The Debate that NEVER HAPPENED!

and welcome to the Apologetic Dog. If this is your first time here to the Apologetic Dog, please hit the like button.

That helps the algorithm circulate my content to a broader audience. The Apologetic Dog is an apologetics ministry where we contend for the gospel of grace.

And when I say the gospel of grace, I'm saying a salvation that looks to Jesus Christ by faith alone, in Christ alone, and God gets all the glory alone.

Amen. So I want to dive right into this. Something happened this past weekend, but I can't say that it is actual debate.

I want to explain more what I mean by that is every time

I asked a question, every time I made a point, my interlocutor just totally disregarded anything and everything that I said.

But as I thought about it more and more, I thought, you know, it's not all in vain. In fact, I want to let you know that the gospel of grace was proclaimed, and that will reach an audience into the church of Christ world, and so in that I want to rejoice and again rejoice.

And so here's a few clips of me being able to have the opportunity to share the gospel on this platform.

So nobody will be saved that doesn't come in contact with a soul winner? With someone that preaches the gospel of grace, apart from Marks.

Okay, so they have to come in contact with a Calvinist to be saved? No, there's Arminians. So where we differ more fundamentally is on what the gospel is.

You think it's not miraculous, you don't need the Holy Spirit for anything, it's by your obedience that you can achieve an eternal reward.

For me, I recognize that we are depraved, not seeking after God from birth by our nature, and so we need something miraculous that the gospel brings, and it's not trusting in our own works, but trusting in the finished work of Christ.

What I want to leave people with is total depravity is the backdrop of showing how miraculous the grace of God must accomplish to bring us out of that dead state, and so I've been appealing to Ephesians chapter 2.

That's probably one of the best cases. That's where I wanted to stake my case into saying that our nature... Now he appealed to Galatians 2 15 that you have those that were born as a

Jew. You don't become a Jew the eighth day you're circumcised. You are circumcised because you're a Jew. My point is, nature is talking about those that are born of two parents.

So I want to leave us on this high. The total depravity is a curse of Adam. That's awful, right? That is the sin that has been imputed to all mankind by one means sin and trespass, but condemnation for all of mankind.

That's what the Bible says. You have to try really hard to redefine that, but we see in Ephesians 2 3, we were all by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind, but God.

God being rich in his mercy because of the great love in which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses,

God miraculously made us alive together with Christ. By grace you have been saved. The gospel of grace is

I look to Jesus Christ and his finished work plus nothing on my end, and so faith isn't something that you just muster up.

It's not something that you try really hard to think about. You know, what would be interesting is if we got into talking about if two people had the same amount of information given to them, why is it that one would look to the

Son and the other reject? Now in his position, one has to be holier than the other. One has to do more obedient works than the other one, and it's just arbitrary why one chose and the other rejected.

It was just because of their libertarian free will, but we know better. We understand all of mankind have been cursed by the sin of Adam, and so the fact that anyone is saved is by the miraculous work of the

Holy Spirit that takes out that dead sinner's heart and gives them a new living heart that looks to Jesus Christ in faith alone, and God gets all the glory alone.

And so his position historically is called Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that you were born perfect, and where he would differ with Pelagius is that Pelagius said that it is possible to live a sinless life.

It's possible. Now Caleb in his last programs has said that that's impossible. It's never going to happen. Well, if one day you're sinlessly perfect, and then another day happens and it's sinlessly perfect, well, you follow that logic out.

Pelagius was right on your terms. You're just being inconsistent at that point. And think about it. Why Caleb has to make so many emotional appeals.

He believes in his own goodness, in his own flesh, that he can be made right with God. You got to get into those watery graves of baptism to have your past sins washed away.

That's not the gospel of grace. Baptism is a beautiful picture, a likeness, like the verse that he quoted in Romans chapter 6.

It's a likeness of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. For us to come to newness of life takes the sovereign hand of God coming upon us.

Now remember, he does not think that the gospel has any miraculous work of God. It has spiritual benefits, but when we talk about death, it's done, right?

For the wages of sin is physical death. Now he knows that he cannot get into that position because babies that die physically, why did that happen?

Now he has to say, well, that's just a part of the natural world. Adam, even though he disobeyed, had he obeyed, he has to say he still would have died 930 years later.

That is absurd, because Scripture calls death an enemy. Death is a result of Adam's sin, and so when babies do tragically die, it is because of the sin of Adam.

But my position is, even though a baby does not deserve to go to heaven, I believe God in his mercy and his grace, he regenerates that baby.

Not because that they're pure and innocent, but it's because God in his grace and mercy does this miraculous work. And so please, look to Jesus Christ in your faith, plus no works of all, plus nothing else.

He is the perfect Savior, and his obedience was never tainted by sin. And so if you're looking to yourself and your own obedience, well, that is to contradict the gospel of grace.

Thank you so much. Well, that was the best part, and that's okay.

God's Word tells us that when his Word goes forth, it never returns empty. It goes for the very purpose that it was intended to.

So why am I saying that? Why am I calling this not a debate?

Well, I'd be curious in the side chat. Let me know if you've seen the debate interaction, and share with me some of your thoughts.

In fact, if you have some questions about some things, post that, and I'll bring it up on the screen. And if you would like for me to address something within the debate,

I have the debate queued up, and so we can maybe go to different portions of that. But before I get into showing you how

Caleb just did not answer any of my presentation, any of my arguments, apparently he has an axe to grind, and he wants to make heavily emotional appeals to people that maybe don't understand the arguments.

Hold on one second. Sorry for that.

Siri was being summoned across the room. And so what I mean by emotional appeals is, it's okay to bring up the question of, where do babies go when they die?

But when you start making it personal, and to me that just is kind of uncalled for.

And like I said, if you watched it, you know exactly what I'm talking about. But that was his whole rebuttal is,

Jeremiah, your position can't be right, because that just means that babies go to hell.

And it's just interesting, because the more I've thought about this, I really don't think

Caleb can do an actual debate. When I say an actual debate, I mean with a moderator.

I mean when when I ask a question, and if he starts to run away, and then

I'm able to interject and say, no no, you're answering something else over here. I'm asking about this. I legitimately think that Caleb and his father

Johnny are not able to do an actual kind of debate. So I wanted to, before we get into the actual exchange,

I want to tell you something that I was pretty disappointed about. So before the debate,

Caleb was was very cordial. We talked on the phone, we emailed, we text, and I told him through email,

I was like, hey, can we avoid using any graphics that would be, you know, a depiction of the other person's view that really is just a gross misrepresentation?

And so I had to really fight for this, and I just wanted to show y 'all some of this correspondence.

Something else that we agreed upon is that if we used any video clips, planning on using any video clips in the debate, that we would share that with the other one and give the thumbs up and okay.

And so he used multiple video clips that he did not send me, and I just,

I remember in the debate, we'll put it in air quotes for the time being, I remember being very disappointed that Caleb was being dishonest with what we corresponded with and we talked about.

So I just wanted to share this with y 'all. Caleb said, right now this is the only video that I have lined up to use in our debate, because when we talked on the phone, we said, if you are going to use any more clips, just send it so the other one can proof it to make sure it's not something that crosses over the line.

And then he says, in our last phone call, you brought up horned babies and babies with snake fangs.

He says he's removed all that, and I cannot express to you how hard this was to tell him, please don't put any inappropriate pictures, let's just stick with the arguments, let's just stick with substance.

This is a debate that people are looking forward to, and he really insisted on being able to use graphics.

And if you watched the debate on my channel, well obviously I blocked out my son because he used many pictures on Facebook.

And real quick, I'll just show you this, if it'll pull up. We had a text message, here we go, we had a phone call that was over 50 minutes.

And I was really trying to say, hey Caleb, do you care if we exchange presentations, like the slides and the videos, to make sure that everything is above board?

And he did not want to do it. And I just said, please don't use Facebook photos of me from the past and try to make it look a certain way.

And I will say this, I did not say, please don't use pictures of my son.

But that's what he's saying in his mind is, well Jeremiah didn't say I couldn't talk about JJ Nortier.

And so I just want to express to y 'all how disappointed I am, the dishonesty of Caleb beforehand.

We committed to, like I said, rules. We talked about if you were gonna add any more videos or slides, we would proof it for the other one.

And just to let you know, I was not gonna be okay if he used pictures of my son. But I was fully prepared to talk about the nature of babies when they're born and what happens as a result if they were to die in infancy, what that looks like life after death.

So I was prepared to talk about that. But I was very disappointed that he talked about my son and he violated the second commandment.

He had graphics of Jesus with his arm around Satan, obviously trying to poison the well and demonize my view.

And so I blocked that out if you, like I said, watched the debate on my channel.

And so I just want to let you know that we had some established rules at the very onset and Caleb did not care.

And so that was disappointing. But you know what? That's okay because the gospel was preached.

And honestly, I can rest easy at night knowing that God would use this for his good.

So I see a little bit of liveliness in the comment section. And I just want to encourage everybody, if you have any questions or comments or you do want to show support in some way,

I would appreciate that in the ministry. And so Carl sent in a super chat.

And Carl is, we'll just say, not on my side of the debate here. He does represent a member of the

Church of Christ. And I want to say thank you to Carl. We've kind of corresponded behind the scenes and sharpened one another, asked each other questions.

And I would consider Carl a friend. In fact, Carl called in to the program, and I plan on playing that later and discussing the question that Carl asked.

And I think Carl's question, you'll have to hang on to the end of the episode, but I think Carl's question was the best question asked of me of the whole night.

And so let's see here. Gavin James. What's up, man? Gavin said,

I watched the debate. I remember you saying it was excellent. Now it wasn't a debate at all.

I remember saying that towards the end, and I remember thinking, you know what? For what it was worth,

I was able to articulate the gospel. I was very proud about that and very thankful to the

Lord about that. But going back and re -watching it, listening to all the people's disappointment for how

Caleb was not honest and really seemed to make it a personal attack against my family, no.

And I would say the exchange in terms of argumentation, Gavin, you and I would have had so much better of an exchange on the arguments.

And I know your heart's desire, Gavin, is to make sure that you do not misrepresent your opponent.

And so yeah, I've had time to go back, and for one, it was kind of a blur in the moment.

And towards the end, I did kind of have peace. I had to say a prayer in my heart and just ask the

Lord that He would let me just have a deep breath and just continue to stick to the game plan and preach the truth.

And so yeah, I remember saying that towards the end, Gavin, that it was excellent. But really in the moment when

I said that, that it was an excellent opportunity to preach the gospel. But in terms of actual debate, all the violations of the rules aside that me and Caleb agreed to, it wasn't a debate in the sense that, this is how

I knew it was about to fly off the rails, is I didn't get to go first.

Now I went back and looked at some of our emails, and he said, okay, each one of us is going to give three speeches, then we're agreed on me asking questions first, and it'd be up to a minute, and him getting two minutes to respond.

