Apologetics Live Round two with a Roman Catholic HD 720p

Striving for Eternity Videos

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:10

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the

00:19

Christian Podcast. This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick.

00:31

Alright, Matt Slick from CARM .org, Andrew Rappaport with Striving Fraternity.

00:36

We are here at Apologetics Live to answer your apologetics questions. Now, we've had an interesting week,

00:43

I think both of us, but I want to start by letting you folks know that this is available on podcast now.

00:50

For those who want to hear last week's, that's already out. We're going to probably put two out this upcoming week so we can catch up.

00:59

We're able to do that, you just search for Apologetics Live on whatever podcast app you have and you will be able to get that in audio form automatically downloaded.

01:12

We are going to be working on giving some giveaways as well. Matt is going to be having his newest book, well actually no, came out a week later.

01:24

He had a second new book. Atheistica is a book about atheists having their own island.

01:31

Island nation. Yeah, island nation. Yeah, they want to rule themselves and I don't make them look like morons or anything like that.

01:40

But we just deal with philosophical issues and that's all. What do good people think?

01:46

So there's going to be a couple ways for Christians who would like to work on a podcast introduction or an introduction for the show.

01:55

We're going to give a copy away to whoever comes up with the best intro. For atheists, well if you come in, we're going to be giving maybe one away by the end of the month or so to the best atheist caller.

02:12

Or I guess you wouldn't really be a caller here. But we want to answer your apologetics questions.

02:17

Now Matt, this week you know because you were involved a little bit on Facebook. But on Twitter, we had a war that was going on with a guy who, an atheist, who was basically challenging you to a debate.

02:30

I invited him here. He was? Okay. He was, but then he, well two guys actually. One who wrote a 27 ,000 word article.

02:39

But he actually just wanted to build a platform for himself so he can sell a new book. Wait a minute, 27 ,000 word article?

02:46

Yeah, yeah. All about your tag argument. Wow. I think my novella

02:54

Atheistico is 25 ,000. I mean, think about it. The article is this big.

03:00

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, all right. So, and he thought we'd have time to read it and interact.

03:09

Oh my God, yeah. I'll read it. No, he's from the United States. We'll cut him some slack. It is one in the morning for him.

03:15

Yeah, if he can't make it, he can't make it. But I'm not reading a 27 ,000 word article.

03:22

Not happening. I got too many things to do. Now, the one guy wanted to, he wanted to debate me on things, first off, that I never said.

03:30

First off, it was Anthony Silvestro that said some of the claims he said. There were some that you said that he wanted me to argue as if I said them.

03:37

And there were things I hadn't researched. So, I wasn't about to debate things I haven't researched. But it was an interesting thing because he kept moving the goalpost.

03:45

Every time I agreed with something, he, like, for him coming on here and discussing with you, he then said, no, it has to be on his show.

03:52

And then it couldn't, you know, it had to be on different things. And, you know, it's a thing where now what we see is he's doing what's called gaslighting where he's, he's just keeps telling people that I'm running away from a debate when he keeps changing the topics of the debate.

04:06

And he's convincing all his folks that, you know, like, look, he's running. I'm not running. I just am waiting for a debate topic that we can agree on the terms.

04:15

That's an important thing. You've had several debates where they've gone back and forth. I remember with Matt Delhonte, you guys went back and forth for a while until you can come to a debate topic.

04:24

I know the, and that actually, by the way, was two years ago, I think today.

04:30

Really? Yeah. I guess it was. That was an interesting time too because I remember that debate well.

04:37

Wait, you weren't there, were you? Yep. I was there for both David Smalley and Matt Delhonte.

04:44

I remember what happened outside the, uh, the second venue that night when I was so tired. Remember that?

04:49

Yeah. That's when you were, you actually, I think were ready to just collapse.

04:56

Yeah. Um, I was sewing.

05:01

I was so tired. I remember that. I remember being outside there. Just, I could have gone to sleep and, um, maybe it was something

05:07

I ate because we had eaten just shortly before. And then, um, maybe it was something in that food.

05:15

I don't know, but I had trouble staying awake. Um, it was like someone drugged it, but I'm not saying they did.

