Total Depravity Debate After Show, 4/4/2024. Slick v. Hink

Come on, you get in there, good, now we're live. It'll take a little bit for it to propagate into Rumble so I can then put the link information up out of the

Rumble thing as well. Oh, there we go, so that's nice. And almost there, almost got that.

Yeah, I'm working it, I'm working it. And go to, almost done with everything, so hopefully people can find this stuff.

And there's already people in here from YouTube. Good, good, and I'm gonna do the, right now, start, which is 8, 20, oh man, p .m.

to let's just say 10, 20 p .m.

And today's date, which is the 4th, 4th.

Okay, and then, okay, publish.

It took me that long to get everything set up. All right, there we go, okay, now what do you wanna do?

Anybody have any comments or questions? You wanna come in here and blab, if you do, excuse me.

Here's a link to come in here if you wanna talk. All right, there it is, okay,

Swarovski lady, good. All right, Massac Bible Study, Total Improvement. Why is that like that April 4th?

Oh, yeah, I'm gonna fix that. Bible Study's coming up, yeah,

I'm gonna fix that. Okay, hey, Bill, how you doing, buddy? I'm doing well, how about you?

That was a good debate. Yeah, I thought so. Yeah, very friendly. Yep, I thought so, and yeah, yep, leave it at that, yep.

All right, I'm looking for stuff inside of something.

Okay, nevermind. Do you think the ages in Genesis could clan ages and not a specific person's age?

I don't understand that question. Actually stole that joke from someone with joke. I about died when you called

Warren idle cuddler. Oh, that's funny, all right.

Well, let's give me some comments, you guys. You know, we can just do this for a little while. Tell me what you think, we can do it, okay.

Trying to fix the calendar on something here. So I think the ages in Genesis could,

I don't get that. How can someone be born from above reject effectual grace? Well, the doctrine of it or the action of it?

They couldn't reject the action, but they could reject the doctrine because they're just not informed. Hey, Fred Beal, you wanna come in, buddy?

Here's the link again, if you wanna come in. How does one believe who doesn't want to?

Yeah, well, thanks for Ruski. Yeah, that was, I think Acts nine, it really just puts a stop to a lot of the people who don't like this idea of total depravity, free will, all this stuff.

You know, God's a gentleman, he won't do that. Yeah, he will, he'll make you believe he can do it. He does it with Paul and compatibilist free will is established by Jesus.

No, he was actually that long, AB, because the genetic line was really pure and he was close to it.

The older we get, the worse it gets. In fact, there's an article, a concept called genetic entropy.

And I read an article from a journal of some place, they're theorizing that the human genome will become ineffective, incapable of reproduction in like 200 to 230 generations, because the genes are becoming more and more screwed up with each passing generation.

That's a serious problem. There's a certain rate of genetic, oh, what did they say?

A certain rate of genetic decay, there's another word for it, where it, anyway,

I'll just use the word decay. There's an apparent steady rate. And so how far back in time can you go that says that the rate was pure?

I don't know that answer, but it goes in the future. They said 200 or so generations. Now, my question is about Romans 14, 23, principle behind whatever is not of faith is sin is applied to the unredeeming sinner who has not received faith, therefore everything they do is sin.

Yes, I would think that's a good application of that. I thought of that, I didn't wanna get too much into it, but yeah,

I would agree. Believe that if someone really understands Calvinism, he'll become a Calvinist.

I, yeah, I think that's pretty good. Most people I've talked to who really understand, don't really understand it and reject it.

So I guess no one's coming in here except for Bill. I got a question.

If one knows that you are chosen by God, can one know they're not chosen by God?

That makes sense. Can someone know they're not chosen of God?

I think they can know after they've died, they can know that. Why not turn to God? But here,

I think it's possible because I remember reading some quotes of things that famous atheists said on their deathbed.

And it's on YouTube, there's a series of quotes. And some of those atheists had said, on their deathbed, it was recorded.

It said, some of them weren't really well known. It said things like, oh my goodness, what have I done my whole life?

Is there no redemption for me? The flames are coming for me. And they die like this.

In fact, there's a famous atheist. Crap. Oh, I hate it when

I can't remember people's names. It's a well -known name, a philosopher from a couple hundred years ago.

I forgot his name. And a Christian woman was tending to him while he was on his deathbed and he was screaming in agony, the flames are coming for me, they're coming.

And she swore she would never tend to someone on her deathbed who was not a

Christian again. And he was screaming, they were coming, they're coming. And yeah.

The question last when you get home, okay. Are all future questions from provisionists going to be or lead directly to, well, that about,

I don't know, about infants, Nietzsche. Oh, no, it was, no, it wasn't

Nietzsche, but good guess. He was the guy who said that within a hundred years of his death,

Christianity would become extinct. And yet within a hundred years, they're preaching, they're printing

Bibles in his home. Let's see.

Who is the guy who said Christianity would be extinct?

See if I can do it in 100 years, but after his death, not

Russell, they were printing Bibles in his,

I hate it when I, you know, I've said his name so many times, Voltaire. Voltaire, yeah.

Okay. So yeah, it was

Voltaire who did that. Yeah, I think provision, I read his book,

Leighton Flower's book on provisionism. And it lacked a serious understanding of the now and the not yet and federal headship.

Absolutely, he just did not get into any, either of those, which answered a lot of his objections and his reasonings, his rationale.

And I just, I was surprised. He's supposed to know his stuff and he didn't even introduce certain concepts that are necessary to understand our position.

Yeah, what about the babies? I'd say, yeah, if God wants to send them to hell, they go to hell. What's the problem with that? That's my response.

If he wants to, they go to hell. If he doesn't, they don't. What, who are you? You're going to give me an emotional argument about babies?

Are you saying they're not guilty? Because are they not in Adam when Adam died? Are they not affected by sin?

The Bible doesn't talk about the answer. It doesn't give us the answer to that question. So if you want to say you imply an answer, this is how it has to be, then you're saying you're giving us information the

Bible doesn't tell us. Why are you doing that? Are you trying to use emotionalism against the doctrine that we're teaching when the

Bible doesn't even give you an answer for your position? Shameful, okay. Okay, amen, humbled clay.

What did he say? Emotionalism, yes. Truly despicable, they don't, that's right. Amen, humbled clay.

We've only got 23 people in here. How many have we got in, let's go over to here.

Let's see if it's going to show. Ah, that's what the calendar thing is.

YouTube, Rumble. Let's see if my link worked. Hey, it worked. Hey, how about that? Seven over in Rumble.

