Debate Review w/ David Louis @apologeticsfromtheattic7131

Debate Review of the Free Will Debate

Apologetics from the Attic, the show that seeks to teach and defend the Christian faith in a post-Christian culture. And now, broadcasting from an attic, in an undisclosed location somewhere outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, here is your host, Dave Lewis.

Hey, good evening everyone, it's Dave Lewis here, Apologetics from the Attic, and we have a special episode for you today. We are going to do a debate review, and we're going to bring Jeremiah on right away, without further ado, and get this thing started.

What's up, Jeremiah?

Hi, thanks for having me on.

Yeah, man.

I can feel that I'm in the attic as we speak.

Yes, you're in the attic, and it's like 95 degrees up here, and if I run the air conditioner, it'll be too hot. So I just have to deal with it, but praise the Lord.

So God is good. Hi, thanks for having me on.

Yeah, man. Thanks for coming on. So why don't you introduce yourself to the audience, and those who will be listening in the future, and tell them who you are and what you do.

Absolutely.

My name is Jeremiah Nortier. I serve as pastor and elder at 12 .5 Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. 12 .5 comes from Romans 12, verse 5, that just basically says, though we are individually one of another, we are one together in the body of Christ, and so we're a church plant of about three years coming up in September, and David, my heart has just been blessed being able to serve in this body with pastor and co-elder Nathan Hargrave.

And so one thing that I've been also blessed to be able to do is to do apologetics within the local church, and so I have a YouTube account. I'd love for anybody to go over there and check out other content at The Apologetic Dog, and people are like, why a dog?

And I'm like, well, the dog represents a guard dog, and embedded in the logo, you can see 1 Timothy 6 .20 that begins by saying, Oh, Timothy, Paul says, guard the deposit entrusted to you. So we're guarding the gospel of grace, and the rest of verse talks about how we stand on true knowledge, not false knowledge that possesses contradictions, and so the truth will vindicate itself, and we do that by standing on the word of God.

So if people want to check out more of my apologetics ministry and content, please flow over to my YouTube channel, and David, I have a website now, and so it's not super fancy, but it's a way that people, if they want to go support, there are ways of doing that over there as well.

Amen.

That's great, man. And I remember in the debate at one point, I forget what part you talked about trying to muzzle the dog. He was trying to muzzle the dog. You remember that part?

Yes. You know why I said that? Because do you know the name Sam Shimon?

Yeah, sure.

So he did not like my debate where I was just like, hey, Mary, the mother of Jesus was a sinner in need of grace like the rest of us, and he's just like, you're a dog, and I'm going to muzzle you. And I'm like, I kind of like the ring to that.

I was like, I'm definitely going to. I'm good friends with Tim Bouchon. So he made the Radio Free Geneva intro to Dr. White's Dividing Line, and so he's going to help me make something, and I'm just going to have a lot of soundbites like that.

Oh, yeah, that'll be one of them. Yeah, like the Radio Free Geneva theme. Yeah, that'd be great. Yeah, you got to have enough enemies like Dr. White has to make that.

That's true.

Hey, they're starting to accumulate over time.

That's good, man. So for everyone who doesn't know what we're doing, Jeremiah debated A .K. Richardson. I hope A .K. tunes in and jumps in the comments. I tagged him on stuff, and he knows this is going on.

Oh, yeah.

I'm sure he has some ongoing questions for me. I watched his debate review the other night, and I loved it.

Yeah.

He let me on there for, you know, 20. And A .K., if you're listening, you edited my phone call. You didn't play the whole context, the whole phone call.

Oh, got him.

But it was fine. It was cool. So it was just called the Free Will Debate, and I thought what we could do is we could just review the debate, and I have a whole bunch of time stamps in front of me and just go through some of his points and just go back and forth, and then anyone that's watching, you know, I'm not.

I'm not super hardcore live streamer here, Jeremiah, just so you know.

I will say we'll be lucky.

We'll be lucky to get 10 people.

You have an incredible backdrop.

I'm kind of jealous of all that going on back there.

Yeah.

Like those bus. Let's see that.

Augustin.

We hear Calvin bus above my head.

That green commentary. Is that Owen?

No, that's Spurgeon. Those are Spurgeon.

Spurgeon.

We have that.

No, no, no. You're talking about the white and green.

The other corner.