But I thought Caleb knew that the affirmative is supposed to go first. So right out the gate, and when

I went back and looked at our emails, he did have his name first, and then my name, and just kind of had, you know, three speeches, and then the the cross -ex, and then the audience

Q &A. But I thought that meant, with the understanding that the affirmative goes first, because that's standard debate, and then the negative comes in.

And so when that didn't happen, obviously he just jumped straight in and just said, hey everybody,

Jeremiah says all babies are going to hell, or at least the the reprobate non -elect ones. And I just remember thinking like, what in the world?

I get bringing up that implication and us talking about it. So it felt like a disconnect when

I went second, and when I gave my presentation, which I rehearsed and I usually don't do

PowerPoint presentations, but I worked on this because I knew that that that's kind of what he likes to do.

And I thought, well that would be good. We'll both have a presentation that would charitably represent our arguments and our positions.

But I realized very quickly, Caleb did not care what I had to say.

And so I'm just saying, Gavin, that's why I'm not saying, or that's why I'm saying that this was not a debate.

Not one that people would watch and really learn and see two clashing worldviews.

And so Carl and Gavin, just know I think y 'all would have done a much better job than Caleb.

So if you have any questions in the side chat or comments that you want me to say, you may have to copy and paste them a couple times because I miss it.

I miss those. Carl, I appreciate this comment, man.

Carl says, oh yeah, Carl did warn me, and that's okay. Let's see here, make sure you tell them what he said when the debate was over.

Yeah, kind of going back to some, well I'll read this first. So Carl says, which we'll make sure everybody knows, that he does agree theologically with Johnny and Caleb.

So I guess that means that Carl denies the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which we'll get into a little bit this evening.

Carl has said, I did not like him using those pictures. Appreciate you saying that. There must be honor in debates.

And Carl did warn me, and hey, I knew what I was getting into, and I thought, we'll go ahead and roll these dice, and hey,

God uses that. So I do appreciate the cordiality,

Carl, between you and myself. And so something that the babe of all babes just reminded me of, is when we were talking about, me and Caleb on the phone, like I said, for almost an hour, and I was really just pleading with them, hey, we don't have a moderator, so can we like, check each other's slides to make sure that everything's okay, that you're not gonna use old

Facebook photos of me, and try to twist them. Caleb was like, no, no, no, you can trust me.

Lesson learned. I will not be doing debates without a moderator, and I will not be doing debates that do not allow me to interject when

I ask a question, if they're starting to run off and talk about something else that does not pertain to my question.

And what was very strange, as I left the studio, is, you know,

Caleb came outside, and we shook hands, and he said, Jeremiah, we really like you, we'd like to do more content with you, and he said something very strange.

He said, when your wife calms down, which I understand, hopefully we can connect again.

I was like, well, for one, the babe of all babes and the apologetic puppy was not in the studio.

Thank the good Lord they were not there in person. I just remember thinking, you know exactly what you did.

And we'll play a clip where, you know, he basically said, oh, you can talk about my kid and so forth. But no, I mean, we're supposed to to show honor and respect and have a

Christian -like spirit in these things. And so yeah, she just wanted me to make sure to remind you all of that.

Before we dive in, I have a number of clips. We probably have ten or so. What do y 'all say out there?

Let me know if you got a chance to watch the debate, and if there was some things that you did like from my side, or if you did think that Caleb raised some interesting points and want to know what

I think now, definitely put it in the side chat. And like I said, you may have to put that in there a couple times.

Oh, here we go. Truth defenders. Defend that truth. The apologetic dog.

Question. Infant mortality throughout history outnumbers those that lived. That said, if all infants go to heaven, would that contradict

Matthew 7 14? And that scripture. We'll go ahead and pull it up because I want to read the verse right before it also.

Let's see. Don't know if that's gonna get me there. Okay. Jesus says, enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide, and the way is easy that leads to destruction.

And those who enter by it are many, for the gate is narrow, and the way is hard that leads to life.

And those who find it are few. Now the question is saying, that's a whole lot of people going to heaven if all babies go to heaven.

Well, it's interesting because I believe this is talking about how the world at large is led into deception and to the way of destruction.

I don't think that would necessarily contradict this verse. There are many infants that die in infancy, but think about this.

This is about my best crack at trying to say, for one, you do get in conversations of eschatology and post -millennialism, which would already have a way of having to explain this, which

I'm not a post -millennialist, even though I have a lot of post postmill brethren out there. I think about this.

When Jesus returns and you have all souls that have ever lived,

I don't know what that number is gonna look like. I know from my viewpoint, all of those that are saved is gonna be as vast as the sands on the sea and all the stars of the sky.

And so I don't know if this verse is meant to convey that three -fourths of the world, the people who have ever existed, will miss the boat of salvation, and then a very small few.

Now there is something to be said about a remnant, and I'm okay with Scripture kind of making some type of qualifier of saying that of children for of such are the kingdom of heaven.

Now, that doesn't mean that all babies go to heaven. I just look at that verse and I think about the character of God, and I conclude, well that would make sense.

That would make sense, even though they are totally depraved, they don't deserve heaven. My conviction is that God saves to the uttermost and he would regenerate an infant that dies in infancy, tragically.

So, very good question, very good question. Everyone has to kind of reconcile those things, even those...

I remember something that MacArthur said years ago when we look at Revelation 5 verse 9.

People will be saved out of every tribe, tongue, and nation. And he made a good point that's always stuck with me.

What about those tribes, those nations that have never even heard the gospel? Well, if it were true that their babies go to heaven, well then that verse would be essentially fulfilled in that.

So, there's a lot of discussions that ask those similar type questions, and I think they're good questions.

I think they're good questions. Awesome. Truth Defenders. Anybody else out there? Anybody else?

Let's see. I want to brag on this coffee mug that I have.

It is Bluetooth temperature regulated, so that means I'm good for a while.

Let's see. Okay. Planted in the Word. Thank you for your chat here on the side.

Planted in the Word says, in the debate, Kaler brought up something that he seemed was a gotcha. He said, if all have a sin nature because of Adam, then why did

Adam and Eve sin? That would be good to address again. Yeah.

He did ask me that, and I wanted to let everybody know, everything that Caleb said, he has said before.

So, he did not say anything new and innovative, and imagine, imagine if in cross -examination he was not allowed to run away from me and was being forced to answer my questions.

I'm just saying that we'll get into some of these clips, and so I think, yeah, this is one of Caleb's opening questions.

What about Adam? Well, Adam sinned by choosing to sin with Eve.

Now, to be fair, like when you look back at R .C. Sproul's commentary on the

Westminster Confession of Faith, which I'm not a Presbyterian, love my Presby bros, he has a whole chapter on the mystery of iniquity.

And I see it as less mysterious as R .C. Sproul, even though Adam was not created with a sin nature.

It'd be impossible because God is holy, holy, holy. Adam was created in an upright state. Genesis 1 says he was created very good, but he was created in such a way with the potentiality to sin.

So where did this inclination to sin come from? Now, Caleb's not sophisticated enough to actually ask those deeper questions of where that impulse to sin is.

That's why when he heard me debate, I just said, well, Eve was deceived by the serpent, and Adam willfully chose to sin with his wife.

And so that's, like I said, didn't matter what I said to Caleb. Like I said, he was a one -string banjo.

He just wanted people to hear one thing, and that's that Jeremiah thinks all babies go to hell, or at least the the non -elect ones.

So that's why hopefully you see the thumbnail, it's like, that's not even my position. Anyway, so what

I think is really important when you go back to the garden in Genesis chapter 3 is there is a third agent that came onto the scene, which is

Satan. He is a moral, spiritual being, able to cognitively think, discern, and mainly deceive.

And so the fact that you have another agent coming into the picture, I think that is a game -changer.

I think the harder question is, why did Satan sin in the throne room, essentially, when you look at Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28?

But when we talk about Adam, there was a kind of proverbial push.

Now, he is still morally culpable, he chose to do it, but what I mean is there was a temptation that Eve, as the weaker vessel,

Scriptures say, she was deceived. And so Adam is hearing the doubt from the evil one, knows that he's wrong, and then he sees

Eve fall. And so what Scripture does tell us is that Adam was created in such a state, if his external context was altered to that degree, then his nature is able to willingly choose to sin.

And so some people, they don't find that very satisfying, but the big point is, well, there was a deceiver that came onto the scene.

That is ultimately in a chain of events of what caused Adam to sin and bear moral, accountable choices.

But the harder question is, why did Satan sin? When he was Lucifer, when he was blameless and created perfect, essentially, where did his impulse to have pride in his heart?

And so to me, that is where the true mystery of iniquity lies. But good question, good question. Hopefully that helps a little bit.

Okay, so Ian Tate, thank you for your comment.

The Church of Christ teaches sinless perfectionism, in that when someone repents of sin, they are considered perfect once again.

That is a good point. I often say the Church of Christ look at Jesus's death on the cross as a reset button.

And so for them at large, and this is a good representation even for those that maybe don't like me saying this, when they come in contact with the the blood and the watery graves of baptism, it washes away all of their past sin.

And so from that point on, it's just up to you to repent and repent. And I like to say, well, you better have a perfect repentance, because if you forget to repent of your sin, then you're toast.

So thank you for that. I want to transition now into saying, once again, why

I don't think the debate actually happened is because Caleb did not interact with my arguments, he didn't interact with my opening presentation, and like I said, he just had an axe to grind, and it was based on emotionalism.

And he said, well, we're all just emotional beings, so it counts. I'm like, that's a red herring. That doesn't mean you get to make emotional based arguments, especially those that do not represent my position.

And so one of the most basic logical fallacies is what's called a straw man. And man,

Caleb was lighting up some scarecrows during that debate. So what I want you to know is something that they're probably going to do, and it cracks me up, is after the debate,

Johnny and Caleb are going to start responding to my arguments. And so they already released one clip.

I want to play a little bit of it. And this is the kind of thing that if Caleb were to bring up some of these points in a actual debate, then it would have been great.

We could have actually talked about the issues, but that's not what Caleb was after. Out of the mouth of babes comes perfect praise?

Well, how are they lying? And then Jesus using them as a symbol to say, these are the people that you get the honest truth from.

Y 'all let me know if y 'all can hear that. But notice as Caleb is kind of going through one of his speeches here, he's saying, how is it that Calvinists think that babies are just liars, but it's

Jesus that says, out of the mouth of babes come truth? Well, when

I heard him say that, I'm like, well you misquoted what Jesus actually said. When Jesus' triumphal entry, there was a bunch of people singing

Hosanna, praise to him from the highest, and there was children in the midst saying,

Hosanna, Hosanna. And this was prophesied, I think, in Psalm chapter 8, and Jesus is just saying, out of these mouths of babes, they are right in addressing me as Hosanna.

And once again, I thought, man, that would have been a great point to bring up in the debate, and we could have talked about everyone's favorite word, context.

Context is the death knell to Church of Christ theology. I'm gonna be kind to Carl in the side chat.

I know Carl understands, and Gavin James, that context is king. And so if you're not talking about context, then you're really not even, you know, in the ball game at all.