All right, that's good. So not too many people, but that's all right.

Okay, here's a question for you guys. How hostile were they in the chat? Because notice what

I was doing. While I was debating, I was typing to some of the other guys listening. So we just bend over and say all babies go to heaven with no justification.

Yeah, Fred, I agree. I see, I believe all babies go to heaven. I can't prove that's true.

I just believe it. I could be wrong. That's just my position.

That's what I hold to. But I can't. I can't prove that from scripture. Hey, John, how you doing, man?

You still up in that Boise area? If so, we should get together and do lunch or coffee sometime. Hey, we just should.

I miss the debate, but your ugly mother fucked up on the phone. Yeah, that's how you recognize me.

Thanks a lot. I appreciate that. Still here. Well, hey, let's get, let's do lunch sometime.

You got my, I still have your cell. Let's see. Let's see.

Yep. Does it still end in three nine? I hope.

Marlon banned one in chat. Okay. Okay, good. Ah, a bunch of Pelagians on chat.

Yeah, and I said, I didn't call him a Pelagian. I said, that position is called

Pelagianism. Are you familiar with it? And this guy in there goes, oh, you're calling him Dave's.

Like, dude, I didn't say he's Pelagian. If he's holding to that position, then I would, that's a

Pelagian position. You're causing Pelagianism, that's Pelagian. But one,

I guess that means yes. Is having an ugly mug better than being an old trout? Well, I've got both, so I guess so.

So I say to people, my wife was really good looking, you know, compared to me.

She's great looking. I look like a, you know, just a bag of cow patties, you know, and she's a good looking one.

I can show you a picture of her too. She is good looking. Was she predestined to marry you? Oh, that's the only way.

She had to be predestined to marry me because no one else would do it. I mean, that's just a gimme, you know.

Here, here she is, all right. This here, here, check this out, seriously. She's like 50 right there.

So that's her, okay. So let me ask you a question.

If someone denies their original sin, are they a Pelagian? No, I wouldn't say they're, they may have a misunderstanding of what total depravity is.

They may say, no, we're just mostly depraved, you know, like in a Princess Bride, you know, he's mostly dead, just mostly depraved.

And then the solution would be, as they often say, hold on, let me cough. It's a prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is something God gives to people to help them get to that place of believing, which

I think is dumb theology, I think. In fact, the weak theology in our dream, married proves

Calvinism, regarding married, yeah. See, Fred is right because, you know,

God had to predestine my wife to marry me because what sane woman would want to have someone like her like me, who's autistic, who loves to tackle cultists, who will stop the car and go, hey,

Mormons, hold on, be right back. And then I go check them. She's like, oh, here he goes again. And who spends hours on the net talking theology.

I mean, and then, what would you go? Yeah, I want to sign up for that. But it's just not right.

Josh said Matt is a legend, better than being called a relic. Yeah, but what kind of legend, you see?

Legend in your own mind? Legend in my own mind, that's true. I should have you talk to, the guy you sound like, his wife is here for a week, and I should get you,

I should have you, I should go down and get, hey, Barbara, listen to this guy talk. Go ahead,

Bill, and say something. See, does he sound like your hubby? I'm gonna do that right now, so hold on, okay? You ready? Oh.

And I want you to just say, hey, Barbara, how are you doing, whatever it is. And then say, Matt thinks that I sound like your husband, and then see if she agrees, okay?

Because I think you really do, so hold on a sec. I can explain it to her, though. Hey, Barbara, I'm doing an after show right now, and I'm talking to a guy who

I have said over and over, sounds just like Ron. So I got him right here, and I want you to,

I'll give you the headset, and then say hello, and then he'll say, hey, this is the guy who Matt says sounds like Ron.

He can tell me if he does or not, okay? All right. Hello.

This is embarrassing. I guess this is the guy that sounds like Ron? A little bit, sure.

Name isn't Ron, is it? No, Matt's the, with his white.

Hey, Barb. Hi. This is Joanne. Hi, Joanne.

How are you? I'm doing well. I'm glad you're there. Oh, thanks.

Thank you. I'm glad to be here. I know y 'all are gonna have a ball. Yes. We always deal with Nick.

Alrighty, well, nice talking to you two. Tell Nick I said hey. Okay, I will.

All right, thank you. How could you not say he does?

Hold on. Hey, Nick. Hey, Bill, are you there? Yes. Okay, hold on.

I'm gonna do it to my wife. Hello. Yes, he's done this before.

Yeah, with us probably 10 times already. Sound like Ron.

Okay. Okay, you have to say something else. Hello, how are you?

Yeah, nope, bye. No. Okay, so Ron's wife got it wrong and my wife got it wrong.

So there. All right. Okay, I'm coming back up here.

You do. You do sound like him. All right. Well, that was pretty exciting, wasn't it?

All right, so anybody else wanna come in? Hey, Catherine. All right, let's see. Let's get Catherine on the stage. Hey, Catherine, how are you?

Catherine, can you hear me? Catherine. Can you hear me,

Catherine? Catherine. Oh no, I don't have a microphone. Can you hear me?

Catherine with a cat behind you. There's something wrong with my computer. I don't have sound.

I don't know if you can hear me. I can hear you. But I can't hear you. No, I can hear you. So I think

I'll just go back and listen on Facebook. Well, okay.

I can't hear you at all. There's something wrong with my computer. On the bottom. Look at me.

The bottom. Okay. They're gonna say that if you have problems when you come in, that on the bottom of the screen here, it says, has settings.

And you just click on settings. You go to audio and you just put them on your, whatever it is. That's how you do that.

Okay. Sign language to her. Yeah. I guess Matt's not a legend in his own house.

You got that right, Jeff. Oh man, it's hot up in here.

The ladies are downstairs covered up because it's been raining. So it's cold.

And so that causes the furnace to go on and I'm up in this room and the furnace comes on and I have four monitors and a computer and lights.

So it gets warm up here. Okay. All right. What'd you guys think of the debate?

Type stuff in. What'd you think? Sound of my computer has been out all day. I forgot when

I signed in. Then what you do is then you reboot. Okay.

And let's get to Fred. Fred's on. Good. So just reboot. Okay. And John, yeah, give me a text or something and we'll get her to do lunch or something.

Okay. Hey, Fred. Hey. Hey, can I ask a question that's not regarding the debate?

We don't care. Hold up. I'm just curious if you've heard of this because it's pretty interesting.

Have you heard of this? The race to decode an ancient scroll.

