors closed.
I'm like, whoa. I had trouble praying for three minutes. And I'm not joking. I've got so much to do.
Chase Edwards would like to know how he can witness to Jehovah's Witnesses. A couple methods.
A couple methods. But if you want to do this. You go to CARM. And look up two things. Look up the plurality study. And look up the true Jesus study. And use those. The true Jesus of the Bible is prayed to, worshipped, and called God.
Do they have the true Jesus? Because he's prayed to, worshipped, and called God. Now, there's variations of that. They won't call him God. But you can say, but he's prayed to. Right? Yes. And there's ways of doing that.
And also the plurality study where God is seen in the Old Testament. But it's God Almighty in Exodus 6, 2, and 3. But it cannot be God the Father. Because of John 6, 46. And I know the Bible doesn't have any of the detail.
But basically you're showing them that God is seen in the Old Testament. To them it has to be God the Father. But Jesus says it could not have been God the Father. So who are they saying was God Almighty but not God the Father?
That's one thing. And I've actually had two children. Pamela Jones was the girl who met Jesus was God from then. And she closed her Bible. She forgot what she was saying. And she ran out. She realized what the text said.
There's different ways.
Matt, what are your thoughts on John Frame and his retirement?
John Frame was my professor in seminary. And I was just in communication with him. And I used to go over to his house. And the barbecue, some of the pool and stuff. He's brilliant, humble. I'm not just saying that.
He's brilliant and he's humble. And he's retiring. But he's going to continue doing things. Writing books. He's got three more books coming out. How am I doing, Matt? Forget connections. Actually, a friend of mine who's here, we split there and met and talked.
John Frame's a great guy. Okay.
Last one's a logic thing. It goes back to the regeneration and the faith comment. He said, To say that regeneration and faith in order to embrace the gospel is simultaneous is an error. Because before regeneration, there can be no embracing of the gospel.
So I think he misunderstood. If you want to clarify.
So before there's regeneration, what?
Before? To say that regeneration and faith is simultaneous is an error. Because prior to regeneration, there is no embracing of the gospel. I don't think he worded it correctly. He doesn't understand what I said.
No.
You need to understand what logical priority is versus temporal priority. That's the difference. I explained it. I've done it before many times. You've got to understand it. But he doesn't understand.
You understand what I said. And you realize he doesn't understand the issue. Well, to be fair,.
I had to hear it a couple times in order for it to sink in in that order. It's not just a 2 plus 2 equals 4 type of an answer. It takes time to process. Yeah.
Regeneration and faith are simultaneous. They occur by God's decree, His work. And so we believe because we're regenerated. And God gives it to them both. He gives it to both of us. And we know that it cannot be that faith precedes regeneration because God caused us to be born again.
1 Peter 1 .3, we're born again. Not our own will. John 1 .13. So it cannot be that faith precedes regeneration. Chase Edwards. He wants to know how he can show Mormons that they're wrong in the Bible.
Any verses would be greatly appreciated. Isaiah 43 .10, 44 .6, 44 .8, 45 .5. 1 Timothy 6 .16. John 1 .18. John 6 .46. Colossians 1 .15. What? Colossians 1 .15. Colossians 1 .15. There's lots of verses.
You can go to Qarm, read up on the Mormon section, and there's witnessing techniques and tips and things like that. How many people are watching? I'm just curious. Not very many.
It's hard to see. We've got about 20 on YouTube. Well, 300. 3K reached on Facebook. Yeah. Lots of views. Good. Alright, we're done? 9 .30? That's good? God bless everybody. Thanks for watching.