And so, thank you, Carl. Okay, Carl sent it. Hey, Carl, when you send in a super chat,

I do appreciate that, so let me see here. Oh, this is a good question.

Now, we may need to bring this up later, but Carl is saying, do you agree that Adam's sin removed him from the tree of life?

This removed all humanity from that tree, which we will get back in Revelation, we'll get back in heaven in Revelation 2,

Revelation 22. For one, Carl, I want to say thank you for bringing up the fact that the tree of life is mentioned more than once in the scripture.

Man, that's some good coffee, by the way. All right, since you sent in two super chats, I want to make sure

I answer this succinctly, and if I don't hit it on the head, Carl, let me know. You don't have to keep sending the super chats, even though I do appreciate that.

Jeremiah, do you agree that Adam's sin removed him from the tree of life?

This removed all of humanity from the tree, which we'll get back. Oh yeah, yeah. So this is actually,

Carl, what I was prepared to talk a lot about in the debate, because a lot of what

I tried to make a case for was Romans 6 .23 says, for the wages of sin is thanatos, death.

Now, I get that Ezekiel 18 .20 says the soul that sins shall die, the sons will not bear accountability or the iniquity of their father, so we have to talk about that context, but think about this.

When Adam sinned, the penalty for his sin was he personally was removed from the garden with Eve, and they were not able to either continue to eat of the tree of life or to eat from the tree of life as a reward, and what

I want to point out is that is a direct penalty for Adam's sin.

Now, when we talk about all of their children, you gotta think Adam and Eve, now they're gonna begin procreation outside of the garden, outside of the tree of life.

So, when they reproduce, they are not in that covenantal context of blessing and fellowship with God, and so all they have now is death.

And so yes, that was a penalty for Adam's sin, and all of Adam's posterity suffered for that same particular sin which results in death.

And so when you ask me, yes, we will go back to, I want to say the tree of life is plural in Revelation 22, you may have to double -check me on that, but what we will experience one day in glory for those that have been saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and Christ alone, we will experience something better than what

Adam had previously in the garden. So, great question. If you want me to continue to speak on that a little bit,

Carl, just let me know. Thank you for your questions, and that goes for anybody else in the side chat. I really appreciate the support.

So, I want to critique this video that Caleb and Johnny posted after the debate.

They're now starting to engage with my arguments. Imagine if that is how the debate truly went.

Now, I want to say this too as I conclude. Some people might say that it's out of place, out of etiquette, and untoward for me to talk about his son,

JJ. Hey, I've got a son. You can talk about my son. That's okay. He's cute. No, Caleb.

Those that are totally depraved are those that would dare to talk about someone else's children. When you said that,

I thought, nope, nope, not playing that game. And the thing is, I respect Caleb and Johnny, and I want to treat them as such, especially during a debate.

All right, can you hear me? The scripture declares there is none righteous, no, not one.

Have you ever asked yourself the question, why is that? Why is it the case that all of mankind hates

God? Okay, I'm about to do a little bit of systematic biblical theology.

So, there are many verses. The first one off the top of my head, James 4 .4 says you're either a friend of the

God, or you're either a friend of God, or you're an enemy of God.

You're a friend with the world and an enemy of God, and the point is you cannot serve two masters. And so, when the scripture says that we are at enmity with God, and so let's maybe go to...

let me pull up the scripture here. When we go to Romans 8, this is where we get the word...

hatred comes for the word enmity, to be at war. And so, that's why Romans 5 .1

is so important about having peace with God. So, if we were to have actually debated this point,

Jeremiah, why do you think mankind hates God? Well, not only does Romans chapter 3 talk about how all men, you know, there's none righteous, no, not one.

They go astray. Romans 1 talks about how they do not give honor and glory to God.

They suppress the truth in a rush. Yeah, but it doesn't say hate. Well, I was prepared to talk about this logical fallacy that I saw

Caleb do on tons of his past content, and it's called word composition fallacy.

If the word's not there, that doesn't necessarily mean the concept's not there. And so, you know, like I said, even though we're not looking at the word hate, we are looking at the word hostile.

And so, it means to make war. And it's not a loving war. It's one that is filled with hatred.

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God. And so, that's what

I mean when I'm looking at that particular verse. Out of the mouth of babes comes perfect praise.

Well, how about the question, why is that? Why is it the case that all of mankind hates

God? I believe the scripture tells us in what we call total depravity, this is the reason why all men hate

God and suppress the truth. Who calls it total depravity? Well, that's the whole point of the debate, and I'm not going to beg the question.

I'm going to explain what total depravity means, and I'm going to use biblical principles. Hopefully, you can walk away with this this evening.

If you believe in the Trinity, well, that's not a word that you're gonna find in the scripture, but you're gonna find the concept there.

You're gonna find the concept that we serve one true and living God who created all things, and that one true

God has revealed himself in three persons. And so, total depravity, I make a biblical case of what that means.

But the Robertsons don't care in their love for sin.

Something I want you to know about total depravity is that it is a covenantal curse on all of mankind.

What does it say? Code, talk, and cult. Now, this goes all the way back to Adam in the garden.

When he sinned, he brought forth a curse that was going to curse all of creation and his posterity.

So, this curse would include being born with the sinful nature. No scripture so far.

The fact that, I don't know, my first slide was Romans chapter 3. Unable to seek after God and therefore earning death.

But what you're gonna see with Caleb this evening is, but Jeremiah being born in a sinful nature, that's not fair.

It's not fair for me to be cursed this way because of the sins of someone else. Well, that kind of complaint is actually what we see in Ezekiel chapter 8.

Okay, so to me this was a little bit comical. Genesis to Ezekiel, 26 books from Genesis.

Well, this is where I'm really convinced Caleb and Johnny would not do well in an actual debate.

Because if they were to say, Jeremiah, why are you jumping 26 books? Well, you can kind of see on the screen there, the children of Israel are complaining about the land of Israel.

When you go to Deuteronomy 28, it tells you about blessings and cursings as it pertains to the land.

So to me, like I said, when I watched this video, I just thought, well, at least they're trying to address some argument.

They couldn't do it in the debate, but we'll accept it after the fact. 18, the children of Israel said the fathers have eaten sour grapes and us, the children, our teeth are set on edge.

They're saying it's not fair that 20 years prior our fathers sinned and we have lost the land. Well, this is a covenantal curse.

When you go back to the Torah, when the children of Israel were obedient, well, they were able to be in the land.

But when they disobeyed, even if it was the the representatives of the rulers, well, they were cursed from the land.

And this had devastating consequences to the future generations to come. And then Ezekiel 18 says, the soul who sins shall die.

The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father. All this is affirming is not all. Oh yeah, and we'll probably end with this.

You can go find that video, but I just I want you to ask yourself, why didn't Caleb make these points in the debate?

I would have really appreciated. These are all good questions. Jeremiah, who invented a covenantal curse?

And then I would have said, Caleb, I'm glad you asked. What I mean by covenantal curse is what I read in Genesis chapter 3, where God cursed the serpent, and he cursed the serpent, and his offspring would be at enmity, that hate word, you know, against the offspring of the woman, which is

Christ. And so all those outside of Christ are at war with Christ, and that is a covenantal curse.

I believe it is 1st John chapter 3 verse 10 that says, all of those who are not born again they are children of the devil.

And so that's what you see in Genesis chapter 3, and then God curses the ground.

And so I wanted to build the case that covenantal curses are when a group of people, the nation of Israel, when the the representatives disobey the fathers, well that's going to have consequences, a kind of curse on the rest of the children for generations to come.

And so that's just a biblical principle. I defined what I meant by covenantal curse. I'm saying where we see curses in Scripture, it affects more than one person.

And so like I said, just want to let you know that those would have been great in the debate, but that would require you to know what you're talking about, to know what your opponent is talking about, to be able to think of these questions on the spot.

I had a good question. Yeah y 'all keep, oh we got Paul Day. What's up?

I saw a good question a second ago I wanted to address. Might take me a moment to find it.

It was the question about Genesis, I believe it's 821. Maybe you could repost that question.

Whoever you were, it might have been Miss Mary out there. But I know later in that video, we didn't get close to it, but I believe it was, you know,

Caleb said, well the curse of the ground was reversed in Genesis chapter 8.

So what does the Bible say? Did some of y 'all catch that? I tried to try to say that a lot because apparently that's their

YouTube channel. Okay let me know if I'm answering this question properly.

I think that question, I couldn't find it to post on the screen, but just said, hey could you talk about Genesis 821?

And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart,

I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.

Now a couple things here. We know that this doesn't undo the first curse because the

New Testament in Romans chapter 8 says that all of creation is groaning. Thorns and thistles are still a result after the first curse on the ground.

Now I would say later in this chapter, I believe, God said that he would never flood the earth, and so within this context he is telling us the kind of curse that he will never do again, and it's smiting the whole world by flood.

Now when you read all of Scripture, we understand that God will judge the world again, but differently.

It will be with fire, and so that's what I would try to push in understanding that verse.

Mary, yes it was Mary, thank you for joining us by the way, she asked if I could talk about that.

I believe in that context, not cursing the ground here is in the context of never flooding the earth, and so when

Johnny or Caleb, one of them said that this removed the curse from the ground, that's not what that's talking about, but then we would have to debate about context.

I'm gonna take a sip of coffee on that. All right, if you have any questions, if you'd like for me to address anything, definitely put it in the side chat.

Somebody, oh I'm live on Facebook, hello people out there. Someone asked, what would be the dictating factor of babies, and which ones would or wouldn't go to heaven?

Well if you go watch the debate, I believe all babies go to heaven. That is a question though that not everyone agrees on, and I get that God is holy, holy, holy.

God shows mercy to whomever he will show mercy, and so I simply trust the just judge of all the earth to do right, and so when

I see principles of God saving infants, I see no inconsistency of just saying, well it seems like those that are the most helpless,

God helps, and they wouldn't be because they deserve it, that they're pure, that they're innocent.

No, it's because God is gracious and merciful, and so we might talk about what the Westminster says and the 1689

Confession says, but there's no contradiction with that view. All right, with that being said,

I want to get into some clips from the debate itself, and so if you've not hit that like button, please do that.

That helps my channel, and it allows me to continue to do ministry, and so thank you so much for your support.

Here's my first clip. Okay, good evening everybody. Usually in a typical debate, what ends up happening is that the participants will bat back and forth, proof text, and we're discussing total depravity.

Does the Bible teach it? I do not think so. I think that your babies are born innocent. If you have a baby that dies or a child that dies in childhood,

I think that it will go to heaven. It has no sin. It doesn't have a sinful nature, and the way that a typical debate would go is something like Jeremiah would say, look at Genesis 6 verse number 5, and then

I throw out another one, and say, well no, look at Genesis 6 12. He says Psalm 58 3, then I throw out another one.

No, look at this one. He says Ezekiel 33 26. I say, look at Ezekiel 18, and we just go back and forth for two hours, but tonight what

I want to do is I want to ask this question. If it's if Jeremiah is right, what does it mean?