No, I haven't. Oh, so you gotta look into this. It's pretty cool. Basically, there's these scrolls and what was that volcano that erupted back in like 78?

Vesuvius or whatever it is. Mount St. Helens? Oh, you mean the year 70 or you mean 1970?

No, no, no. It's like the year 78. You mean whenever it got buried in Italy?

Was it Mount St. Helens? No, no, no. It says back in the first century. I don't remember what it's called.

No, no, no. I'm talking about like 70 AD, 78 AD. Oh, okay.

Okay, let's see. Eruption. What was it? Oops, dang it. It starts with a

P. Pompeii.

Pompeii. Pompeii. Pompeii. Pompeii. So anyway, so when those, when that volcano erupted, and I think it was like 78 or 79, they had all these scrolls there in Rome that got completely covered in ash, essentially.

Vesuvius. So anyway, they look like - The article says Vesuvius. Yeah, they look like this.

Well, there's a bunch of them. There's a whole bunch of these scrolls and they can't open - I found the article. Okay, so yeah, they can't even, they can't open these scrolls up.

Basically, they try to unravel them. They just fall apart. But now they can basically run this thing through a

CT machine. Hold up, my computer's messing up. They can run it through a

CD and they can actually scan each layer. And then they're using AI to interpret the data from the

CT scans. Cool. Which is crazy. So I was wondering,

I wonder if it's possible that there's any biblical manuscripts in there. I know the early church didn't really use scrolls.

So I don't know if it's, there might not even be biblical manuscripts, but it's in the 70s and it's in Rome.

Wouldn't that be something? It's fucking biblical in here. And I don't know, I just thought it was interesting.

I didn't know if you had heard about it yet. No, I have now. Could you imagine, let's just say that they put it out and they start getting the text and they go, it talks about Jesus and it's another, would they let it out?

So the thing is I'm on a hunt for the best argumentation for very early dating on the gospels, because I think

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are Jesus prophesying the destruction of the temple.

So if that's pre -70, then the Bible is prophetic and we win, basically.

There's no argument, we can't defeat that at that point. But I mean, imagine if they find a gospel. We know that all these scrolls were buried in like the late 70s.

So imagine finding like Mark in the 70s in Rome.

So by then - You mean they've got a whole bunch of scrolls. Yeah, there's more than one, a whole bunch of these.

Some of them were destroyed over the years because people tried to open them up and stuff, but there's still a whole bunch of them.

It's interesting. Wow, interesting, yeah. And how many there are. If they do find a gospel in there, that would mean that you'd have to have enough time for the gospel to be written and then copied and make its way to Rome to be covered and set.

Yep. Which is mind blowing. But again, they're all scrolls. I don't think we have, I don't think the early church wrote on scrolls, right?

It was primarily codex, so I don't know. I thought they used codex.

I mean, yeah, codex, not a scroll. Anyway, I was just,

I was nerding out when I was reading this. That sounds good. Interesting, I'm looking, scanning through it to see if it has, how many there are.

I didn't see, I'm just scanning though. So did you see the little discussion tonight? No, I haven't seen it.

But it's got one. That's why I chose the top. Oh. Yeah, it's,

I would say that the non -total depravity person didn't really, didn't really do his thing,

I would say. They never do. Anyway, that was my only question.

Yeah. Well, I'd be interested in your guys' comments if you wanna put them in the chat there, just to see what you say.

Mm -hmm, mm -hmm, mm -hmm. Okay, so what'd you think of the debate? If not, you know, we can call it quits, no big deal. Okay.

Yeah, my poor wife, she, I haven't been home all day and I come home, get on the computer, talk about CT scans of scrolls, poor lady.

The what scroll, the what? No, I was just comment, I was talking about my wife. I said, my poor wife, she hasn't been home all day and I get home to get on the internet and talk about scrolls and such.

Oh. Uh -huh. Yeah. Well.

Yeah. Okay, anyway. Hey, what do you think about 1 Timothy? I like 1

Timothy. Yeah, that's a good book. But you know what's interesting? So a lot of academia, they don't believe that Paul wrote that book.

Well, I don't care. No, I know, but I'm just saying, do you know why? Okay, why?

So in 1 Timothy chapter five, Paul quotes the gospel of Luke.

Okay. And we know that Paul died in the early sixties. Oh. So Paul couldn't have written 1

Timothy because he couldn't be quoting from the gospel of Luke because the gospel of Luke was written in the eighties.

So that means 1 Timothy had to be written in like the nineties or the hundreds. That's the argument, that's the reason in there.

Isn't that interesting? I mean, it kind of presupposes, you're kind of presupposing what you're trying to prove here, you know?

You know, when you discuss stuff like that, I go to the book of Acts and I say, look, the book of Acts is written by Luke.

And in the book of Acts, it does not contain the death of Peter and Paul, which are super significant figures.

And it does contain the death of Stephen. And it doesn't even contain the destruction of Jerusalem.

I mean, these are incredible. And since Acts is a book of history, why does it not include them? Logic. Well, because they were written beforehand.

And so, well, we know that Paul and Peter were crucified, were killed right around 62

AD, give or take a couple of three years. There's some debate on that. So I say, look, this means that the book of Acts was written before the death of Paul and Peter.

So let's just say 60 AD is what I do with them. And it's really simple for people to understand. And he wrote

Luke, just read the first few verses of Luke and Acts. And you see that Luke was written beforehand. So I say, let's just pick a number.

How many years before Acts was Luke written? We can't say for sure. I'll just say five years. Two? I say five because it's easier to work with.

And because it takes a long time to gather the information, I'd say, let's say five years. Then most people go, yeah, no problem.

I said, good. So that means Luke was written roughly around 55 AD, give or take, right?

And then most people agree that Matthew was written before that. Let's say another five years, let's just say.

Oh, that's 50 AD. And Mark before then, let's say 45 AD. I say, I'm not saying these numbers are totally accurate, but I say, you get the concept?

These things are written early. And before the book of Acts, Acts is the historical marker that people can, they can bite into.

And so if Luke did this, and he wrote Luke beforehand in Acts, come on, it's a stupid statement.

I just say, there's just libos. What are they, Democrats? Yeah, the letter

I love that's not canonical is 1st Clement. It's a great letter.

It is great. I've loved it. And hold on, let me find this reference real quick.

In Clement? Oh yeah, I like Clement. Yeah, I think it's like 1st Clement 41. 1st

Timothy what? No, no, no, it's in Clement. Trying to find it. I'm really getting into like the dating of the

New Testament. That's such a fascinating topic because you realize really quick, like so much of the dating of the

New Testament is just based on naturalistic presuppositions.