That one. Those ones are Spurgeon. Yeah, that's John Owen's complete work there.

We got we got some Spurgeon and stuff in our this. This is where we do our service. So I just kind of set up studio right in front. But I love it. That's legit.

That's that's like you're that's like your stage where you do everything from. I like that. I like that setup. All right. So I want to read a quote real quick. Because this is from Schaff, History of the Christian Church.

And it's on the Pelagian controversy. But I just want to read this to set the stage. So he's just he just starts contrasting Augustin and Pelagius, right? The soul of the Pelagian system is human freedom.

The soul of the Augustinian is divine grace. Pelagius starts from the natural man and works up by his own exertions to righteousness and holiness. Augustine despairs of the moral sufficiency of man and derives the new life and all power for good from the creative grace of God.

The one system proceeds from the liberty of choice to legalistic piety. The other from the bondage of sin to the evangelical liberty of the children of God. To the former, Christ is merely a teacher and example and grace and external auxiliary to the development of the native powers of man.

To the latter, he is also priest and king and grace and creative principle, which begets, nourishes and consummates a new life. The former makes regeneration and conversion a gradual process of the strengthening and perfecting of human virtue.

The latter makes it a complete transformation in which the old disappears and all becomes new. The one loves to admire the dignity and strength of man. The other loses itself in the adoration of the glory and the omnipotence of God.

The one flatters natural pride. The other is a gospel for penitent publicans and sinners. Pelagianism begins with self-exaltation and ends with the sense of self-deception and impotency. Augustinianism casts man first into the dust of humiliation and despair in order to lift him up on the wings of grace to supernatural strength and leads him through the hell of self-knowledge up to the heaven of the knowledge of God.

The Pelagian system is clear, sober and intelligible, but superficial. The Augustinian sounds the depth of knowledge and experience and renders reverential homage to mystery. The former is grounded upon the philosophy of common sense.

This is why I wanted to read that, because AK kept saying, it's irrational, it's irrational, it's all irrational, which is indispensable for ordinary life, but has no perception of divine things. The latter is grounded upon the philosophy of the regenerate reason, which breaks through the limits of nature and penetrates the depths of divine revelation.

The former starts with the preposition intellectus precedet fightum. The latter with the opposite maxim fightus precedet intellectum. So intellect precedes faith or faith precedes intellect. Both make use of scripture, the one, however, conforming to them to reason, the other subjecting reason to them.

I could keep going on and on. And actually, this has become one of my favorite authors, like legit, Philip Schaaf. This is how he writes, like in this whole church history volume, it's unbelievable.

Excellent.

But I just wanted to say that part, because I think that, because the way I want to set this up is there's two layers to this debate, and the way I define it is looking at this issue from the top down and looking at it from the ground up.

And there's no question that looking at it from the top down, where you have to use philosophy in certain categories to try to understand it, like the categorical ability, like you were talking about and that kind of stuff, which AK in his debate review was basically like, well, nobody understood anything he was saying.

I'm like, that's a little that's a little I don't think it was.

They act like I was making these things up out of thin air.

Yeah. Yeah. And you weren't. Oh, AK's on.

Yes. AK's in the building. Round two, baby.

Oh, AK, you got to get a better picture on there, bro, with your beard, bro. What do you what do you what's going on? Oh, wow. He's he's already blowing up the chat. Oh, my God. But he's already talking about the edited part.

I don't think he took that as a joke. Yes. By edited, I chose a portion that was a good session. I'm sorry, AK, I was I was messing with you. I was a joke. What were we saying? OK, let's just go back to ground up versus.

Oh, yeah, that part. OK, yeah. So the the top down part. OK, like a guy like Tim Stratton, you know, I'm saying like a Molinist and he's got he's got his opinions on stuff. But as far as I know, but that's the problem with these type of guys are late.

And like, I never hear them do episodes on like, what is the gospel? It's just always about attacking Calvinism. Right. But I'm assuming that those guys and AK would be included in this, that we agree on the gospel.

But I want to show people that this issue coming from the ground up. If you don't get it right, it destroys the gospel eventually. Yep. It destroys the gospel. And you kind of were getting at that when you were.

I wish you would have had more time to hammer him on the principle of alternate possibilities thing. You like that alternate possibilities? And I call that the ought equals can fallacy to help people understand it.