05:22

And, uh, then I remember when Matt Delhonte was actually given his position, his, um, his, um, presentation as he went first.

05:29

I remember, uh, I had trouble focusing. I had trouble staying awake. I could have put my head down. I did not, but I was afraid if I did put my head down just to rest for five seconds,

05:38

I would have gone to sleep. And, um, I remember that. And then when it was my turn to get up and speak,

05:44

I was wide awake. Weirdest thing. Never had that happen in any debates before, but that's what happened. Well, look, you, you did two debates back to back.

05:53

David Smalley one night, then it was Matt Delhonte the next night. No big deal.

05:58

Um, they only had to prepare for one. You had to prepare for two different debates. So it wasn't, it was just,

06:05

I think it was one of those days of jet lag or there was no jet lag, really just two hour difference and, um, just food and who knows, maybe

06:13

I was fighting something, but anyway, no big deal. That's what happened there. So, uh, that's it.

06:21

So, so we had, you know, I thought very interesting that we got to, to know some of the people who listened to the show, some of the atheists.

06:31

And, um, we do have a number of atheists that, that listen. Um, but don't want to call in by the way, they don't seem to have that courage, but, uh, you got to meet with some of them there.

06:44

I remember the one couple that was, uh, the one woman that said she was really surprised how nice you were.

06:51

Because she, she's so used to listening to you and disagreeing with you. Uh, well, yeah.

06:57

People often do is, is, uh, think the worst of somebody, uh, particularly when you're an atheist and you know, the enemy, you had to vilify the enemy in order to, um, justify hatred, uh, condemnation judgment.

07:11

And then they find out I'm really a nice guy and we get along great. Um, you know, no big deal.

07:17

I mean, like Matt Delahunty and David Smalley, we got along fine, you know, before and after the debate, no big deal, cracking jokes and having a good time and people have said to me many times, you know, like, man,

07:28

I didn't think you'd be this nice of a guy. Sorry. You know, whatever. That's what it is.

07:36

All right. So we got some questions that did come in through the apologetics live, um, Facebook group.

07:42

So there's some folks out there and that's one place where we are going to look to do, uh, to get a

07:49

Q and a going or a, uh, voicemail so people can leave messages, but you can join apologetics live if you want to, you know, if you can't get in at the time to answer questions.

08:01

So that's one thing you would be able to do. And we also should mention

08:06

Matt that, uh, you know, we're, we're trying to do this. Um, it's on YouTube, it's in podcasts, but we're, we mentioned already one of your books, but you have a second one that came out recently as well, like a week after atheistic,

08:21

I believe. Yeah. It's an old book. I just kind of forgot about and then resurrected and finished up.

08:27

And it was a serious idea I have called, um, apologetics and.

08:33

So apologetics and Mormonism and Jehovah's witnesses and Islam and atheism.

08:38

And so, um, I resurrected it and finished it up and it was only a 90 % done already.

08:44

So it wasn't a big deal. And, uh, in fact, I just talked to a guy named Eli yesterday who was reading it and said it was halfway through it.

08:53

And, uh, the way I wrote this, uh, this, uh, the way I want to write more in this series apologetics and is a very casual style.

09:02

I literally sit here with this, my speech program word is open and I just start talking, you know, and I might say something like Christian theology.

09:10

I might say something like, uh, um, welcome to apologetics and Christian theology. This is where comma, hopefully comma is what

09:17

I do where, uh, hopefully you'll learn what the basis of the Christian faith are.

09:22

You can, um, just flow along with me as I ramble through what we'll be discussing things like the

09:29

Trinity talking like that. And, um, just having fun. And so, uh, the guy said it was very, very, very easy to read, very easy to follow flowed very nicely.

09:42

So, um, that's good. And so I'll be doing a series on those kinds of things as well. That's the idea. All right.

09:48

And if folks want to come in and join, they can go to apologetics live .com there.

09:54

You can actually watch the video. You can also find the link to join. It'll be right there. And you can come in, ask your questions, but from the apologetics live group,

10:05

Matt, here's the first question we have for you. Why do people believe Elijah went up in a chariot?