That's all it is. It's like, well, 1st Timothy is written in the hundreds. And how do you know that?

Well, because 1st Timothy five was quoting Luke and we know Luke was written in the eighties. How do you know

Luke was written in the eighties? Oh, because Jesus is prophesying the destruction of the temple and prophecy is impossible. So it has to be written after 70.

Right. It's like, okay. So that's a lot of assumption there. Yep.

Can't find this citation now. Let's try not to go into my...

Yeah. Clement is amazing. Specifically it's 1st

Clement 41 verse two. Clement says this, not in every place brethren are the continual daily sacrifices offered or the freewill offerings or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings but in Jerusalem alone.

And even there, the offering is not made in every place but before the sanctuary and the court of the altar and this too through the high priest and the aforementioned minister, the aforesaid ministers after that the victim to be offered have been inspected for blemishes.

So... I mean, it's still happening. 1st Clement is writing as if the temple is still standing. So what's amazing to me is if you go to, if you go to anyone in academia and you say, when was

Clement written? They're gonna say, oh, it was written in the 90s, 95, 96, somewhere in there.

But there's internal evidence that makes us think, well, maybe 1st Clement was written before the destruction of the temple in 70 because he seems to be talking about the temple still standing.

And if you say, if you suggest that to academia, they laugh at you and they laugh at you because Clement's sitting there quoting

Matthew. And Clement can't be quoting Matthew if he's writing it before 70.

Yeah, when people say, well, prophecy can't happen. They say prophecy can't happen, I say, why not?

And then I'm gonna rip apart their presuppositions. I'm gonna just, like a monkey in a cupcake, politely.

So it's not just the gospels that are late dated, but it's also the patristics that are late dated. They have to late date the patristics because they have to late date the gospels.

Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Clement is spoken of in Philippians, right?

Paul references Clement. So Clement is a contemporary of the apostle. Yes. Oh, you mean

Clement, that's a letter of, but Clement. Yeah. Oh yeah, Clement. If it is, it's still with the same person, yes.

So he's a contemporary of them. And we think, but they think he's writing in the 90s. You know, it's just, it's just, when you start actually thinking about it, it's ridiculous.

And then when you start actually thinking about when the gospels were written, it's also ridiculous. It's like, these guys didn't write anything down for 60 years.

You know, they're living in a time of, they just walked with the incarnate

Lord. Even if you don't believe in the Christian narrative, you think it's a bunch of BS, it's not true.

They believed they were living with the incarnate God. They believe that.

They die, you know, they believe it. And to think that they didn't write anything down for 60 years is, for me, just completely ridiculous.

You know, they're living in times of persecution, not only from Rome, but also from the

Jews and all this persecution, all this tribulation, and they didn't write anything down. And John the

Beloved didn't write anything down until the 90s. It's just a ridiculous notion. He was really old.

And if they said he did write it in the 90s, well, then they gotta call him senile, so you can't trust it. Anyway, this is what

I'm looking at for now. Good, good, good, good. We need more documentation and stuff like that.

Oh, okay. Well, that was fun.

So anyway, the debate went okay. I don't think the opponent really understood the issues very well. I don't think it was very logical.

I don't think he put things together properly. And that's just my opinion.

I graved in the scriptures, asked some difficult questions, and I didn't really see him answering them very well.

I think he thinks he did, and he might think that I didn't answer some of his questions very well, to each his own.

But that's what I see. Maybe you guys who saw it can comment before I close it up.

If they want to, you don't have to. I wish I had seen the debate. Yeah, seriously, if you watch the debate,

I don't think you'd learn anything. I think you already know total depravity very well and your objections to it. Was Jesus born with a human soul?

And there was a human soul now. There's two distinct natures. It was required that there's a spirit, nature, soul of the human.

So that means that in the hypothetic union, there are two distinct wills, let's just say.

We gotta be careful we don't get into Nestorianism, which says in the one body of Christ are two persons and two souls.

But that within the person of Christ are two distinct natures.

And that the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single position. A person, I mean, excuse me.

So did he have a human soul? Yes. And divine, what we could call the soul as it relates to the nature of the trinity in Christ, yes.

Okay, or was he flesh? Or was he flesh? Oh, he's both. He's both divine and human. He was flesh and spirit, hence no human soul.

No, no, no, that's called Onarianism. I think that's what it is. And so that wouldn't be correct.

No, he had two distinct natures, divine and human. Nature is without division or a separation, so we shouldn't do that rationally.

What is his position, Arminian? Okay, what? So, okay. Can I read a verse? What's that?

Can I read a text? Of course. Hebrews 2 .14. Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things that through death he might destroy the one who has power of death, that is the devil.

That word partook there is in the perfect tense. So he partook continually.

He partook one time, but with continual action forever. It's not that he doesn't cease to partake.

Ooh, I like that. That was what verse? Hebrews 2 .14. I'm gonna look at that.

Yeah. It's just because we're preaching to Hebrews right now, so.

He partook. He partook. Well, this is

Aitor's active indicative that he also partook. That's what my Logos says.

So partook from Meteskin, from the Greek.

Oh, yeah, okay, no, sorry. What about the word share?

Therefore since the children share, perfect active indicative. Perfect, yeah.

Now this is interesting. Therefore since the children share in the flesh and blood. Yeah, he shares.

He himself likewise. He shares with us. Partook. Yeah, yeah. So he partook once, but shares continually.

That's the point. He likewise also partook. Interesting. Yeah.

Might render powerless. Might render. You know, I never appreciated subjunctives.

Subjunctives I thought were irritating. Yeah, I don't know enough about this.

Subjunctives show possibility, okay? That he might do this, but it's an absolute sense he will, but it's in the subjunctive.

And there's rules about this in the Greek. Do you believe preaching on the cross hill leads to the scare tactics of free will believers?

Yes, no problem with scare tactics. I can prove it's biblical too. You guys want me to?

I can show you that scare tactics are biblical. And this is not a joke either.

If you guys want, if not, that's a big deal. I think we're dichotomous, not trichotomous. Yeah, I lean towards dichotomy, but whatever.

I lean towards it. But hey, you know, trichotomy sounds biblical.

You like Paul David Tripp? I don't know who he is. He's a biblical counselor.

He's a reformed guy. But I heard a lecture he gave one time, and he said that basically the people that assume, what's it called, trichotomy?

Trichotomy three, where body, soul, spirit, instead of dichotomy, which is body and soul, and soul and spirit are just interchangeable, the same thing.