It means if the Bible says you ought to do something, that means you should have the ability to do it. Mm hmm. And if you go down that road, you blow up the whole point of the press and Reformation, which was Luther.

There was a guy in the Bible he ought to do, but he couldn't do it.

Right. AK is OK with doing. And like I'm just saying, like he's OK with abandoning church history to a degree like I want to be charitable. But I'm going to say a few things more in our episode that out that I was very I didn't want to bring out in the debate.

But I know a case deeper presuppositions being Church of Christ. Yeah. And I told him we wouldn't market it as a Church of Christ debate with the Baptists. Now, he didn't care making it about a Calvinist debate.

And I thought, you know, I thought we were going to represent ourselves. But I'm like, I'm OK. Like, it is what it is. And I want myself to explain to people what I mean. But Church of Christ are Pelagians.

And so that's why I knew I was going to get him on original sin. I was I was going to make people at least question like he's not giving a clear answer if he affirms original sin. And I I defined original sin not as total depravity, but as the impossibility of obeying God's law perfectly.

Even Layton Flowers, Tim Stratton, those guys are orthodox enough to say we affirm original sin the way that the church has always defined it. Now, full on Pelagians, in order to be consistent with ought equals can, then man possibly can live a sinless life.

Pelagius said that origin going back further said man can sin in heaven. Well, in order to retain libertarian free will, this categorical ability, you got to be consistent. And that's a tall order that does contradict many scriptures.

So we're just saying it's not going to work. And what I was trying to also explain to people is Jesus did not prove that it was possible to obey the law perfectly. He was the only one who could do it.

And so like you're getting at, these have gospel ramifications.

This conversation. Yes, absolutely. That's exactly my point. And I remember I was on Layton Layton Flowers show. I need to get Layton used to let me on his show all the time.

Really? Back in the day. Yeah.

I'm hoping one day I'm a Calvinist that he likes.

And well, hey, man, I can I can actually text him. He gave me his actual number. That's but I remember asking him one time, is it possible to not sin? And he like hesitates to say no. Like he's like, well, you know, it's they'll say it's feasible, but it's not practically going to happen because we live in a sinful world, like because they know, like if they say no, it's it's impossible to not sin.

Then now you're getting into, well, why is that? Yep. Well, you know, because well, anyway, I want to get into some because I'll at least admit this in his review, he barely got to any actual footage of the debate.

So I want to beat him and say we got through way more footage than he did. So let's start at this. This is in his opening when he defines what will what the will is. Right. So in the chat, please let me know if you can't hear.

But I think we're set up to hear. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. OK, that's it. I that is way to surface of a definition of the will.

What is it looking at the chat?

Wait a minute, let me put the let me put the screen on. Let me share the screen real quick. You know what? Did you hear that? I don't think anybody heard it. I got to go back. OK, so you play because I didn't even have the thing shared.

Oh, my gosh. Oh, there we go.

I'm seeing something loading now.

OK, yeah. OK, no, hold on. Let me go back. All right, now they should be able to definitions.

OK, so the will we talk about the will of man. What is the will? Pretty simply, it is the power of the mind to choose.

OK, we're stopping there. So his definition of the will is the power of the mind. To choose. OK, my first problem with this. There are several other constituent parts of a human being that more than the will in the mind and the other two constituent parts to make it very simple, is the heart or the desires and the nature.

Mm hmm. OK, so I could go through all the Greek words, but there's four very distinct Greek words that describe all four of those parts. And even our classical Armenian friends would agree with me. Agree with us on this, that there are deeper issues going on in the human being that determine what the will does other than the mind.

Actually, this is the formula. This is Philip Melancthon. So who was with Luther in the Reformation? Philip Melancthon said this. He said what the heart desires, the will chooses, and then the mind rationalizes.

Yeah, he's talking about David.

We're not animals. We're not determined by our desires. A .K. would say. Yeah. And when I was talking about will the moment of choice, I'm saying, yeah, because reasons determine our desires and our choices.

And I would say reasons also touch the heart of man. Yeah. And so we're going to get more into this. But I loved his analogy that does not work with fasting because he because we're not denying that there's conflicting desires.

We're not denying that there's conflicting reasons. And he says, see, that doesn't therefore determine your choice. And we're saying, no, one breaks through. Why? Why do you not eat? Because the reason for fasting is stronger.