What does it mean? I knew we were in for a dumpster fire when he basically was saying, yeah, we're not going to talk about the verses.

We're not going to talk about context. Let's just talk about the the conclusions, Jeremiah, of your position.

Well, before you can talk about the conclusions, you have to address the the premises of the arguments, and you have to war with context.

So when he said that, I thought, uh -oh, this is not going to be a debate.

Mary said that Genesis, let's go back to, let's see, let's go back to Genesis 8 21, also says, okay,

I'll never curse the ground. So the question is, does that undo the the curse back in Genesis 3?

No, this curse is pertaining to God never flooding the earth again because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.

And so a lot of people say, see, it doesn't say since they were a baby. Now, what

I would say is you kind of have a bookend with Genesis 8 there. I don't remember where this verse is at, but Genesis 6, before the flood,

I would say this is communicating the same thing, if I can find it.

Yep, verse 5, Genesis 6 5, the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

So I would just point out that this is talking about where there are intentions and thoughts to be had, it's only evil ones.

And so from the moment that mankind can do this, that doesn't begin when you're, you know, a toddler and so forth.

From the very inception, I would say that the whole point here is that man's heart is evil continually.

And what's interesting, how this relates to the Church Christ, is their position is the

Pelagian system. And so Pelagius taught you're born innocent, you're born pure, and it's possible for you to live a sinless life.

And Pelagius also taught it's your environment around you that corrupts you.

It was Jesus that I believe said, you know, in the Synoptic Gospels, that it's not what goes into a man that corrupts the man, but it's from out of the heart that all of these different kinds of evils take place.

Now what is interesting, because I was prepared to talk about, you know, a handful of those verses that Caleb basically said we're not gonna talk about, is when

Jesus said that in the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel accounts, he is talking to an audience of men, of people that are born of two parents.

He is speaking to an audience in light of the fall of Adam. And so you can't say, well the way that people are born now is the same way that Adam was created from dust.

And so I believe it's Ecclesiastes chapter 7 talks about how God created man, blameless and upright, so we know that that's

Adam. But earlier in the context it says that there's not one man who does not sin, all of those in light of the fall.

So I hope that helped. I hope that helped. I would just kind of look at those two verses and say that they're bookends.

Okay, so let's move on to clip number two. Look at Romans 512.

This is how they typically, a Calvinist will do Romans 512. Wherefore is by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Now remember Romans 3 and 9 already told us who the all is. It's not talking about babies. In Romans chapter 3 verse 9, verse number 9, it says

Jews and Gentiles. Well this is what Jeremiah thinks this means. Well all, all men, that takes in babies.

But look at this. Calvinists never want to talk about Romans 519 because it kills the way that they use the word all.

It kills the way that they use the word many. If Jeremiah got up again and he went to Romans 519, for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall be made many righteous.

And that's the same word isn't it? But when Jeremiah reads this, he's gonna say, ah well when it's in red we became, for by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.

That's everybody. That's 100 % of human creation. But when we get down to the second many, many shall be made righteous by the obedience of Christ.

Well somehow that stops being 100%. I, I loved this point.

I mean I figured out pretty quickly that we would not get to actually discuss it in any depth, but to me, okay fair.

This is where we want to be noble Bereans, we want to go to the Scripture, and we want to talk about how context is king.

So we'll try to do this a little bit. Like I said, we didn't get that in the debate, so we have to do a little bit of post -debate debate.

So I did address this I believe in one of my rebuttal speeches. But Romans chapter 5, hopefully we can walk through this a little bit here.

Okay. What did I misspell? Ah, Romans. So this is the chapter where we want to talk about federal headship.

And so it kind of does, it's helpful to begin in verse 12, because in Adam, death, condemnation as we read.

In Christ, it's life. And so I have my Bible opened up here, because I like how

I have little side notes and underlines. And so I'll try to show it on the screen.

But we have a contrast between Adam and Jesus Christ. So if we go to verse 15, hopefully y 'all can see this and y 'all's in.

But the free gift, salvation, is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift, by the grace of that man

Jesus Christ abounded for many. Now what I would just tell Caleb is, okay, what does it mean, the many in Adam?

What's talking about all of those that are born and derived from the essence of the man of dust?

Now we start talking about the many, Jesus Christ abounded for the many, this is building off Romans chapter 4.

Those that have put their faith alone in the perfect Savior. And so when he says that the

Calvinists redefine all, or the many, I mean, I mean, I know Carl wouldn't make this same argument, or Gavin, and so thank y 'all fellas.

As you continue to read, it's talking about which federal head are you represented. And so yeah, there are gonna be many by birth that are represented by Adam, but by God's amazing grace we can be represented by Christ Jesus.

I think that makes sense, but I think that Caleb was just interested in some sound bites.

So with that, let me know if you have any questions. I want to say that Gavin asked a good question a moment ago.

Gavin, where are you? Aha! Gavin asked a good question, and I want to,

I want to brag a little bit on Gavin. Gavin, he asks questions first, he studies, and then he critiques.

And so I'm like, oh Gavin, we got to go back to doing, one of these days

I'm gonna get TikTok, and we're gonna do some exchanges out there. But Gavin seeks to understand.

He wants to steal man rather than straw man, and for that I'm very grateful. And then

AK Richardson said, your interview with Caleb Robertson is airing soon. That's what the YouTubes told me.

Yeah, I'm interested about that, because Caleb had his nice britches on during that interview, and I just,

I do not think that that interview will not, I think that it'll be cropped up, and I don't know.

I don't know. I will definitely let you know if I think that they edited my answers and changed what I said.

Hopefully it's the raw footage, and if it is, then it was, it was a great interview.

Now for those that don't understand Calvinism, then yeah, they're gonna look at it as the contradictions of Calvinism.

So Gavin says, what does salvation being a miracle have to do with total depravity?

Any resources for salvation being a miracle? Now you listed Calvin, Owen, Gavin, all of them.

This is why salvation is a miracle from our viewpoint. Total depravity is talking about the curse of Adam from birth.

We're born sinners. We're unable to seek out after God, so we can do religious things, but everything we do is tainted by sin, and it's like filthy rags before God, so we're unable.

So that the total depravity in the Reformed sense is, there's nothing in us that would seek out after God, and therefore we earn death.

So I did that in my slideshow. So the miracle comes in. In fact, we'll pull up a scripture here, because we're answering the question, what does the

Bible say? You liked that, didn't you? But to Gavin's credit, this is a great question.

Okay, so obviously, Gavin, we disagree with this, but when we look at the word dead, when we look at the the term the sons of disobedience,

I think that's being explained by this phrase, by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind, even though that is not in the the

Greek, but it's implied. It's talking about all people. And so Gavin, here is the miracle. You can see it.

I know I left your question up there. But God, being rich in mercy because of the great love in which he loved us, even when we were dead.

Now, when we were dead, we're talking about a spiritual deadness. The imagery is like a corpse.

When spiritually dead man opens their mouth, it reeks like a carcass with blasphemous words against God.

It reeks of religiosity that is idolatrous, like Romans 1. Now here is the miracle.

God, in his mercy and love, made us alive together. Do you remember when

Jesus called Lazarus out of the grave? We would say, miracle. And we're saying that is a picture of the kind of miracle that happens in a sinner's dead heart.

Hates God, but God in his grace, God in his love, and his mercy, a miracle takes place where he takes out that heart of stone and works in us a living heart of flesh that is convicted of sin and sees our need for the

Savior. So I hope that makes sense. If total depravity is true, it would take a miracle of God to be saved.

Like I said, great question. Anybody else out there? I think we just kind of hit the hour mark a moment ago.

Whoop whoop. AK's causing a little bit of ruckus in the side.

I'm just kidding. Me and AK. I'd call AK a friend. Yeah, it's titled Calvinist Contradiction.

Of course it is. But if they didn't manipulate the footage, then please go check that out for sure.

And I want to brag on AK. AK is a critical thinker. I will say AK agrees with me more than what most people think, and I like that.

Ian says, oh we got another question. Question. Did man lose immortality because of Adam, and will that be restored?

We will put on immortality. This was something I was prepared to debate, and I think

I even talked with AK on the phone about this. Need some coffee. Ooh, that's hot.

What up Samuel Harris out there in Facebook world? Okay. So there is actually debate.

When Adam was created of the dust of the ground, was he created mortal or was he created immortal?

Now, whichever way you land there, and I'll tell you my position, is you have to qualify it with the word conditional.

If Adam was created conditionally immortal, well that conditionality says, okay, in some way his soul was created never to cease to exist, but he could potentially die if he lost fellowship with God.

That's a good theory. Where I land is when God made Adam from the dust of the ground.

I think that's really meaningful with the creator -creation distinction. Adam is a created being, and when

I think it's 1st Timothy chapter 6, it refers to God as the only immortal. Now, at glory, we will put on immortality like you're pointing out,

Ian. And so what I like to say, and to me I'm in good company here, I like to look at Adam as created conditionally mortal.

Now here's where me and AK part ways, and Gavin, and Carl, and I don't know what planet

Caleb and Johnny are on, but I believe hypothetically, had

Adam obeyed, he would have been able to freely eat of the tree of life, and even though he was created mortal, he would have never died.

Now, that's important because think about Jesus being the second and better Adam.

Now think about it. Jesus willingly laid his life down because he was perfectly obedient to the

Father's will. Jesus would have never died because he never sinned.

He wasn't created, he wasn't born with a sinful, corrupt nature like all of us.

That's why the virgin birth is so important, why it was prophesied, and why it happened, is so Jesus would not be born of two parents, but he would be conceived by the

Holy Spirit and born by a virgin. Okay, hope that helps, hope that helps.

Great question, great question. Should have been in the debate, that never happened. Anybody else out there?

Okay, let's move on to clip, what is it, number three? Somehow in Jeremiah's view, all are forced to sin by God, but then not all are enabled to believe on God unless God forces them to believe.

Boo! Misrepresentation. And I just, I want to throw this in here, is because we do not believe

God forces anyone to sin, and when he says this, maybe he doesn't know.

I just watched a lot of his content, and he really bragged about how he's read John Gill, James White, how he's read

Lorraine Botner, and he's read all these guys, and I'm like, okay, okay, maybe he understands my position.

And when he says this, Caleb is either being dishonest with you, and he knows that's not what we believe, but he don't care.

I would have to be charitable towards Caleb to think that he just doesn't know. Doesn't matter, because I even explained in the debate, that's not our position, that God not only knows the future, but he declares the end from the beginning, and so he is able to intervene in his creation differently than how man does.

God does not force us to sin, but he restrains his goodness and allows us to do what our hearts desire, you know, those that are in their sin.

And Romans 1 talks about how he hands them over to a debased mind. And God doesn't force people to believe, even though we see the word draws in John 6 44, but God works through our will.

He transforms it. He regenerates our heart. Voila! That's something that man cannot do. But I just wanted to illustrate how we had misrepresentation after misrepresentation.

Oh, let me take a pause. I see a good question inside chat. I'm trying to keep up with y 'all, y 'all peoples out there.