So I thought it was interesting. Paul David Tripp said those who believe in trichotomy tend to believe in like psychoanalysis.

So they would say that, look, you have a physician who is the carer of your body, and you have the pastor who cares for your soul, but then you also have the spirit thing, and you need psychoanalysis for that.

And if you believe in, what's it, dichotomy, right? Then all you have is the biblical counselor.

You have counsel, and you're not making a distinction there between soul and spirit. I don't know. I don't know enough about that stuff, but I just thought it was interesting.

Some have said that trichotomy allows for Christians to be possessed in their spirit, but not their soul.

Interesting. They'll separate them. And some will reverse it. Some, you could be possessing your soul without your spirit.

They get into some weird stuff. Within the willing spirit, we become trichotomous. I mean, technically. Wouldn't go that way, but I know what you mean.

But if God creates a world in which we can have free choices, how is that not a decree? Good question.

I believe he does decree. Choices become real at the time of creation. Yeah, our free will choices are under the decrees of God.

Nothing can occur in the universe that is outside of God's sovereignty.

No event can be autonomous from God. Every event is necessitated to some degree by a previous set of events and context.

But free will, that's different. Free will is because we're made in the image of God.

And so we can't get into, I can't solve the issue of the nature of the soul as it relates to free will.

Because if you have a brain injury, your choices can be restricted.

If you have a brain injury, you can't think as well. People have had severe brain injuries.

Their IQs drop severely. Some people have had brain injuries. I knew a guy who, cancer saved his life, true story.

He was in for a kidney cancer thing.

And because he was in there getting treatment and getting, they found something else that would have killed him in less than a week.

Guaranteed, 100%, you'd be dead in a hundred, I think he said two days, two or three days. And he said, we gotta operate.

He goes, operate. And they did. They had to take something out of his brain. And so cancer saved his life, he says.

But he was a Christian. After the surgery, he gave up the faith and became Jewish.

So what do you do with that? What do you do with that? So it's something for God.

Yeah, God's gonna sort that one out. That's not for me to decide. And so in something like that, we know that the brain affects what we seem to be.

But yet the soul can be separate from the physical body. 2 Corinthians 12, two through four.

Well then, is that the real us that's filtered through the mechanical us, the physical us?

This is stuff we can't answer. The Bible doesn't talk about it. So, well, the question was become, what was it?

I forget what it was. Oh, free will and decrees. It gets complicated. I think about these things like this.

So Matt Hagen says, can you respond to Warren McGrew's comment that regeneration is to be pardoned by God as though they were infants and innocent once more?

That's not what regeneration is. That's justification is to be pardoned.

Well, forgiveness is to be pardoned as though they were infants and innocent. It's justification deals with the issue of the righteousness of God that's imputed to us, 2

Corinthians 3, nine. So no, McGrew just doesn't understand what regeneration is. It's not what it is. It's a change in our nature.

It's being born again, being changed, and being indwelt. And it's not a pardoning. Pardoning is a legal thing.

And justification deals with legality and sin's a legal thing. So he blew it there. I thought soul, mind, and emotion, and there's a spirit body also.

I guess I'm, no, no. Soul, mind, a mind emotion is all of the, either the soul and or the spirit, depending to the spirit aspect.

The body is a physical. So our spirit can continue without the body existing. Okay. So that would be dichotomy.

You go to, go to Karma and look up dichotomy versus trichotomy. If God is complete, it is triune in nature.

Does it make sense? Excuse me. We can only be complete in Christ by his indwelling spirit.

You don't say God is complete. That's a, it's an improper way to describe God to say he's complete. That's like to say, well, he has to be these things in order to be something else.

That something else is the category of completeness. That's a problem. God is what he is by nature.

And so we wouldn't say that he's complete. We would say he is. That's it. God says, I am that I am.

That's just it. So we wouldn't say he's complete in his triunity. We would say that he just is triune.

And so for us to say that we're complete, we're complete by Christ in indwelling, then what does complete mean?

Because the word complete here is used in two different senses. One in the nature of God is eternal and one in us that's not.

One's related to God who doesn't change in any way. And one's related to us who does. One's related to God who's non -contingent and one's related to God that is contingent.

I mean, to us who is contingent. So it becomes problematic, okay? Or is it psychobabble? I wouldn't say psychobabble.

I just think it's something we need to get down to more. We can answer that whatever the outcome, it was

God's will. Correct. Do you believe that God formed Adam of corrupt dust?

Well, corruption is a moral thing. I would say that dust is just simply that was what it was, the dirt.

It wasn't fallen or not fallen because when God had created Adam, the world was not yet fallen.

So the effect of sin, even on the dirt, had not yet occurred. So when God made him out of that, it was not fallen.

So there you go. What's the issue with the provisionists and the like? They argue for autonomous free will.

Logically, we are only free within the limits of we exist. It's exactly right. And he would, they affirm that, but I think they're inconsistent with it.

And I think they deny total depravity and affirm semi -Pelagian. Now in Leighton Flower's book, he mentioned me twice, two or three times.

We had a discussion once and I called him a semi -Pelagian. I said, that's semi -Pelagian, you're a semi -Pelagian.

He said, no, he's not. He took offense to that in the book. He'd mentioned me two or three times about that. And so, you know, and this was years ago when we had this conversation.

So maybe he's developed since then and changed since then. And now he's more refined and rejecting

Pelagianism or semi -Pelagianism. But he does tend to argue from that perspective as though that our wills are simply capable of believing in God.

We just need the provision of God's grace upon us information. Well, that's what semi -Pelagianism does. So I don't know if he's understanding the issues or not.

That's why you've got to go over that. I did read his whole book. I made a lot of comments. I may review it later. I've been wanting someone to call up McGrew for the false definition of regeneration for a while.

Yeah, he doesn't know what regeneration is, sorry, but he's wrong. Dirt has to be fallen or it wouldn't be on the ground.

You know, some people are smart and then, I like that, it's pretty good though.

It's pretty good. Warren McGrew's afraid to debate

Matt or any other strong Calvinists. He's debated me and he says he destroyed me, but I don't remember our discussions.

I don't see how he could destroy me. I mean, I'm not saying he couldn't.

I'm not saying I'm indestructible. I just don't, it was about Calvinism. I know the topic pretty stinking well.

So, you know, why are provisionists so angry? Depends on which provisionist, but I think it's because they hate the sovereignty of God.

They want the sovereignty of men. That's my opinion. I think it's part of what it is, if I can say that.