10:11

He says, the Bible says differently. And I have to go look at it and see, uh, it's not a question

10:19

I've been asked for asked. Um, let's see, where is that? Let's see.

10:25

That would be a prime. I think second Kings two is my guess. Elijah, Elijah, Elijah, Elijah.

10:37

So second, second Kings two 11. And as they went up, uh, as they still went on and talked behold in chariots of fire and horses and fire separated the two of them.

10:52

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. So I guess that's the specific verse. Yeah. Verse 12 segment is two 12, uh, the church of Israel and its horsemen.

11:03

And he saw Elijah. That's why they say it's a chariot. Well, I guess the chariots, maybe

11:08

I'm, as I'm looking at this verse, it seems like the chariots are separating Elijah from Elisha. Uh, so there were chariots there, but it says that he went up in a whirlwind.

11:19

I don't know that we know if he actually went up in chariots per se. Yeah. I could do a analysis on it and look at the

11:29

King James. A lot of times people, what they'll do is they'll read something in the King James and it'll give a different, uh, version.

11:35

And it came to pass as they went on and talk that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire and parted them both asunder and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

11:47

Yeah. The whirlwinds would took him up. So a chariot separated them, which would be interesting. Why would a chariot of fire separate them?

11:53

That's a question I don't have an answer to like know what that is about. But anyway, I don't know.

12:00

Good question. Yeah. I mean, I could see the separation.

12:05

I can see that being a thing of, um, because if you, in the account, in the context, we ended up seeing that there was definitely an issue where, uh,

12:16

Elisha wanted to be with Elijah when, when he was there. So he didn't want to leave him.

12:24

So maybe that would be why there'd be a need for separation. Um, maybe, maybe.

12:32

Yeah. Well, it's a good question. That's something that, you know, I'm always ready to give too quick an answer unless I'm on the radio and whatever, someplace like this.

12:41

There's a basic possibility, but, um, without further study, I don't know. It's a good question. There's lots of stuff like that in the, uh, in the

12:49

Bible. I don't have answers to. All right. So here's another one. Uh, and this one may be a little bit more sensitive, but the person said, um, for you,

12:57

I want to talk about remarriage, divorce, and adultery. I have some people in my

13:02

Bible group who condemn others who are remarried. They say they're in perpetual sin and going to die and go to hell.

13:12

They tell Christians this, this whole remarriage, divorce, adultery confuses me. I understand that we should never encourage divorce and remarriage in Christ, but I don't believe that people are going to hell or do they?

13:28

Yeah, that's a common, um, huge, excuse me, legalistic mistake.

13:35

A lot of people who don't understand grace, um, seem to make what they fail to understand is that I'm looking for the reference.

13:44

Um, uh, let's see. I think it's Jeremiah three.

13:51

No, if a husband divorces, because no, you would send Malachi. Uh, God issues a writ of divorce to Israel.

14:00

Oh yeah. Malachi. Yeah. And, um, trying to find that, but, uh, the problem is if divorce is a sin and yet God, so to speak, divorced

14:12

Israel, what does that say about God? Um, all divorce is not a sin. For example, if a spouse commits adultery and refuses to repent, the, the person has the freedom of, um, divorce, not the obligation.

14:26

And, uh, you know, I've written articles on that, um, about what the issues are of, of divorce, the grounds.

14:33

I think it's abandonment. First Corinthians seven and adultery. Obviously Jesus talks about that in Matthew 19.

14:41

So, uh, those are the grounds. And since God himself issued a writ of divorce, um, to Israel, it would make sense to say that divorce is not automatically a sin and people who would say that you're in perpetual sin by, um, not by, by staying in a condition that where you've divorced, uh, and married somebody, whatever, uh, and you're going to hell, that's, that's just a, that's idiocy.

15:05

That's just, that's gotta be called what it is. That that's stupidity because we're not saved by our compliance with the law, whether it be divorce laws or whatever it is.

15:14

Um, and so this person who's saying this may not be a true convert, maybe a false convert,

15:20

I'm not saying is or isn't at that point, but maybe a false convert and, uh, who is putting legal requirements on the maintenance of salvation.