And that's what we would call a formal cause of our deliberation. Now, that's just the broken feature in his own system, because I don't want to jump too far ahead, but I want to bring. I don't know if I can bring more clarity to the distinctions between categorical and conditional ability.

Like I said, it doesn't originate with me, but there's a broken feature. When someone just asserts the necessity of categorical ability, you can't answer the why questions. You can't. So we'll get more into that.

Yeah, because because I mean, so I'm understanding your distinction between categorical ability, categorical ability. The term categorical means it's just only one thing, one. One, you know, there can be no distinctions.

So the one thing is you have to be able to choose a or b.

Equally. All things being equal. And check this out. Categorical ability is libertarian free will. Yeah. Now, I was being very strategic using categories, thinking AK probably doesn't know because I didn't want to give him the satisfaction of formulating a question simplistically.

And especially in his first question about First Corinthians 1013, because he thought he had a silver bullet. But what he's doing is he's assuming his position and he'll say, I wasn't assuming, but I was presupposing libertarian free will.

I'm like, this is not going to go down. How you think? Because every time we see ability, he's assuming libertarian categorical ability. And so you notice that always said no. Like I answer this question and then I would just qualify it with man doesn't have categorical ability.

And so I'm starting to rationalize his faulty question. And that's why we spent, David, 18 minutes on one question. He broke his own rule. And I was like, I was thinking I can go all day. I will explain a nuance every single time you ask the same question.

Yeah. Well, I have a really good analogy to explain categorical. What's the other ability? Conditional. See, that tells you how good I am on the philosophical side. I mean, I know the stuff enough to track it, but it's OK.

I'm more familiar with Jonathan Edwards, the natural ability versus the moral ability. Perfect. Which I think is a similar idea. But here's here's how I explain this to people. Imagine you walk up to a like a cafeteria style buffet, right?

And there's two options. Option one is surf and turf. And it's like this great steak and lobster, right? Option two is a vat of dog diarrhea. It's bubbling and it's nasty and disgusting, right now. Do you have the ability.

To choose either one of those options? Yes and no. Correct. OK. Yes, in the sense of and I think you could call this categorical ability. You could choose either the dog diarrhea. Or the surf and turf, like you have the ability in the sense of you could pick up the plate, you could walk up to the server and you could say, please put the dog diarrhea on my plate.

Right. Or put the surf and turf. OK, so in that sense, that's what Edwards would call natural ability. Absolutely. You don't have a defect that somehow prevents you from making that choice. Right. But everyone remember Fear Factor with Joe Rogan?

Remember, people would be offered, which I would do this, by the way. You offer me $50 ,000. I'll try to eat anything you put in front of me. OK, anything. OK, I can keep it as long as it's not going to kill me.

You know, anyway. So remember, Fear Factor, there was stuff that they just couldn't eat. As soon as you put it to your mouth, you would puke. Right. As soon as you smelled it. Right. So in what sense do we not have the ability to make one choice over the other because of our nature?

Can I chime in real quick, David? Yeah. So and I love the scenario you painted, because this would not be categorical ability, categorical ability says all things being equal. I can choose A or B. So what you do is you run a scenario and say, OK, I can choose A.

That's categorical ability. You run the same case scenario and say, I could choose B. But here's the thing. When we ask the deeper question, because we're made in God's image, why? They can't stay with categorical ability.

They have to fall on to what we would all say is conditional ability. Well, because I had a reason for going against my desire to win $50 ,000 in Fear Factor. And so you've left any true reason to try to fall back on categorical ability.

You've fallen on what's conditioned. And what's conditioned is there's a chain of sequence. There's a chain of cause and effect. You have efficient cause, which as reformers we say is God. But man can formally deliberate, compare and contrast reasons, influences, our desires, a determining factor, and then we can materialize a choice and then produce a final cause.

And so even in the scenario you're painting, all that is conditional because we don't assume the irrationality of positing a libertarian categorical ability that is not explanatory. It just asserts all things being equal at the moment of choice.

I can choose A or B. So I have I have another analogy of how to explain categorical versus conditional if you want me to give it a crack.

Well, let me let me bring this up, because a case asking a good question. Who determines your nature?

OK, so I love on his program. Always ask the Calvinist who determines. So you got to think what's built in in compatibilism is an either or fallacy, because if we say God ultimately, if efficiently determines all things, well, then then they will say, then you didn't determine.