Okay, what are provisionists? Yeah, and Matt, you definitely won that debate. Well, thank you. Okay. We are not autonomous, though our choices are free.

That's right. Okay. Okay, my mind continually goes hard to sleep.

Quantum physics, spooky action at a distance. Yep, that's called quantum entanglement. Mind -blowing stuff.

Being ignorant is easier, I guess. Yes, it is. Yep. Hey, Matt, let me ask you a question.

Okay. Hebrew six. Yeah, I like Hebrew six.

Yeah, who's the best on Hebrew six? Who's the best? Yeah, because we're gonna get there.

You said who's the best? Okay, Paul wrote Hebrews. That's what I believe. So he's the best.

Who's the best commentator on that text that you've ever heard? I don't know. I don't know. Nevermind.

Well, it's an important text. I have a commentary soon. Sorry? I said it's an important text. I have to deal with it soon, and it's like.

What text? Hebrews six four. Oh, that's easy. Oh, I'm just.

Okay. Here, watch. Okay, this is what I do with people when they say, Hebrew six four through six means that you can lose your salvation.

I go, okay, let's just talk. For in the case, remember, and I say, who is the book of Hebrews written to?

And they go. Hebrews. Converted. Very good. Yeah.

Now there's different kinds of conversion. There's real and there's fake. Right. Okay. Now see, for in the case of those who have been enlightened, what does it mean to be enlightened?

It's a question. They've been enlightened. What does that mean? It can mean a possibility of things. Okay. And have tasted the heavenly gift.

What does it mean to have tasted the heavenly gift? And have been made partakers of the

Holy Spirit. What does it mean to be a partaker of the Holy Spirit? See right here in the first verse, we have three things we cannot definitively define as what it means.

We can say, it has this range of meanings here, range of meanings here, range of meanings here. So if you have three in each set, three possibilities in each set, but three times three times three, you have 27 different combinations.

I believe that'd be three, three times three times three. Yeah. You have 27 different combinations of possible interpretations just in for, if there's three, you know, like to be enlightened, that Christ who enlightens every man, right?

John 1 29. What does it mean? He shines a light. Does it mean you're saved? Does it mean he's opening your mind?

Does it mean that it's a revelation, general revelation? What's it mean? Tasted the heavenly gifts.

What does it mean to taste? Because a taste doesn't mean you're swallowing it. Doesn't mean you're digesting it. So what if he just said, have tasted and swallowed the heavenly gift?

What? What's it mean? It's, this is so difficult to understand. And what's more, there's no other places in the scripture that use these phrases.

Now we're really stuck. I made partakers of the Holy Spirit. That means you're saved. Oh, wait a minute.

I'll say, did Judas partake of the Holy Spirit? Did he not work through the power of the Holy Spirit? Yes. Was he saved?

No, he wasn't. You can be made a partaker of the Holy Spirit as Gaius was, as Gaius, the high priest,

Gaius. Why am I brain drawing a blank? He prophesied by the Holy Spirit, but he wasn't a

Christian. He partook of the Holy Spirit. What does it mean to be partaker of the Holy Spirit? Have tasted the good word.

Unbelievers can taste the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.

What about Judas? Isn't a good example. Did he? Absolutely. Did the Pharisees, did they taste the good word of God?

Jesus spoke it to them. Paul spoke it to them. Oh yeah. And the powers of the age to come, did they watch the resurrection?

People walk around, yes, oh my goodness. Okay. And they power, they saw that.

They saw the powers of the, but then what's the age to come? Okay. So there's two ages, this age and the age to come.

In this age, we have eternal life. We have marriage. We have death. We have sickness. In the age to come, we have eternal life that's manifested fully, completely in the resurrection.

There's no marriage and things like that. The new heavens and newer earth. So it tasted of what's to come in the second.

So what does this mean? I show to people, I don't know what it means.

You could come up to me and say, well, it means this and this and this. And I say, well, maybe it does. But how do you know it does?

We go on. And have fallen away. Fallen away. See, they were in the grace of God.

They fell away. Well, let me ask you, were the people of Israel, when they came out of Israel under the covenant work of God, the covenant grace of God, were they in the covenant of God?

Yes. Were they experiencing the grace of God? Yes. Did many of them fall away from the faith? Yes. Were they ever saved to begin with?

Just because you say they've fallen away doesn't mean they were regenerate and saved. Because then we get to the issue of John 6, 37 -40, where Jesus says, the will of the

Father is he lose none. Then we can go to 1 John 2, 19, which says that they went out from us because they never were of us.

If they had been of us, they would have remained. And then I'll say to them, okay, so let's assume this is a person who's a believer and he really was a

Christian. He was enlightened. He tasted the heavenly gift, may partake of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God, the powers of the age to come.

He fell away. Can he ever become a Christian again? And they all said to me, well, yeah, he's just gotta repent.

Let's see, if he repents, can he become a Christian again? And really, yes, of course he can. Then why does it say, and it says they renew them again, it says it's impossible to renew them again in repentance.

So wait a minute. Now, if you're gonna read for what it says, if it means they lose their salvation, then it must also mean they can never be renewed.

Never, because that's what it says. Is that what it's teaching? Because if you say they could be renewed to repentance, then it can't be teaching, they were saved.

Let's say, it says they again crucify to themselves the son of God and put him to open shame.

Is that what Christians do? Do Christians put Christ to open shame? Now I'm gonna cross -reference, go to Galatians five, let me show you something.

Behold, verse two, behold, I, Paul, say that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he's under obligation to keep the whole law.

You've been severed from Christ. Circumcision, severed, notice the pun.

You who are seeking to be justified by the law, you've fallen from grace. What, what, what, what, what, wait, wait, what?

Fallen from grace. But they're seeking to be justified by the law. Now I ask people a question. Are you a

Christian if you're seeking to be justified by the law? No. Do Christians seek to be justified by their works?

No. Then to fall from grace is not the grace of salvation because they never were

Christians to begin with. It's a different kind of aspect because grace is not just simply, oh, it means you're saved.

No, God is gracious to people all the time. He's gracious to the people of Israel. He sent the

Messiah. And yet so many of them rejected the Messiah and they fell from that grace that God had given them.

They tasted the heavenly gift. They were aware, Hebrews. Now, if we were to take this and go one step further,

Hebrews 10, 26. If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, it no longer means a sacrifice for sin, but only terrifying a certain judgment to come.

Okay, now, they'll say, see, you lose your salvation. They cross -reference these verses, these two pericopes.

You go on sinning willfully. I say, have you ever sinned willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth? No. No. You just lied.