15:28

And, uh, everybody is in perpetual sin one way or another. Um, there are people who are so arrogant, like the guy

15:35

I had in the radio today basically said doesn't sin anymore, but he has, but he doesn't, you know, kind of, he can keep the laws pretty good at it.

15:43

You know, such arrogance and foolishness is a continuation of a sinful attitude and nature, but, um, um, pride like humility hides itself in the host so that the person doesn't see his own sin or, excuse me, doesn't see his own, um, uh, pride, doesn't see his own humility.

16:02

Others see it, but the person who's guilty of it doesn't see it generally speaking. But, uh, anyway, it's just, it's ridiculous for people to say that, uh, if you're in, uh, in that kind of perpetual sin, then you're, uh, you know, you're not saved.

16:17

You're going to lose your salvation. It just means that you keep your salvation by compliance with the law. And that's a heresy.

16:23

So wrong. We, we, uh, I've seen some of that also with homosexuality where people say if someone has ever been a homosexual as if they can never be saved.

16:33

Not true. And that's, yeah, the same thing. I think the same thing here. There's, there's, I know there's, there are some people who would say that someone who's divorced and remarried could never be a pastor or Deacon because it says they have to be a one woman, man, one wife.

16:49

Yeah. But what that means is, uh, a man of one woman. Um, but that's what it means.

16:58

And in the polygamous context, it seems to be what, uh, one woman, one man. Well, what happens if a man who's an elder of a church, his wife dies?

17:06

Can you remarry? Well, by their strict literal interpretation of that, you couldn't even remarry. And if he did remarry, oh, he can't be an elder anymore.

17:14

And also they, they stubbed their toe on this verse when they don't realize it says you have to have children who believe. What if you only have one child?

17:21

I'm sorry. Don't have children, plural. So you can't be an elder. So you get way too legalistic on this stuff.

17:27

And a lot of these legalists, um, who think that they're compliant to the law is pretty good. We'll put burdens upon people.

17:34

They themselves cannot carry and don't seem to really understand what the true nature of grace is in these things. That's unfortunate.

17:41

Yeah. And I mean, that's the exact thing I always bring up. What if, what if someone got divorced and never remarried?

17:47

Could he then be a leader? Can, because he, he only had one wife, right? So it's not the divorce issue.

17:53

It's the remarriage issue then. And then what happens if you divorce someone when you're an unbeliever?

17:59

And I mean, you're a pagan, you're an atheist, you divorce. And then 10 years later, you become a hardcore believer.

18:05

I mean, you are dedicated to the Lord. And then you marry a good godly Christian woman. Oh, sorry.

18:10

Can't be a pastor because you were divorced back in the, well, you know, the old things are passed away. So why are they holding this old bondage of legalistic yoke upon people?

18:20

Um, plus a lot. I don't use this very often, but, uh, Romans 7, 4 says he was died is freed from the law.

18:29

We've died with Christ, Romans 6, 8, we've been crucified with Christ, Romans 6, 6. So if we've died with Christ, we don't have to keep the law.

18:36

Therefore we're free. And then we, someone could make the case with that logic of going forward in that the issue of the divorce laws and decrees don't apply to us and that we could under grace, uh, move forward.

18:49

And, but I'll tell you, uh, a lot of pastors wouldn't be qualified for a lot of reasons, but better topic.

18:59

I was going to say also, wouldn't that the person who said that this person is going to go to hell for not divorcing or for divorcing, wouldn't that be under the category of the unforgivable sin?

19:12

I mean, if, if that person cannot be forgiven for, for, for not, for divorcing and remarrying, then, then yeah, it's like, what's the point of,

19:24

I mean, that's not the context of what the unforgivable sin is. Yeah.

19:29

The unforgivable sin in Matthew 12, 22 through 32, saying that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the evil one.

19:35

So that's what this specifically is said to be that the unforgivable sin, but yeah, it's just legalism. People in that condition don't understand the grace of God and they need a good dose of, of biblical reformed theology so that they can stop being a bunch of theological whannies.