Truth Defenders. If man was created to be fruitful and multiply, had

Adam not sinned, would be overpopulated the earth? Okay, awesome question.

So when Adam was created, I believe this began this present age.

Now, when Adam sinned, it turned into this present evil age, as we read in Hebrews, 1st

Corinthians, and so forth. Had Adam obeyed, and Adam and Eve would have been fruitful and multiply, they would have been

God's representative. Adam would have been God's representative here on earth, and the kingdom of God, represented by Adam, and so you have a...

I forgot the term about a king -vassal relationship.

There's a term for that. No, I think that's how the kingdom of God would be ushered on earth, is by the expansion of this age.

Adam would have populated the earth with his offspring. This would have been the kingdom of God on earth, and they would have ushered in the age to come.

But that's in the realm of hypotheticals. Good question. Okay, clip number...

I think it's five. Children of wrath by nature. Isn't it odd that he says in Ephesians 2, 3, and Jeremiah is gonna say, well that means that they can't obey their parents, they can't be good, they're totally depraved.

And then Paul turns around and says, children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Boo! Did anybody else catch this?

Number one. A .K. would have never made this point.

I know that. Ephesians 6. I think Ephesians 6 is a radically different context than the context of Ephesians 2.

Ephesians 2 is talking about all of mankind, were by nature, children of wrath.

And so, I think it's fair to say Ephesians chapter 6 verse 1, this could be believing children.

Think about the regenerate child that is seeking to honor the Lord, and you look at the first commandment with promise, obey your parents.

Okay, I mean, that's sufficient to saying, Caleb, you're the king of cherry pick -pick -pick -pick -pick verses, and then just, it's easy to make verses appear like they're contradictory, but when you understand kind of Paul's flow of thought, that's number one.

This could easily be referring to believing children. And I remember in the debate, I just said, even unregenerate children can quote -unquote obey their parents, but they can't obey their parents in a way that is pleasing to the

Lord. So, yes, Carl's right, dead also means separation.

And so, I think the separation that God was telling Adam in Genesis 2 17, you will surely die, you will break covenant, right, you'll be separated from fellowship, you'll be separated spiritually, and you will return to the dust of the ground.

That is the totality of separation, and then the book of Revelation tells us that there is a second death with the eternal lake of fire.

So, if you've not liked the video, please like, share, subscribe, all those things, it really helps me out.

And if you do want to send in super chats as a way to support the ministry,

I really appreciate that, but you don't have to, and I'll try to get your questions and comments. Let's move on.

By nature. Look at Galatians 2 14. We who are Jews by nature are not sinners of the

Gentiles. Well, did Paul just say that Gentiles were the only sinners born by nature?

Is he now saying that Jews are not sinners by nature? We who are Jews by nature are not sinners as of the

Gentiles. What makes somebody a Jew? Circumcision plus ceremony made one a Jew, and nobody is born circumcised.

All right, Carl, I know you wouldn't have made this point, because Carl was one of the callers, which we will get to that call, and we'll talk about that word.

Fousey, been working on that Greek pronunciation. This is an awful argument.

So, what Caleb is trying to say is, now he's confusing two ideas, so think about it.

Adult, we'll say adult Gentile men and women, in order to convert to Judaism, they would have to be circumcised.

The males only, right? For the females, it is through the the federal head of their husband.

But the point is, yes, they would have to do something to become a Gentile, but guess what?

They would still be a Gentile by birth, and that would have been their nature and upbringing, but they would have been ceremonially converted from being unclean to clean.

Now, it's interesting, because Caleb is pretty

King James only -ish, and I asked him, I said, do I need to bring a King James Bible to this? He said, no, no, no.

Well, I don't remember if it's the King James, but most translations translate this, we who are

Jews by birth, and that's because Fusi, it can be translated nature, but it carries the idea of offspring, born of two parents, kind producing after kind, or if it's talking about germination or plant life, certain seeds produce certain plants.

And there are certain contexts, like in Romans 11, where the natural branches, it could be used in a metaphorical sense.

But going back to this, this is where, if we had an actual debate, I would have slammed

Caleb so hard that it would have felt so good, and then I would have helped him up and said, it's okay, man.

But think about it, when we go back to Genesis chapter 17, if I go away, then

I'll have to get back to the end of the video. Genesis 17, God told Abraham in the

Abrahamic Covenant that your male offspring are to be circumcised, and so you don't be...

when two Jewish parents have a baby, guess what that baby is born as?

A Jew. And because they're a Jew, they are circumcised the eighth day, and guess what?

If the parents disobey and do not circumcise their Jewish child, then the child, unfortunately, is cut off.

So I knew that Caleb, this... I saw other episodes where he made this point, I'm like, oh dude, there's...

I could have helped you make a better case. So someone tell Caleb, let's have an actual debate with the moderator, and let me be able to control my question and answer time.

So, I don't know if anybody had any thoughts with that. Check the side chat out there. Yep, yep, yep.

Okay, moving onward. Clip number six. Okay, Caleb, my first question is

Romans 6 .23, for the wages of sin is death. Is that talking about spiritual death only, or is it referring to or including physical death?

My time going. All right, buckle up. I'm gonna let him give his really long -winded answer to a simple question.

Okay, my answer to that is Genesis chapter 3 .22. When Adam and Eve were sinning, it says in Genesis 3 .22,

the Lord God said, Behold, man is become as one of us to know good and evil, now lest he put forth his hand and take also the tree of life and eat and live forever.

If they were made to suffer death, why is there a tree already there that's going to then give them eternal life?

They would have been made mortal. This would have already been there in Genesis chapter 3, verse number 22. In Romans chapter 5, he's asking me, is it spiritual or is it physical death?

What's the reward in Romans chapter 5? The reward in Romans chapter 5 is all spiritual. So, why are we comparing a spiritual reward against a physical consequence?

He says in Romans chapter 5, it's got to be a physical death, but then he transitions it over and he turns it into a spiritual reward that doesn't do anything to the physical consequence.

We all keep dying, which would go to my point earlier where I said he thinks that the curse in Adam has to be greater than the cure in Christ, because if we're all still dying physically and that's the whole curse that we have to get out from underneath, well then nothing changed.

I can't take any more. So many things. Now, notice I already addressed this argument in my opening speech, almost like I did my homework on what

Caleb thinks. Now, we should have been debating about the meaning of Genesis 2 17.

So, let me pull this up. Let me pull this up for you awesome people out there.

So, believe it or not, this is a huge part of the debate. Alright, so God is telling

Adam, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the yom, the day, question mark, what time frame is that talking about?

That you eat of it, the forbidden fruit, you shall surely die. My argument is, day here is not qualified by evening and morning, and in Hebrew, the reference to time is always connected to the action.

So, he's talking about, there's gonna be a day that you sin against me. The day that you sin against me, there is an ingressive sense that you will begin to die, and then you will guarantee to return to the dust of the ground.

And so, that doesn't mean in a 24 -hour window that you will spiritually die.

The Hebrew doesn't support that. The context doesn't support that. Was there immediate spiritual separation the moment that Adam sinned?

Absolutely. But, this was something else I would have loved to have gotten into in Genesis 3.

There was physical death shortly after Adam sinned, and this is a part of the promise of the gospel.

Verse 21, and the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin.

Well, how did that get there? Right? God clothed Adam and Eve for their guilt and shame.

Well, God would have killed two innocent animals who did not sin.

Animals can't sin, so this is a picture. But, they had to physically die as a result of Adam's sin.

And so, this is the preceding context as we get into the verse that he brought up about partaking of the tree and live forever.

Now, notice my argument would have been, yes, Adam was created conditionally mortal.

Had he obeyed, then he would be able to eat from the tree of life, and he would never die. But, he disobeyed

God. In the Hebrew back in Genesis 2 .17 is muth -muth with two different verb tenses, and so it can be...it's

muth -muth, die -die. It's a guarantee that you will physically return to the dust of the ground.

So, like I said, Caleb, what else did he say? He said something like, in Jeremiah's view, the curse is greater than the cure.

Well, it's a misrepresentation because he thinks that salvation is not miraculous.

For us, the cure has to be greater than the curse because we are dead in our sins and trespasses under the curse of Adam, but God brings us to new life.

And you know what's amazing? He said something like, we all keep dying. So, it didn't seem to work, essentially.

Well, we still bear our flesh where the power of sin still reigns.

And so, yes, we will die, but we will be raised again in glory.

And so, that's our blessed hope. Would have loved to have talked about that with Caleb, but like I said, the debate didn't happen.

I'm gonna pull up that clip. I think there was some more sauce there that I wanted to address.

Let's see here. By nature. Look at. Okay. Really can't believe that he's bringing up this passage anyways, because it goes against everything that we've done along once.

But when we're seven. And so, my next question. Well, then nothing changed.

Jesus died, raised, and people have faith, some people don't, and we're still all just out here physically dying.

So, really, nothing changed in Romans chapter 5 if we're gonna. And what I want to say is, yes, we will all die, right, because we still bear this sin -cursed body, but we will not stay dead.

Call it spirit or call it physical death. Okay, I will take that as you think that's spiritual death.

And so, my next question is if you still agree with what you said in this clip. Nowhere in the

New Testament does it talk about Christ's righteousness becoming your righteousness. Wrong video.

I thought it. Paul said, when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Man, y 'all know that Paul died physically right there?

That's a freebie. This is not talking about physical death. That is so ridiculous.

And think about this. The same death, Romans 5, 6, 7. Chapter divisions are not real.

He's talking about the same thing. 5, 6, and 7. Same death. Spiritual. Just same size of question. Do you believe that Romans 5, 6, and 7 are always talking about the same kind of spiritual death?

Okay. Well, hey, now this is my favorite part of the battle. I'm like,

Caleb could not recover from this. I knew Caleb's pride. Well, for one,

I knew when I asked him if he still agreed, he's gonna say yes. He's not gonna contradict himself. But I started to see that Caleb didn't see where this train was going.

Now, imagine if I had the freedom to actually interject when he's kind of going off the rails. But I'm getting him to commit to a blunder he said a long time ago.

Every time you see death in Romans 5, 6, and 7, it's talking about spiritual death.

So I was just asking him, spiritual death? Do you still agree with this? Now, he's gonna eat up two minutes of my time.

I knew he was, and you better believe the apologetic dog was about to do the same thing in my time. But listen to this long -winded answer.

He played a clip of me, and I don't hear the contradiction. But in Romans 7, 9, he says, I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

So that would still go back to what Jeremiah just said out of Romans 5. He's making the case that it's physical death, and I would not.

And then he brought us over to Romans chapter 7. So he could have said, yes, it's spiritual death, but let me eat all of your time here.

In verse number 9, nobody thinks that Paul physically died the moment that this sin would have occurred.

So I addressed this later in the debate. He doesn't understand Romans chapter 7. He's not saying that Paul was alive spiritually as a baby, and then the moment he sinned, then he died spiritually.

And like I said, I addressed this later in the debate, but if you keep reading, it talks about how the law killed him.