There's two kinds of sin. The ones we do it on purpose and the ones we do on accident. That's it.

And if you say you've never do anything on purpose, then you're saying you're just fantastic. So pat yourself on the back.

Of course. Well, it means an ongoing willful sinning. Have you ever willfully ongoing in your sin?

Your pride? Because you know you're prideful. You know you're stubborn. And you're choosing to do that.

You know. Come on, I'm not accusing you. I'm guilty too. Well, that means by your interpretation of this, we're damned.

No, no, no. This is written to who again? The Hebrews. If the

Hebrews go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, what is that knowledge of the truth? Jesus is the

Messiah. Jesus is God in flesh. And you go on sinning after receiving that knowledge, there's no longer a sacrifice for sins.

Because you're rejecting him. There is no other sacrifice. It's gone. You have nothing. That's what he's talking about there.

Not talking about losing your salvation. Can I comment on Jude 4? Yeah, I like it, it's good.

But if you want me to do more, I will. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who have long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, predestination, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our

God into licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord Jesus. You can have ungodly persons who turn the grace of God into licentiousness.

That's Catholic. That's Catholicism. They turn the grace of God into licentiousness.

Now, how do they do that? Oh, you know, I have my certificate of forgiveness in my, what's it called?

Indulgence. I can go out and sin. I'll be forgiven. I just need to go to a priest to be forgiven.

And it's actually a historical fact that priests in the same area, sometimes in the same building, would have sex with nuns and other people, then go get absolved from their sins back and forth.

They turn the grace of God into licentiousness. So they still do indulgences?

Yes, they do, David. That's what we're preaching on Sunday. What? No, no, not

Jude 4. We're in Hebrews 5, so that Christ is the high priest. And so we're kind of forced to go into, look, what was the

Old Testament priesthood all about? And Christ is the fulfillment of that priesthood. And he's the high, he not only is the high priest, he's the great high priest.

And then we also have to get into what Rome teaches about the priesthood, right? Oh, yeah.

So where we live, it's like 90 % Roman. Oh my God. Yeah, they're still under the law.

Here, hold on one sec. Do you know why Jesus was baptized? So he could be a priest.

That's right, after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 6 .20 and 7 .25. So if you were to, because Jesus says he's baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Matthew 3 .15, the Old Testament law. Had to be 30 years of age, anointed with oil,

Holy Spirit, verbal blessing, and had to be sprinkled with water. Right, yep.

So I believe Jesus was sprinkled. Yeah, I agree. He was sprinkled. Yep. Ooh. That's exactly my opinion.

Good, I know I like you. And if Jesus is not a man right now, then we don't have a high priest.

Because you have to be a man to be a priest according to the law, which he fulfilled. He's resurrected in his glorified body.

1 Corinthians 15, 35 through 45. He's a man. That's what it says in 1 Timothy 2 .5. We have one mediator between man and God, the man,

Christ Jesus. So if Jesus is not a man right now, we don't have a high priest. We don't have a high priest. We don't have an intercessor. If we don't have an intercessor, we're damned.

Yep. And that's why, that's why reformed theology is so important.

So especially Dutch reformed theology, right? Like Van Til, creator -creature distinction.

There can only be one, there's only one bridge between the transcendent and the eminent. And that's

Christ. Because Christ is transcendent. He's God. And he's ultimately, he's truly eminent.

He's fully man. So the only way he can be our priest, the only way he can be our mediator is if he knows

God perfectly. And if he knows man perfectly, right? And the only way he can be our sacrifice is if he is fully man and yet fully

God. Because he has to be someone else. Yep, good stuff, brother. Ooh, I love theology.

I thought someone else was gonna jump in here. And Hebrews is great.

Like I said, there's like, where I live, it's 90, 95 % Roman Catholic. So we're getting into some stuff now with Hebrews five and where we're really gonna have to deal with the

Roman Catholic concept of the mass and the sacramental priesthood and stuff like that. And then the

Mormons just built a temple down the street from my house. So there's a bunch of Mormons in town now for that temple.

And when we - Wait, is there a temple opening? No, it already opened. They do an opening for two or three weeks.

No, that was, yeah, they did that like six months ago. I went. You might have flown out there just to hold up signs.

I went to the opening. Yeah, it's interesting, huh? Well, it was, well, I told the wife,

I said, we only have to go to the open house of the Mormon temple. And she said, that's ridiculous.

Those guys are a bunch of heretics. And I said, this is the only chance we'll ever get to walk into one of these temples.

That's right. So we ought to take advantage of it. And man, did they not like me. Cause I was walking around and I guess

I know enough about Mormon theology that they thought I was a member. So they were like, oh yeah, brother, the distribution centers over here for your garments and all this stuff.

And I was like, oh, okay. And so I go in there and I'm walking around and I'm asking all these questions. And I was like, hey, where's the veil?

And this one guy's like, oh, it's over here behind these doors. And so he opens the door. And then this other lady came and shut the door in my face.

And she's like, you're not allowed back there. And then they caught, they realized I'm not a member. That was just there for trouble.

So then they were like, you gotta get out of here. It's like all the numbers, the tour, they kicked me out.

You know, when I do temple openings, I've done one for a few years now. They went locally and I went to it. I've been to several different places and I'll stand outside.

First I go and tour. I don't cause any problems. And I go outside and I have a sign, ismormonismchristian .com.

I don't know if the site's still up, but you know, when I go do it, I'll activate it. And that's, I just hold it up.

Cause they can, ismormonismchristian .com. They'll remember that and they'll go. And then I ask them questions.

I'll say, in Matthew 27, 51, God destroyed the veil when

Jesus was crucified. Why do you guys put it back? Simple question.

Simple question. And I see them look and they go, huh? And I say, why do you put back what God destroyed, the veil?

Matthew 27, 54. Well, another question I'll ask is, you have to pay a tithe to get in here.

Full 10 % tithe. And then you go in there and you bow down on your knees and look what's above you.

Moroni, a golden image. You are paying money to go into the temple to bow under the image of a golden angel.

I just say that. They have to pay 10 % on their gross also, right? That's right.

What, what's that? I said they have to pay 10 % on their gross, right? But not their net.

Yeah. And it has a full year of, it has to be paid. Then you can get a temple recommended.

You can go into the temple, go to the ceremony and all this stuff. And so I'm not gonna pay to get in there. You gotta pay to get into God's presence.

You gotta pay your tithe. Folks, it's not how it works. The blood of Christ is free for us.