19:53

All right. So Matt, this next question, you've dealt with this on, and for folks who don't know you do a live radio show five days a week,

19:59

Monday through Friday. It's available at Matt Slick live is available on podcasts as well.

20:07

They can just search for Christian Apologetics Research Ministry or search for Matt Slick and you can get a five days a week of Matt, but you have been dealing with this.

20:17

I know recently this came up on about a week or two ago, but here's another question for you. The person says, why do you think the

20:24

Hebrew movement is picking up speed again or did it never really go away?

20:30

I only became aware of it when I was reading a modern day head coverings.

20:35

How do we comfort those that we incite Galatians? Well, if they want to, it depends on their other reason of doing what they want to do.

20:44

If they want to hold to head coverings, hold a head coverings. What's the reason if they want to do it because they want to honor

20:52

God and they don't see it as a means by which they're pleasing him unto salvation, then fine.

20:58

Now I live here in Idaho and there are Mennonites here. And every now and then I'll be in the grocery store and I'll see women with their heads in buns, a little covering over their head and long dresses.

21:12

And I've actually been to one of their churches, went and checked it out a couple, three years ago. And so I see this once a month or so I might see it, but so what?

21:22

If they want to wear head coverings, let them wear head coverings. No, who cares? But the thing is they should not obligate anybody else to do that.

21:31

And in the context, I think it's, where was that? First Corinthians 12, 14, 14.

21:36

I'm trying to remember. Second Corinthians 14. You know, the idea was concomitant with the issue of a woman going around appearing as though she was a loose woman.

21:52

A lot of people don't know, but a man could divorce his wife if she let her hair down in public.

22:00

And this is really important because the hair was a sensuous thing and it was bundled up and recovered.

22:09

And so when man and wife married, she would then let her hair down in the privacy of their bedroom, their home, whatever it would be.

22:20

And so, like I said, letting her hair down was, in my research, a man could divorce her for that.

22:28

And what's really interesting to take a sidestep, when the, I believe it's Luke 15, where was it?

22:37

When Simon said to Jesus, come and have dinner with them.

22:43

And then, you know, all the people went over and the woman came in, the prostitute, and let her hair down and touched his feet with her hair.

22:51

I mean, we're talking, that's an incredible social moray that she broke.

22:59

Incredible. And she risked her life for that, actually. She could have been stoned.

23:06

But at any rate, so the hair was a big deal. And what the heck was I talking about that for? Well, the question was about the

23:12

Hebrew movement. Oh, yeah. And so a lot of people, what they like is they don't understand the freedom.

23:19

And some people do, and they want to do those kind of rituals, because they think it makes them feel better, or they think it's what's proper.

23:25

And that's fine, as long as it's not maintaining their salvation, or not putting it upon anybody else, because they have no right to do that,

23:31

Romans 14, 1 through 12. Period. That's it. And that's how it should be. They want to have their heads covering?

23:38

Fine. They don't? Fine. That's the way it is. Shouldn't be a big deal. Yeah. And we have been seeing, you've dealt with, there was the black

23:48

Hebrew Israelites, who now they just call themselves Hebrew Israelites. There's the Hebrew Roots movement that you've seen, you've interacted with.

23:57

I guess the question is, is this on the rise? Has it always been an issue? Why do you think people are getting more into it lately?

24:03

It's on the rise because our population is increasing, and also legalism is increasing, and people are not understanding the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

24:09

I believe that black Hebrew Israelite -ism is ultimately a racist movement, and it feeds on people's prides and prejudices.

24:21

Believe it or not, black people can actually be prejudiced. How about that? So that's what

24:27

I think it is. Plus, I think there's something to the effect of 2 Thessalonians 2.

24:34

Now, I'm not saying this is the case, but I can't help but wonder when it says, in return of Christ, let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come about unless the apostasy comes first, et cetera.

24:50

Now, verse 6, now you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed, for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.

24:59

One is coming in accord with Satan, and it says in verse 11,

25:05

God will send a deluding influence. I'm looking for the verse where it says he'll be removed, taken out of the way, apostasy.