And so when he was converted on the road to Damascus, and he was blinded for three days,

I believe, he realized he was a sinner before God. Because he was a

Hebrew of Hebrews, he would have understood the Torah, he would have understood, you know, memorized it like the back of his hand.

Oh man, that's new. Then he realized, I covet. That is a law that I'm not as blameless as we see his rap sheet in Philippians chapter 3.

And so it pierced him, because coveting is a heart issue. And it killed him, meaning his conscience was pricked, and it killed his very being.

He is not good before God. And it goes on to say, to show the exceedingly sinfulness of sin.

We'll go over there maybe here in a little bit. But Paul realized that he already had sin.

It pierced his conscience and his heart, and he's a sinner. That's what that's talking about, but of course this has to be a proof text for babies are innocent and pure.

I was alive without the law once. The commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And I really can't believe that he's bringing up this passage anyways, because it goes against everything that we've discussed so far.

How is he alive without the law? He should be dead already. And then he says, I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

How'd he die a second time? Are you, like, I know I'm not in the question part, but it sounds like this is becoming physical death.

Well, he just keeps on going because he's writing the Roman epistle. I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

This would be spiritual death. Romans chapter 5, you got a spiritual reward. Why is it not spiritual death?

Romans chapter 5, Romans chapter 6, how are you being raised to life in Romans chapter 6? You're being raised to life and newness of life with Christ spiritually.

We all see it there. I don't know if he... Maybe if I just talk long enough, people will think

I know what I'm saying. He sees it there, but then you come into Romans 7, verse number 9, it's the same thing. So I would answer yes.

Romans 5, 6, and 7 are all discussing the same thing. Yes! Spiritual death, spiritual reward.

Thank you for that really long -winded question, or answer to a long question. So my next question is, do you know where this verse is located?

Oh guys, if you've not seen this debate, this was enjoyable for me. Christ being raised from the dead will never die again.

Death no longer has dominion over him. Which version are you using? Like I'm not trying to trick you, but it may be.

It won't help you. Say it again for me one more time. You can search it if you want to, but Christ being raised from the dead will never die again.

Death no longer has dominion over him. Where is that verse located? I don't know. It's, well, it's

Romans 6, verse 9, and so I get a minute here to frame my question. You just said death is being used the same in Romans 5, 6, and 7, and this is a defeater to your position.

Now you're forced to reconcile. Oh, well Jesus must have died a spiritual death.

Is that what you believe? Now, he can't say yes, or like I said, then he's the, you know, a really rank heretic and everybody's like, oh

Jesus died a physical death, but he won't answer my question because he knows he'll have to backtrack, and he should have.

He could have easily said, oh well Jesus is, you know, an exception because his physical death brought us spiritual benefits, but I got him, and he is too prideful to admit that he misspoke and was not clear in the past.

You know what A .K. Richardson would have done? He'd have said, well let me explain what I really meant by that, and I'd have been like, okay, okay, we can, we can always qualify and explain what we really meant, but listen to Caleb.

Is that the end of your question? Okay, so he went to Romans 6, 9, and he says, knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more, death has no more dominion over him, and I guess because Jesus died physically, he's now basically saying we have to go back to Romans 5 and make that physical.

Do we not all already know that Jesus' act on the cross benefited all of us what?

Spiritually. This was not anything. This was not, can you imagine if I had cross -examination time,

I would have said, all right now Caleb, please answer the question that I asked you. Not that over there.

I didn't ask you if Jesus brought us spiritual benefits. Did Jesus die physically, and did you already say that every time

Paul uses death in Romans 5, 6, and 7, that it's spiritual death? Gotcha buddy, and Caleb never really recovered from that, so let's move on.

Well, actually, anybody got any questions out there? Any good comments, snarky rebukes?

I like those, and the youth at 12 -5 likes snarky rebukes, and I have to endure those as well.

Okay, Carl. Now, I, you send in superchats, so I'm more inclined to interact with you, but hopefully this is a sincere question.

So Carl is asking, I really don't understand why you believe Romans 6, 23, death is physical in light of verse 22.

So, the consistent understanding of death is both spiritual and physical.

How do I know that? This is, Carl, I think you and I would have had a better debate on TikTok than in this kind of basement setup studio, goodness, because death goes, ultimately you have to do a couple things.

You have to deal with the context of Romans 5, 6, and 7. You have to deal with the context of Romans 15, which

I had some questions. I think I would have really stumped Caleb had we talked about 1st

Corinthians 15, because that's a full preterist nightmare, which maybe Caleb, maybe

Caleb and Johnny are full preterists, and I didn't know that. That would have been helpful to know, but you have to, number one, since context is king, you have to deal with what we say immediate context, and so you're right, we'd have to look at death in verse 22 right before verse 23, and is there spiritual benefits?

Absolutely. In 1st Corinthians 15, we have to talk about the last enemy to be destroyed is death.

What kind of death is it? Now, after we've exhausted the immediate context of Romans and 1st

Corinthians, for examples, when we read about Adam's death, that's the one that we all care about, whether you're looking at Romans 5, 12, or I think it's 1st

Corinthians 15, 22, it says, for as in Adam all died, or for by one man came death, and then another man came the resurrection of life, it's a fair point to say, okay, what kind of death did

Adam experience? Because that is going to be the standard that Paul applies in Romans and 1st

Corinthians. And so when you go back to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, what is the nature of man?

This pertains back to total depravity. Man was not created totally depraved.

God took him out of the dust of the ground, so man is physical, and God breathed into Adam the breath of life.

Man is at least a dichotomous structure. He is both spiritual and physical, and the debate rages on if there's a trichotomy versus dichotomy.

All that matters is man is both physical and spiritual. And so when

God said that you will surely die, he's talking about death, and death touches all of what man is.

And so death is both spiritual and physical. Carl, I would have made this case, and I would have pinned

Caleb against the wall, but he would not allow for a true debate, cross -examination. And so my point is,

Romans 6, 23 is both spiritual and physical. Hope that helps a little bit.

Good question, good question. Anybody else? Oh, Christ rescued me, said to Eek!

I'm not sure why. Maybe something heretical was uttered in the side chat.

Y 'all are awesome. All right, what clip are we on? Paul Day, I know he's spitting truth bombs out there in the side chat.

We need to have you back on the Apologetic Dog. Clip number seven. Oh, get ready for this clip.

This mean still that the Spirit dwells within me, my body, personally. I don't think so.

Not based on 1 Corinthians 3 16. People that say you need to have a experience with the Holy Spirit, they're lying to you.

If I were to critique parts of the Lord's Church, parts of our brotherhood, it would be on this point.

I think that this is overall the weakest point in the theology of many in Churches of Christ.

Not everybody in Churches of Christ, but many. I mean, like where I went to school, you know, I would be considered virtually a heretic for holding the viewpoint that I hold, that the

Holy Spirit is personally in Christians for the purpose of giving them strength, enabling them to carry out

God's Word. But I think that this is such an important part of the gospel. So you deny the personal indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. This gentleman that is a preacher of the Church of Christ, he affirms the personal indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. How can you be the one true Church of Christ if you all cannot agree on gospel issues?

Yeah, you already said that I was not saved anyways. So like you're now trying to pit me against Mike Hysaul when it was like either in his second or third speech where he said,

I was outside of Christ. So I don't know how it's even coming to this point. He doesn't think I'm saved. I guess he doesn't think

Mike Hysaul is saved. So now he's saying, well you guys have a disagreement amongst yourselves, therefore what?

I mean, if he and I are totally depraved, what difference does a disagreement on the Holy Spirit have to do with anything? If we started agreeing more on the

Holy Spirit, would that be a sign of somebody's election? Because Mike's not a Calvinist and I'm not a Calvinist.

I don't foresee us becoming Calvinist. So what if me and Mike got together on an agreement on the Spirit? Would we then be elect?

No, you'd still say we're depraved and going to hell. Yeah. Okay, that was a nothing burger of an answer to my question.

Notice two Church of Christ cannot agree on the gospel and if the

Holy Spirit personally indwells. I just want everyone to know in my minute framing of this question, that Caleb denies that the

Holy Spirit personally indwells you. Romans chapter 8 says, then you're not a child of God.

Oh man, I hated to do it. I hated to do it, but I wanted to show the world the massive split in the

Church of Christ community. Now this is not a split where you can shake hands and say we're both brothers.

No, this is too big of a gospel issue. Now you notice Caleb did not...

now Caleb, in his defense, he may not have understood why I was asking the question.

So I think he probably dodged it, but there's probably a real strong chance that he didn't understand the devastating ramifications of that kind of disagreement.

So now I do want to say I was torn a little bit on asking the question because I was thinking,

Jeremiah, is that really what the debate, you know, is it all about or is it relevant? Now if we would have had a better cross examination setup and once I saw that Caleb was going to waste all of my time, well

I had to just go straight to the core of what I wanted to get at because what

I would have liked to done is I would have first said, all right Caleb, I believe in total depravity and I believe that upon the miracle of salvation you believe the personal indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. I would have asked him, do you think someone can believe those two doctrines, total depravity, personal indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, and be saved? He would have said no. Then I would have said, okay, if someone affirms the personal indwelling of the

Holy Spirit which you reject, could they be saved? And he probably would have said no, but if he would have said possibly yes, and I would have said, okay, then why could someone believe in the doctrine of total depravity that you disagree with?

Why is that salvific and not the other? Well I would have shown the consistency that you have to believe truth when it comes to the gospel and the

Holy Spirit, and then I would have played the clip of Hysaul and said, okay, you already said that you can't believe these doctrines and be saved, are you gonna say that Hysaul is lost?

And then he probably would have tried to not answer that question and I would have said, oh you got to, you got to, this is a debate.

Now for clarity's sake, Caleb denies the personal indwelling of the

Holy Spirit. Gavin, James, and Carl out there, I hope that you're on at least the side of Mike Hysaul on this, because to try to adopt the word -only view, which

I know old TT better be ready for some grandma's church later, I know that TT affirms the the word -only view, that's not what

Romans 8 is talking about. So let's just start here. For to set the mind on the flesh is death.

Carl, that's spiritual and physical. But to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace, for the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, hates

God, for it does not submit to God's law. Indeed, it cannot. This would actually pertain to total depravity and man's inability.

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, Christians at Rome, are not in the flesh but are in the

Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.

Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. You can't deny the personal indwelling of the

Holy Spirit, but if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

If the of him who raised Jesus from the physical grave dwells in you, he who raised...this

is the miraculous nature of coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ. He who raised

Christ Jesus from the dead will also miraculously give life to your mortal bodies in light of the fall, right, through his

Spirit who dwells in you. I wanted just to bring that up, because if I could have really continued to press

Kayla, he would have not have wanted to answer these questions, but it also hurt my heart also to inform the world, the the world that tuned in to try to watch a debate.

I wanted to show that the Church of Christ, it's impossible for them to be the one true church. What did Jesus say?

A house divided against itself will fail. It will collapse. It can't work, right?