And the whole the whole premise of compatibilism is, no, it's rational that I choose and God ultimately determines our nature, our thoughts, desires, everything. And they say, ha ha, that doesn't make sense.

And we're over here like show us the logical contradiction because we don't see it. And so but here's where it would be a logical contradiction. And I don't think AK grasped this. And that's OK. We're ever learning simple referenda.

But if we deliberated, made choices identically the same as God, there is a contradiction because the way that we would make someone else choose to do something would be by force, coercion, manipulation, and we'd be wrong for it.

And so when we make the necessary distinction with God, we're saying the way that God interacts with his creation by sustaining the universe by the word of his power, it's different. It's of a different kind.

Can we use human language to try to talk about a truth that transcends our reality? Absolutely. We're going to get into anthropomorphism and analogical language. Man, I had this in the back pocket, the drop on AK and his head would have spun again.

That's OK. We'll get into that. So, yeah, I love I want to tell people if the Armenian Pelagian says, well, who determines your nature? Ask him, are you talking about ultimately or conditionally? And then watch him look at you like you're making up stuff.

And it's like, hey, these categories matter because I refuse to assume the faulty premises of your world view. And so that's why AK didn't get the sting that he wanted in asking his question, because I was going to make him define terms.

And I listened to his debate review. He totally misrepresented what I said. He said, see, Jeremiah said that you can conditionally choose against what God predetermines. I never said that. Go back and watch.

It just showed me he didn't understand. And I'm OK with that, because, David, I had some people said, Jeremiah, I wasn't really quite getting what you were saying. And I just I understand the nature of a debate.

You can't always speak on that level that everybody's going to understand, because I know AK is. Well, I'm going to speak a level above that and make him run in circles trying to figure out where he's at.

And that's just the nature of it. Sometimes if you go watch the James White debate or William Lane Craig, you're going to be introduced to new ideas and God willing, go look into those things and learn and grow.

So AK did exactly what I thought. It just worked out even better because I knew it was going to take me about 10 minutes to explain to him the difference between categorical and conditional. But, David, it went 18 minutes and we were just on repeat mode.

And I know that I can do this all day. I still got more bullets left in the chamber if he wants me to keep explaining these categories.

Well, let me throw a comment up here, because you said that the plaguing Armenian will say you're just making stuff up.

Well, here.

They are artificial, extra biblical, philosophical concepts.

Oh, like libertarian free will that your boy defended.

Yeah. Or or here's the other thing I bring up, though. So are you a Trinitarian? I would ask this individual.

This is a philosopher. He's Church of Christ. So a lot of Christ will say, I'm not Trinitarian. I believe in the Godhead the way the King James Bible says.

OK, so if they're saying that, because my point is the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed is an extra biblical philosophical concept that was used to define the doctrine of the Trinity against heretics.

So that's that. So this is just pure fundamentalist biblicism. Yeah, but it's self-deceptive. Well, we're not using any extra biblical philosophical concepts. Yes, you are. That's how you interpret reality.

And that's how you interpret the Bible. You have to use other words or you just sit there and read the Bible, right? Just sit there and read your Bible to us in the debate. And you won the debate. No, you're actually explaining the Bible in words that aren't from the Bible.

You know, David, I want to give AK props because AK is not like that now. AK, with all the love of my heart, he doesn't understand compatibilism. Now I will give him he understands the five points of Tulip.

He doesn't understand compatibilism. But AK will not reason like this. This fellow here, he is one of my biggest haters on my channel.

And I love it.

It only fuels the tank, maybe. But AK doesn't reason like that.

All right. So let me let me let me say how. So I think we complement each other well, because you're you see, you're better at the philosophical, which I think is totally legitimate to understand this topic.

I'm doing more of the ground up approach, like I said at the beginning. So here's how I would answer this question. Who determines your nature, AK? Adam.

Mm, I like it.

Adam determines your nature. And he denies that.

But who determined Adam's nature?

OK, well, OK, well, that's that's that's that's a legitimate question. But we're we're post fall. Sorry, we're post fall. We can't go back. The fall has happened, OK? And our nature is determined by our birth.

That's why we need to be born again. OK, Jesus said in John three, that which is of the flesh only can do what the flesh can do, that who is of the spirit can only do what the spirit can do.