25:15

Anyway, 2 Thessalonians 2 has these phrases like this, and I just,

25:20

I don't know. The rise of the cults, the rise of Islam, the rise and spread of Catholicism and its many heresies, the rise of legalistic groups, it's almost as though God has taken his hand away from mankind in a lot of ways, and spiritually, such that they're believing these lies and prejudices, legalism, failure to understand, and they're just growing.

25:55

I can't help but wonder if this is part and parcel of what God has allowed to occur to bring us to the end times, for the great and final day of judgment and things like that.

26:05

I'm just blabbing, but that's something I've thought about. I've wanted to test the case. It's a pattern with all of them.

26:11

You think about the flat earthers, or you think about the black people, most of these groups, they're such pride.

26:19

They're so arrogantly like pride. It's not just that they have a pride issue.

26:25

It's an aggressive pride that they end up having with a lot of these groups.

26:31

I think it plays into it. That's a good way to put it, aggressive pride. That's a good way to put it. We got

26:39

Mr. Calvinist Klein came in. Hey, buddy. Umaz Josh. I don't know if he has a question.

26:46

I added him in. He can unmute himself. He should know how to do that.

26:53

No. Anonymous guy says Catholicism is not heretical. Oh, yes, it is.

26:59

It's extremely heretical. Josh didn't come in. I'm going to add anonymous guy.

27:06

I think his name was James, actually. Let's see. Anonymous guy.

27:13

Let me turn you up here. Okay. All right.

27:20

James, are you there? Okay. Are you able to hear me?

27:25

Am I coming in loud and clear? Louder. All right. So you and Matt talked last week about Catholicism and baptism.

27:35

And you just made the statement that Matt responded to that you said Catholicism is not heretical.

27:41

However, Vatican II sect is heretical, but they're not

27:47

Catholic. He's just a side of a cantus. That's all.

27:52

It doesn't matter because even the side of a cantus are flaming heretics as they hold to Trent.

28:03

Do you have a question this week for us, James? Well, yeah. Hello. Hello again, fellas.

28:09

Are you able to hear me? Am I coming in loud and clear? Yes. Yes. Okay, great.

28:15

Yeah. First off, I'd like to thank both of you for allowing me to engage in the discussion on the faith from last

28:23

Thursday. I would, however, like a chance to respond and to clarify the

28:31

Catholic position since there seems to be some misunderstandings about it.

28:37

So as you remember, Matt originally said baptism now saves you.

28:43

And 1 Peter 321 points to Noah's Ark. And he said Noah's Ark is a prefigurement to it points to Noah's Ark, but it's a prefigurement to Christ saving grace through his sacrifice for our sins on the cross.

29:00

And I agreed with Matt because I said, yeah, this this means, you know, from the

29:06

Catholic perspective, this means that water baptism ultimately in the end points to Jesus as sacrifice for our sins.

29:12

And therefore the grace from his sacrifice initially occurs at baptism, which is why the

29:19

Apostle Peter said, you know, quote, baptism now saves you, unquote. Of course, as you remember,

29:26

Matt objected because he said we're saved by faith alone and not faith plus works.

29:33

And so Matt's response, you know, to me was that Noah and his family were saved by the

29:39

Ark through, quote, their faith alone, unquote. So, you know,

29:48

I responded by saying that in Catholicism, the act of receiving baptism is not a work done by the one that's receiving the baptism.

29:58

But instead, it's the work Jesus did for us on the cross and the grace that our

30:04

Lord, you know, from our Lord's finished work is simply being applied at the moment one receives water baptism under the new covenant.

30:12

And as you remember, Matt's response was to claim that baptism is an act done at a moment in time and he compared it to a ceremony.

30:21

So he attempted to claim it is, you know, a work we do. So before I continue, do you agree,

30:30

Matt, you know, so far with my account of last Thursday's discussion about 1 Peter 3, 20 through 21?

30:36

Yeah, that's pretty accurate. OK, so I have

30:42

I have a few responses to that, about three responses, maybe four.