If there's contradictory perspectives there on a gospel issue, they're both wrong. And you know, that's where theological triage is so important, because you can be in the kingdom, you can be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and believe the gospel of grace, and then differ on secondary, tertiary, important issues, but not on fundamental gospel truths.

So what do y 'all think out there? Any thoughts? I don't know who you are,

J -Lo, but you're on my favorite list, the nothing burger. I'll be honest,

I'm gonna have to call Lucas Curcio, my friend, my dear friend that's a

Methodist that we're gonna be debating in February, and I'm gonna have to let him know, Lucas, I am

NOT going to treat you like I treated Caleb. Caleb talked about my son, he wouldn't answer any of my questions, and so I committed myself,

Jeremiah, preach the gospel, stick to the game plan, and try to have fun with it.

And so just know the nothing burger leaked out of me was not planned. Carl asked if I quoted

Hillary Clinton. No. Okay, now

I'm not trying to misrepresent, but this is actually a good teaching point. So I'm what's called a cessationist, and I have good brothers that are continuationists believe that the gifts of the

Spirit, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, the signed gifts of the Spirit, continue today.

I'm a cessationist. I believe the Holy Spirit personally indwells you, and that's the reason why you miraculously come to saving faith, but I believe a lot of those gifts in the book of Acts were signed gifts.

2 Corinthians 12, 12 talks about the gifts and signs of an apostle. And so I have continuationist friends that say,

Jeremiah, it sounds like you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Bible, and you just take the

Holy Spirit out. And I'm like, no, no, no. The Reformed paradigm, we talk about the Holy Spirit more than your average

Baptist does. Now a lot of Southern Baptists don't talk a lot about the Holy Spirit. Got a lot of Southern Baptist brothers.

I grew up Southern Baptist. I didn't really hear the Holy Spirit talked about. But Reformed Baptists, we know how integral it is to pray that the

Holy Spirit would illuminate our heart and our mind and give us wisdom and understanding, and we pray for someone to be saved, like I pray for baby

JJ, the apologetic pup. I pray that one day the Holy Spirit would regenerate his heart, that he might kiss the

Son in faith, as Psalm chapter 2 talks about. But what I've told people is, there is a radical, hyper - cessationist group out there, and it's the

Church of Christ. And I would say that's, if we're looking at a spectrum, obviously I think I'm kind of in the sweet spot there, but I do tell people there are those that functionally replace the

Holy Spirit with the Holy Bible, and they just basically say, and this goes all the way back to Alexander Campbell in the 1800s, nothing miraculous happens at conversion.

The more Scripture you get in your mind, since the Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, well that is the

Holy Spirit in you when you cognitively think about the Scripture. So I hope that helps.

Yes, functionally, the Robertsons teach that the Bible replaces the Holy Spirit. Now I'm saying as an entailment of their position,

I don't think they would actually say that. Anybody else out there? Oh, it's the

J -Lo down there with the fish bone. That makes sense. Christ rescued me, getting a kick out of it.

Hey, Leigh -Anne, we have to interview you on your second book that you let me write the foreword to.

Thank you. Thank you for that. All right, I got some more clips, and I have still...

can y 'all see the steam? This coffee is still hot. It's still at... what was the temperature? 140 degrees?

All right, let's continue. Does this mean still that the Spirit...

Nowhere in the New Testament does it talk about Christ's righteousness becoming your righteousness.

And so clearly 2nd Corinthians 5 21 says, for our sake the Father made

Jesus to be sin who knew no sin so that in Him, listen, we might become the righteousness of God.

Can you tell me anywhere in the context of 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 of how we are not made the righteousness of God?

Now, I knew, like I've researched his position, I knew he would go to Romans 4,

Philippians 3. What he wants you to say is, the righteousness that becomes yours is faith.

And so that's not what Romans 4 is talking about. That's not what Paul's meaning in Philippians 3 9.

So notice I asked, and this is where if we had a true debate I could get in. I'm of 2nd

Corinthians chapter 5, because there's no contextual clues to say the righteousness there is your faith.

Okay? The righteousness there is the righteousness of Jesus that is imputed on your account.

That is what Romans 4 is talking about. And the reason why I ask this question is I wanted people to understand the

Church of Christ denied the core of the gospel. This is what the Protestant Reformation was all about.

The Roman Catholic Church, they believed in infused righteousness.

Based on your obedience to the sacramental system, Christ's righteousness gets infused on your behalf.

And a lot of the Reformers are saying that's not what the Scripture teaches, that's not what the early church fathers and patristics taught.

No, there is a great exchange that happens when you put your faith in Christ alone apart from trusting in your works.

Then Christ's righteousness gets transferred to you and covers your account completely.

That's why all of your sins gets forgiven, because you have now received a perfect righteousness that is alien to you.

So there is an exchange based on the instrument of faith. And so this question, it wasn't a throwaway.

I just I knew he would ramble on for two minutes, but I wanted people to hear him deny penal substitutionary atonement and the double imputation of our sin going to the cross and in exchange getting the righteousness of Jesus.

I think we're getting the same question just phrased in a different way. And I tell you, I guess he's wanting me to say that Jesus' perfection gets implanted on us.

I don't see that being discussed in the text. I think that the blood of Christ just saves us, which is 1st

John chapter 1 verse number 7. We walk in the light as he's in the light. Now when he says just saves us, he means a five -step formula.

You have to hear the word, you have to believe, you have to repent, you have to confess, and you must be baptized, as they like to say it like that.

And that's a reset button. That's where you contact the blood and it washes away your past sins, and then you have to remain holy as a member of the

Church of Christ. And now your sin can only get forgiven based on your repentance.

One with another, the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son cleanses us from all sins. I'm already saying you're being made righteous.

You're being counted as righteous. You go back to Romans chapter 4, like it's, I'm not trying to just play ignorant here.

Never answered my question, right? My question was about the context of 1st Corinthians 5. But I'm saying I don't know what else

I could give more. But in verse number 4 he says, Now to him that worketh is a reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believes on that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also described,

Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Yeah, I believe that. We have a righteousness imputed to our account without works.

Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven. It's not that we don't commit iniquities anymore. God forgives them. Whose sins are covered.

It's not that we don't sin anymore. Our sins are covered. So I believe my sins are covered, and I believe

Jesus is saving me. This is just an honest moment where I just have to say, I don't know what you're getting at.

Because even at the end of 2nd Corinthians 5, I believe I'm a new creature in Christ because of what 2nd Corinthians 5 17 says.

I'm in Christ, and his blood is my blood. Now remember 2nd Corinthians 5 17 says you're a new creation.

Something changed in your nature and your ontology. Caleb doesn't believe that. Saving me. Righteousness is being imputed to my account.

My sins are being covered. So it's like I don't know what more I could say to that. Yeah, remember he said,

I don't know what I could say. And the whole point was trying to expose that the

Church of Christ fundamentally deny the gospel there. I see some movement in the side chat.

Okay, Paul Day, this may be outside of my pay grade. Thank you for the super chat.

Gotta warm up for that. Oh, I'm gonna take a drink of coffee on this. Since Revelation 22 2 says, the tree of life returns for the healing of the nations, and we are resurrected immortal in a moment, isn't the tree unsacramental?

Okay, me and Paul Day probably agree, but we've not had this conversation.

So rebuke me on the phone later. I read a really good article from Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham made the point that we do see covenant

Adam had with God, and we see the sacraments of the two trees.

We don't have the two stones, right, of the law, right, the

Decalogue, but we do see two sacraments, essentially, and what we mean by sacraments is a means of grace.

That's really all sacrament means. Means of grace. I do believe that baptism is a kind of sacrament.

It doesn't give us the grace of regeneration or justification, but it's efficacious.

It sanctifies the believer for the one that's trusting in Christ alone, by faith alone, and so the ordinances,

I like that word too, the ordinances are a means of grace. The Lord's Table is doing something.

I would argue it's not a mere memorial. It does point us back to what Christ has done, it also reminds us of what

Christ is doing in our life, and what he has promised to do in return one day. And so when we're talking about sacraments,

I could see the trees of life, I don't know, I think it's plural in Revelation, I could see it being a kind of means of grace, but it's to freely enjoy for all eternity with Christ.

So good question, not sure when you when you say, isn't the tree unsacramental?

I think it could be still a means of grace, but it would be better than what we experience in communion, because going to the

Lord's Table, drinking the wine and eating the bread, which is wine is what Jesus prescribed by the way, that's but a taste, right, of the marriage of the supper of lamb.

And so I see the the tree of life in Revelation 22 is eternal.

There is an eternal healing there with the trees. So good question, good question.

Paul says, sacramental in that if one eats, he then lives forever by the eating in and of itself.

Absolutely brother! See, sometimes we have to ask further questions about what you mean.

Okay, we're coming up on the two -hour mark. I still have a couple clips left, especially when

I play Carl's question, thought it was a good question. So let's see, clip number nine.

Okay, this will be my last question, and I'll make sure to get it within a minute.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but your position says, since we don't have the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nothing miraculous happens at the moment that we are added to the

Lord's Church in baptism. Or I could say another way, you don't believe anything miraculous happens when someone receives

Christ and is a child of God. And if that is your position, what does the

Bible say? Romans 1 16, for I'm not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who is baptized,

I mean, believes. And so, are you saying that the power of God is something that is not miraculous?

I would go to, and we're almost done with his 15 -minute segment by the way, I would just answer in Acts 8 verses 5 and 6.

I don't think that anybody counted Philip preaching them as miraculous. Philip went down to the city of Samaria, he preached

Christ in them. I don't think anybody's counting that as miraculous. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which

Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. Okay, I just want to kind of interject. So the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

And so notice, he didn't touch, Romans 1 16. And this is a question that highlights the vastly different worldviews that we have, the different kinds of gospels that we represent, because I see the gospel as miraculous.

It's not just data that you can look at, contemplate, try really hard, and say, you know what,

I'm just gonna obey that. And essentially nothing happens, you know, other than you obeyed, you know, externally.

And so when he brings up this verse, Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached

Christ to them. Well, the miracle is when someone receives the gospel.

This assumes, it assumes what we think about what man is. Is man dead in his sins and trespasses?

Does that mean that he is unable to seek after the things of God? Now historically, yes.

It wasn't until really Pelagius comes along and says, no, man has, you know, the ability to achieve an eternal reward by his obedience, and grace is not sufficient for causing one's salvation.

And so my whole point is, for anybody that has tasted and seen that the Lord is gracious, and you realize you were not seeking after God, and God sought you, and miraculously changed your heart, and you felt that.

Now you gotta think, Caleb is not someone that has experienced that. And so even though Caleb is outside of the faith, he doesn't understand these things,

I do see Caleb as different than just an unbeliever. Okay, he is an unbeliever, but he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, so I have to take him to task.

And I'm not saying that to be mean, if he's being consistent, he should be accusing me of the same thing. And so my point though is, the scales are still on his eyes.

He's still trying to muster up obedience to maintain favor with God, and that's not a misrepresentation, that's an entailment of his position, and he would actually agree with a lot of them.