That's what I say. We're not animals. No, so that's what I would say is we're not animals. Our desire does not determine our nature. Hey, David, I've listened to over 20 hours of a case content leading up to this, but I felt like I knew him.

I just when he said one thing, I knew what I would want to say in exchange. Like when he brought up everything in his debate, I just thought, oh, yeah, we're in for a showdown tonight.

All right, let's let's let's let's listen to some of this so we can say that we actually reviewed the debate. All right. OK, because we're already 30 minutes in. All right.

OK, but what about libertarian free will? Now, I will argue in this debate that libertarian free will is just a fancy way of saying real free will. I will argue that if it's not libertarian free will, it's not really free in any meaningful sense.

But a definition would be that it is the ability to choose without prior or external causal determination. In other words, your choices are ultimately up to you so that you are the ultimate chooser. Nothing outside of you is necessitating your your choices now.

Right. So what do you say to that?

Yeah, I like his definition because it's getting into so this this is categorical ability. All things being equal. Right. At the moment of choice, you can choose a or not a or we could say a or b. The problem is when we ask, why did you choose a or b?

He's likely going to say, well, because the chooser chose a. And then I'm like, OK, let me back it up on this. Why did the chooser choose a or not a? Well, what he has to do because we're talking about rationality is he has to fall back on the conditional ability.

Well, because of influences, reasons and desires. And we're saying, aha, that's all that's sufficient for moral reason. But he's left libertarianism. So I'm just saying there's a feature within libertarian free will that's irrational.

And this is the thing. He says that that's the intuitive position. The intuitive position is people choose to do things because of reasons. That's that's what's rational. That's conditional. And that's going to fit into the divine determinism paradigm easily.

And so when they just say, well, who determined your nature? Who determined your choices? We're going to say ultimately, God, but that's compatible with us deliberating and choosing according to our desires, wants, influences and all the rest.

And so you got to we I will say this. We have a burden of proof and I am totally OK. I just want to encourage people. Think about how God chooses is different than how man chooses. And if you hold this creator creation distinction with every major doctrine as you're reading scripture, there's no contradiction.

And so I want to.

Yeah, that's huge. Yeah, that's huge. James White will say we have creaturely freedom.

That's fine.

That's like you just have to start with that premise. Yep. Even the freedom we have, if you want to talk about the category of freedom for for humanity is categorically, fundamentally 100 percent different than God's freedom.

Yes. Now, check this out. I do want to say I know we got some more to review, but to me, we're a K is in fairy tale land. I'm not trying to be mean saying this is when he says God reacts to man. Well, you have a wrong view of God and you have a wrong view of man.

If you think God reacts to the creature now, that's important for his position because he needs man, all things being equal at the moment of choice to be able to choose A or B, apart from reasons, apart from who God is.

There's just an irrationality there because God is absolute. And so when he goes to the the Potter passage, all these things, this is this to me, this is literally anthropomorphic. Right. I mean, we're bringing God down to be a potter over clay.

You know what I mean? And so I'm going to wait. I'm going to explain to AK what analogical knowledge language is because it's a little bit different than anthropomorphism, but we have different layers of human language.

And the most didactic language is still analogical.

Yeah. And then my my ground up comment on this is, do we have the ability to choose without prior or external causal determination the ability to keep God's law? Hmm. As centers.

Got him.

Because that's where that's where this becomes a gospel issue.

Yeah. Yeah.

Because the inconsistency goes, OK, so if you in his position, he has to say yes or the whole thing collapses. Well, yes, of course we can keep God's law. And he won't because if he's because he knows if he says no.

Then there's a thing causing him to not be able to make a choice. Yep. Which is to be sinless or, you know, which is that's why that's why he needs.

To just say, yes, it's possible, highly unlikely, even in heaven in the glorified state, which is plenty of scriptures that tell us that there will be no unclean thing. There will be no wickedness in glory.

But in order to retain libertarian categorical ability, you have to be consistent and say, well, the possibility is there.

Yeah. John Frame has a really good couple of pages on that. And his one systematic theology relays that out. Well, OK, I like a cake. OK, I wanted to get to this. Thank you for bringing it up. First Corinthians 1013 is about regenerate believers.

That's all I have to say. He keeps using that passage. And by the way, that's Tim Stratton's like a K -47 silver bullets passage. Like he goes on and on and on about first like for Tim. First Corinthians 1013 just ends everybody like it's you.