30:48

Firstly, let's let's just take them. I do that. OK, you get the back. OK, go ahead. One of them and then let

30:54

Matt respond. OK, firstly, let me explain why you're you're not being consistent,

31:01

Matt. OK, again, you said that Noah and his family were saved from the floodwaters by the ark through through, quote, their faith alone, unquote.

31:11

Well, let me you yourself. Well, well, hold on. I'm not finished. You asked me to go ahead and and I'm trying to make my point.

31:20

Make my point and then you can respond. So you yourself would have to ignore the fact that numerous acts were done at numerous moments in time.

31:32

Whereby Noah and his family built the ark and the act of walking upon the ark when the flood came and the act of closing the door behind them and the act of maintaining the ark and the act of maintaining all the animals on the ark.

31:47

That's a lot of works done over a very long period of time. So, you know, well, if you want to respond, go ahead.

32:00

I was waiting for your conclusion. I know you want to say that your faith and your work saves you.

32:07

That's what you're trying to get at. What I'm saying is that's a lot of works. But you said last

32:13

Thursday that they were saved by their faith alone as though there wasn't any work for God before God by faith alone in Christ alone.

32:22

That's the position. All right. That's what the position is. You want to add works to it. Is that what. OK. Is that what the

32:28

Old Covenant is that what the Old Testament says that they were justified and saved by their faith alone? Yeah.

32:34

You know, when Paul quotes the issue out of Romans chapter four and Abraham believed

32:40

God's righteousness. Yeah, he does. Romans four. Maybe you might want to check it out. Verse three. We're talking about Noah and the ark.

32:48

We're not talking about Abraham. You said any place in the Old Testament. No, I didn't say that.

32:54

I was specifically referring to Noah and the ark and the works that Noah did. Look, look, look, look.

33:00

What you're trying to do is simply try meticulously construct something.

33:05

I'm sitting here literally waiting for you to get to the point while I'm doing other things on the computer waiting for you to finish.

33:12

And I've heard these kind of arguments. I just wish you just get to it. So we have a dialogue on it because it's not a dialogue.

33:17

It's a monologue right now. You're trying to lay this out. You're trying to show that Noah was justified by his faith and his works.

33:23

And you want to carry it over to now. That's what you want to talk about. No, I'm simply pointing out that the fact is that he did do works.

33:32

There were works involved. And you're saying that he was justified by his faith alone.

33:39

He was saved. Define justified. You said he was saved by. Yeah, justified as we're seen righteous before God.

33:48

So you're saying then he was seen righteous before God by his faith and what he did, his works.

33:53

No, you're the one that's claiming that he's justified by God by his works. But last

33:58

Thursday, you said that he was saved by his faith alone through the ark. So I'm simply pointing out that.

34:06

Hold on. I'm not sure what it is you're quoting from me last week.

34:11

I don't review everything. It's on video. James, you gotta let him finish.

34:25

Go ahead, Matt. Unless Matt froze.

34:33

Okay. Let me see. You guys hearing me at all?

34:43

Yeah, you're you're frozen there for a minute. Let me just say that.

34:50

What I teach is what the issue here is. You need to get to the issue. We're justified by faith in Christ alone, not by faith and works.

35:00

What you're trying to do is make a big case out of the Old Testament. Go through all kinds of stuff in order to import it over into the

35:06

New Testament. You're wasting time. This is get to it. Get to the issue. Okay.

35:12

Well, I just went ahead and mentioned that, you know, Noah did do works. He was he wasn't saved by the ark through his faith alone.

35:20

Secondly, Matt, you use logic in your debates. Hold on. Let me respond to that. Because what you're trying to imply is that he's justified before God.

35:29

You say saved. You're not defining what you mean. He was saved from the flood by entering into that ark.

35:35

Absolutely. He was saved by the flood. But you didn't say that he was saved from his sins before God by entering into the ark.

35:41

And this is what you're doing. You're equivocating when you switch around with his word salvation. No, I didn't say anything about sin saved from sins.

35:51

You're the one that's I didn't mention sins at all. You said that he was saved by the ark, by his faith alone.

36:00

Now, what did you mean by that? In the context, I can't respond to what you think I said, what you may be accurately quoting me.