Then verse number 12, he goes on and he baptizes these people. Does anybody count them being baptized as a miracle?

I would say no. So a spiritual event is happening, but is it miraculous like Jesus walking on the water?

Is it miraculous like turning water into wine? Is it miraculous like healing a lame man? Is it miraculous like raising the dead?

Physically? No, it's not going to be a miraculous event. So the thing is, that spiritual event is miraculous, because a sinner's dead heart now is in newness of life and seeks to glorify

God. And then he said physically. Well, I don't think he understands our blessed hope that Titus chapter 2 talks about, that's expounded upon beautifully in the

Resurrection chapter of 1 Corinthians 15, but physically we will be raised to newness of life, a resurrected spirit controlled body, eternally to reign with Jesus Christ forever.

Now Carl and Gavin, I don't know if Gavin probably checked out, but there are the the far -right hardline

COC that reject that Jesus Christ... so they agree that Jesus Christ returns, but it's only to smite the world, and you only have this binary heaven and hell paradigm.

And so I talked to Mike Hysall about this. Mike Hysall rejects that idea, but he told me that the hardliners, the far -right side of the spectrum, they believe in a binary heaven and hell only.

And so if that's Caleb's view, then that makes sense that he doesn't see the physicality, you know, mattering, because we would say we, even though we die physically, we will be raised physically one day to rule with Christ forever.

So any thoughts out there? I got one more clip, so we'll probably start winding it down briefly.

Can't see y 'all's side chats on my second computer. Hopefully y 'all are behaving. We got some mods out there.

Got some mods. Paul Day weighs in and says he literally can't grasp the pointedness of your question due to his bias.

That's... Paul, this was not a debate. He had his few talking points.

It was highly emotionally charged, even to the point of crossing the line and talking about someone else's kid and putting it on the screen.

So he just, he had an axe to grind there. He could not engage with my arguments.

I would love, listen, I would love to debate both, two on one, Johnny and Caleb, in an actual debate with a moderator where I can ask them pointed questions and they can't run away.

I don't think they will on two accounts. Number one, they can't. I just, after experiencing this with Caleb, he can't do it, and if he didn't manipulate the footage of our interview, go watch his eyes open when

I explain things that he's never heard before. What was the other thing?

Yeah, I'm just convinced that they, oh, I know what it was, so I don't think they could, and they know it.

They can't really debate me. And number two, oh,

I just lost it again. It'll come back to me.

All right, good point, Paul. All right, thank y 'all.

In the side chat, like I said, we are going to be winding down. All right, last clip,

I believe. Okay, you're on, what does the Bible say? Yeah, my question is to Jeremiah right there.

You brought up Ephesians 2 -3 a few times. There's three different Greek words that we use to define what nature is.

Paul used phoushi right there, which is actual habit -forming, so why do you believe that we are born into sin when in Ephesians 2 -3, the phoushi there, according to Thayer, is habit -forming, which means that it's something that you actually do and are conscious of doing.

Thank you. Great question. You didn't quote the full definition of Thayer's. It says a mode of action, so that mode is set on a trajectory from birth, and that habit of sin is demonstrated to the world.

And so the caller is doing what Caleb would do earlier, is saying that if you do something by habit enough, then you can actually change your nature.

And it's absurd because if you do something like quack like a duck or bark like a dog enough, you don't change your nature by what you do.

Jesus said a bad tree produces bad fruit, but in the Church of Christ theology, the restorationist movement, going all the way back to Pelagius, what

I'm hearing is where you're born innocent and pure, and based on your disobedience, then you can fundamentally change your nature.

And so that's not what Paul's getting at. You have to deal with the three words. That is technon, phoushi, orgas.

You can't just deal with one and not the full context. And so by birth of two parents, you receive the condemnation or wrath of God.

I remembered what I was gonna say a moment ago. Thank you RJ out there. Thanks for the support man.

By the way, that's my Greek teacher out there. I'm falling a little bit behind on our

Greek homework. Forgive me. We have Greek in the morning at 6 a .m. Oh, it's coming real fast.

But I don't think Caleb will debate me again. Number one, because he can't. I think that he knows there's gonna be too much sauce of me pressing him in a cross -examination, and he don't want that.

Also, I've heard Caleb say, this is what I couldn't think a moment ago to say, but in his mind, he destroyed the apologetic dog on total depravity, and he reminded everyone that all

Calvinists believe that all babies are going to hell that die in infancy, blah blah blah blah blah. And so in his mind, he's gonna say that, well, we already disproved the

T, total depravity, and since we already defeated the T, then all the rest fall as well.

And my comeback to that is, dude, we never debated the T. We never debated total depravity, so you can't say that.

But you watch. Just so you know, I would love to actually debate Caleb. We can, oh man, can you imagine if Caleb would debate me on baptism?

No, no, no. Wouldn't happen, but I would do it in a heartbeat if we could have a moderator, and we can do truly a cross -examination.

Okay, back to Carl. Now this was Carl that called in, and what'd you say in the side chat?

Carl said, what did you say you sounded like? See, me and Carl, we have a friendship, and Carl, I truly think you and I would have had a better respectful debate than the dumpster fire that that Caleb presented towards me.

So this is actually the best question I thought that was asked all night, and it was from Carl.

Now I'm trying to think how I want to bring this up. So I had a slide addressing the very point that Carl is talking about.

Okay, so we're talking about the the word nature, which could be translated birth, fuci, fucis, depending on the context.

Okay, so this is, it's not three Greek words, it's three different definitions.

I know what you meant, Carl. And so his point was, Jeremiah, this definition that Thayer's gives for Ephesians 2 verse 3.

Now what, now I corrected Carl on it. He says it's a habit that you do, that you're cognizantly aware of doing.

Now you noticed, now to Carl's credit, he's asking a really good exegetical question with Ephesians 2 verse 3, and something that Caleb, I would have loved to engage with.

Now this is the full definition, and I was able to address it briefly, but there's more of an entry here that I was prepared to talk about.

Now notice this definition says a mode, a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature.

Now it's important to include the full definition here because it says a mode of feeling, or a mode of feeling and acting.

So notice what I said to Carl on the phone was, this is a mode from birth.

You have to deal with technon, fuci, orges, and so technon really makes that case that this is children born of offspring as reproduced to parents.

That's why Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ are an exception to this rule. And so you can't escape this talking about fundamentally what man is, so it's a mode.

And when it says, Carl you're gonna like this, when it says which by long habit has become nature,

I would argue that this is a secondhand nature that has become more and more debased over time,

Romans 1 style, for the whole world to see. So this nature, which was a mode from birth, is now being apparent for all to see.

Now Carl, this is what the rest of Thayer says, and I don't think this is compatible with Church of Christ theology.

Now hopefully y 'all can see on the screen, this is talking about the phrase in Ephesians 2 verse 3, by our depraved, already on our side, depraved nature, we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2 verse 3, this meaning is evident from the preceding context and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace.

And so the Church of Christ have to wave the hand and just say, well change of heart, it's just a metaphor, that means your obedience to a five -step formula.

Notice the contrast of the first three verses of Ephesians 2 with verses 4 and 5, it's a chiasm, right?

It's showing us, but God miraculously, by his grace, makes us alive together with Christ.

This is what it means to become a new creature. Your nature has to change, you have to go from death to life spiritually.

And that's why when we point to Lazarus in the tomb, that is a vivid picture of how Christ in his grace saves us.

This is a picture of Saul on the road persecuting the church,

Christ intervenes his life and radically turns him around.

And I'm saying that's Paul's argument here in Ephesians chapter 2 verse 3, and notice

I set this up a long early part in the debate. I tried to make this point,

Carl, maybe you appreciate the gist kind of behind it, but I kept saying, if Caleb barks like a dog or quacks like a duck, does he then become a dog or does he become a duck?

No. Well the point is, your habit, the things you do, doesn't fundamentally change who you are.

And so that's why when you're looking at Thayer's, you have to look at the whole entry. You have to consider what

Thayer's means by mode, what it means by depraved nature, and that we need a changed heart that's wrought through Christ by the divine blessing on our behalf.

And here's another thing, I don't ever want to pit Thayer's and BDAG against each other. These are wonderful, lexicographers, lexicons that have been profitable over time.

And so we're allowed to check the lexicons and say, well I think it'd be more precise here, because here's a biblical argument that's being made.

And so BDAG, which I would say is kind of more of the top -tier resource that we look at, it's not ambiguous of what

Paul is communicating according to BDAG. This is talking about Fousey, condition or circumstance as determined by birth, natural endowment, condition, nature.

And the full entry goes in to say, we were in our natural condition as descendants of Adam's, subject to God's wrath.

So I think Thayer's and BDAG are saying the same thing. Okay. Well, that is pretty much all

I had prepared for this evening. Hope you can hear the spirit that I'm addressing these things.

I don't hate Caleb, don't hate Johnny. I pray that God would save them by God's amazing grace one day, that they might look to Jesus Christ alone in faith, apart from their works, apart from their baptism, that they would look to Christ.

And so unfortunately I don't think an actual debate happened. Like I said, I think you had one side doing just a rally cry, and you saw me trying to make it a debate, trying to address

Caleb's argumentation, and trying to show people it's not what I believe, misrepresentation. Go back and watch this for yourself.

Carl messaged me and said, man, Caleb's tough. And I'm like, yeah, tough at getting him to answer my questions.

And I mean this, I think Carl would have done a better job. We could have had that debate on TikTok, and a lot more people would have benefited from it.

So with that being said, does anybody else have any last things?

I still have a drink of coffee or so that you would like for me to to talk about. See, Carl says

BDAG doesn't disagree with their... you're right, they're saying the same thing. Paul Day says, if conversion is only the removal of sins by Christ's blood, that by itself is miraculous, as nothing can remove the stain of sin except the blood of God.

If he can't omit that, that speaks volumes. Appreciate that. Okay, we are winding down.

Y 'all like this, what was it, two hours, 15 -ish minute live stream? I would love to do more of these.

Please support the Apologetics Ministry, the Apologetic Dog. You can go to theapologeticdog,

I think it's .com, where you can support, hopefully financially if the Lord lays that on your heart, but you can always pray for me.

I felt your prayers this past Sunday night. It was very tough. I remember having my son talked about, his picture put on screen, definitely hurt my heart.

It hurt the babe of all babes' heart out there. We've prayed about it, we've given that to the

Lord, and we know that he will make all things new.

God redeems the time, he will use this for his glory, and the gospel of grace was preached.

So praise be to God. With that said, we all need some Grandma's Church, don't we?

So again, one body, which is the body, his body, which is his church, the

Church of Christ. I mean, man, if you just had some little bit of common sense, you'd think he drove by these denominations where it says

Grandma's Church, Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Life Church, I mean, he drove an hour and 20 minutes here, and they act like they give

God the glory and Jesus the love. I mean, Grandma's Church, Baptist Church, Presbyterian Church, Church of Christ, same thing, again, they deny redemption.