Why do you bow the knee under an idol? And I point, I'm holding the sign up as Mormonism Christian. Why do you put the veil back in?

I'm writing a book on them right now. On Mormonism? Yeah, it's gonna be good,

I think. Well, go to mrm .org, mormonismresearchministry .org,

m -r -m -dot -o -r -g, run by Bill McKeever. He's one of the top experts in the world on Mormonism.

Seriously. He's a friend of mine. He's in Salt Lake City. Nice. If you ever, just do it.

No, I just put up, I'm trying to do a presuppositional approach with them.

Okay, yeah, you could do that easily. But if you ever wanna go out to Salt Lake and meet them, I'd drive down and meet them too.

Biggest state is House, okay? Nice. And we can go to the center that they have. You can meet

Eric Johnson, who's right up there with him. And you know who Sandra Tanner is, right?

Yeah. Yeah, so get to meet her. She's retired, but meeting her now is not so easy.

Get this, this is true. So I was over at Eric Johnson's house. Bill McKeever is there. He's one of the top experts in the world, seriously.

And Sandra Tanner was there, and I was there. And so there's four of us who are very competent in discussing

Mormonism. But I'm nothing compared to them, okay? And so we're all there, we're having fun.

And I walk out of the kitchen area, and I just happened to look out the front door, no lie.

Seriously, two Mormon missionaries are walking across the street. Like, no way.

So I went to the door, I opened up, hey, you guys. And they look, and I said, come here, come here.

And so they come across the street. I said, look, you guys are Mormon missionaries. I said, would you like to meet

Sandra Tanner? They go, Sandra Tanner? Yeah, she's inside. And with Bill McKeever, does a radio.

Mormons are experts. They go, come on in. And so I brought them in.

They were in the midst of all these world -class experts. And I said to them, you don't realize how much knowledge is right here.

I said, I know stuff, but I know nothing compared to these three people. Sandra Tanner, Bill McKeever, Eric Johnson.

I said, you've just been privileged to meet them. I said, they're awesome. It was a nice little story, nice story.

The reason, Bill, that Mormonism does not have the Manti pageant anymore is twofold, but we conclude.

One, they wanted to rebuild it, redo the inside. And so they stopped having the pageant. That's what they said.

But I think it's because thousands and thousands of Christians are showing up and witnessing to them as causing problems. And I went there many times.

So. Well, anyway.

All right, hey, it's almost 9 .30 for me. Hey, Fred, where do you live? What city state? Oh, Texas.

Yeah, I was just in Texas. I was just in Austin. In Mexico though. What's that? I live on the border.

Oh, down South? Like right on the border. McAllen, Texas. Oh, McAllen.

I interviewed for a pastorate down there. Really? What church? Hablas Espanol? Very poquito, muy poquito.

No, my wife is from very far away. Oh, I was gonna practice with her. Yeah, I need to practice my

Spanish. I don't know it well enough to preach or teach in it, but I know enough to converse. What church did you, where did you do the pastorate thing?

I, you know, I forgot. It was Reformed, but I think so. I think so.

Oh, there's a PCA church in here called Grace Presbyterian. Anyway.

What happened, my wife and me and our eldest daughter, who was the only daughter at the time, and we were flying down there.

We were, we had flown down to Dallas, from Dallas down to McAllen. And so my daughter,

Rachel, was sitting next to me. And then Neek, we'll call her Neek. Her name's Aneek, we call her

Neek. But Neek was sitting by their side, right? Well, our daughter, Rachel, got sick.

And true story. She got sick. We go, I go for the bag. And it was science fiction level vomit, horror movie level.

And it was this tube that came out, went up my leg as she looks at me, goes up my side, down into my shirt, and up into my hair.

I mean, immensely impressive for a little bitty kid, you know, like three.

So you have nightmares about what I look like, basically. Oh man. So it took us a half hour, basically, to clean up on the plane.

I mean, we apologized profusely. They were very understanding. They helped us. We said, we're so sorry.

We tried to get the bag. What are you gonna do? And so I literally had vomit in my underwear and in my hair.

So by the time we landed, right, my hair's got vomit, and I got this pasty shirt that's crusty, and I'm walking like, and you hear sloshing sounds.

And I mean, the flies are even staying away. And I'm walking down with the kids. I got the, I mean, my wife and, you know, they're standing away from me.

I'm walking, carrying the bag, right? And I see the guy who's the elder who goes to meet me, and his jaw drops and his eyes bug open.

Like, what the heck am I looking at? And I walk up to him and I said, she threw up on me.

And he goes, oh, okay, no problem. You know, I got kids. So. That's awful.

It was awful. It's a great story though. He goes, ah, okay, I've got kids. We'll get you home, take a shower. Takes. Well, that's a small world then.

This is a small town down here. Yeah, it is. I was there and it was very hot.

Yeah. It is very hot, but the food's good. Yeah. Quiero comer carne asada tortas.

You're in the Mexicans. Me gustan mucho. You're in the Mexicans, good. Yeah, I love carne asada tortas.

All right, man, I'm gonna get going too. You know, I'm checking on the ladies. Hey, are you going back to Israel anytime soon?

My what? Are you going back to Israel anytime soon? Cause I wanna go. We're going not to Israel, but in October we're going to Turkey, then

Greece, then Italy. Hey, what do you think about the arc in Turkey?

Is that legitimate or is that not legitimate? No idea? Yeah, that's,

I have no idea either. It's like they shot a Turin, but there's more evidence coming out about it that's suggesting it's actually the burial garment of Christ.

Do you think that's legitimate? I don't know, but someone was telling me recently that -

My thing is I despise Roman Catholicism so much that it's hard for me to like admit that some of their relics, cause so many of their relics are nonsense.

Like when you read Calvin, he says, you know, there's so many true, there's so many true crosses in Europe that you can make a boat out of so many of these things.

And they have things like, oh, this is the foreskin of Jesus. And this is the breast milk of Mary and all this nonsense.

So the idea that they have a relic that is actually legitimate.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. For me it's - But they try to turn, it has a quality in it that the technology that they had then couldn't be faked.

And even now they'd have trouble faking it. But there's apparently in the folded material, there's an embedding of energy particles that have gone through, that have given layers of stuff.

And it causes, when you do a scan or whatever, you can see a 3D image that is produced out of it.

And it's some weird stuff I don't understand. Yeah, I mean, I've looked into it. It's just for me to give

Rome any credit is hard. I'm with you. But they got me that back, can't us?

Yeah. Well, anyway, whatever. I'll let you go. All right, man. Good luck, buddy. All right,