36:06

I don't know. Why don't you just make a point? Because I really don't want to sit here and have to rehash something you say

36:15

I said, which means you're the one citing it back. And I don't know the context.

36:21

And I'm just going to argue about stuff. Why are you wasting your time this way? Why don't you move forward and get to the real issue?

36:28

You want to teach that we're justified by faith and works. No, no.

36:33

I'm just pointing out that it required works. And with regards to Noah being saved by the ark.

36:39

Also, secondly, Matt, you agree being saved by the ark to get into the ark. You built it.

36:45

Yeah, no problem. OK, well, but that's not what you said last Thursday. But that's not justified.

36:53

Don't equivocate on those terms. Matt pointed that out to you. It's OK.

36:59

Well, yeah. Go ahead. That's all. It's not the only salvation the way you were using it.

37:06

You kept switching the terms. You kept equivocating. I'm just telling you, why don't we just get to the end of the race here?

37:13

Come on. Well, it says right there in the very context of that scripture that he was saved from the floodwaters through the ark.

37:21

And you said that he was saved by his faith alone. Through the ark.

37:28

OK, so. You know what? I can't respond to that. I don't remember exactly the whole context of what was going on.

37:37

OK, well, OK. Well, I made my point. Secondly, Matt, you use logic in your debates with atheists.

37:45

And I'm sure you agree that all roadmaps, blueprints and schematics must use logic.

37:52

You know, for example, on a roadmap, logically, there is a starting point which leads to one road.

37:58

A roadmap is not logic. A roadmap is not logic. It's just a map.

38:05

But you have to use logic, correct? In order to use a roadmap, correct? I don't think you understand what logic is.

38:13

OK. Just keep going, keep going. OK, so anyway, on a roadmap, logically, there is a starting point which leads to one road, then leads to another road.

38:28

Ultimately, it leads to its final destination. Therefore, by using the same logic, we see water baptism under the new covenant being said to save, whereas baptism under the old covenant did not save.

38:44

And we see this new baptism pointing to the ark having saved Noah and his family from a physical death, you know, from the floodwaters.

38:54

And we both agree that the ark saving Noah's family, you know, it points to Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, which you've said before.

39:04

It points to Jesus's sacrifice on the cross from a spiritual, you know, from a spiritual death, saving us from a spiritual death.

39:13

Therefore, what we're seeing here is a starting point which follows a roadmap which ends at a final destination.

39:22

Logically, it therefore connects both the starting point to its final destination just as a roadmap does.

39:30

And if you'd like to respond. Well, you need to work on analogies.

39:37

I go to the college local and I get a analogy 101 course. And it's tough to give it a shot, a roadmap.

39:46

So a roadmap needs logic. And that's why baptism is necessary. Look, do you teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, water baptism?

39:59

That is the traditional Catholic belief, but the Vatican II sect doesn't believe that. They believe in baptism of desire.

40:07

So I asked you a question. Do you believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation?

40:15

Yes, I'm a traditional Catholic. All right. So then you cannot be saved without water baptism.

40:21

Correct. Okay. So if someone is on their deathbed and tubes everywhere, can't even do hardly anything except nod his head, which

40:31

I've seen. He's working at a hospital and receives Christ and trusts in Christ and then dies.

40:37

The person is going to get water to sprinkle him. I have no problem with sprinkling. Goes to sprinkle him and he dies before he gets sprinkled.

40:45

Does he go to heaven or hell? He received Christ. He goes to hell. Okay. He goes to hell. Okay. So then you don't teach we're justified by faith.

40:55

Actually, I do teach that we're justified by faith, because if you go to Galatians, it actually connects faith with baptism.

41:02

It says that faith is. Go ahead. When you have faith, is that when you believe, is believing when you have faith?

41:13

Well, but no, it calls the believers to get baptized. So once somebody gets baptized, then they have the faith.

41:18

And I can show that from Galatians. Hold on. So do you have faith when you believe?

41:27

You don't have the true faith, which you receive at baptism. You can call it faith, but it's not the true faith that you receive.

41:35

You don't have true faith, which is an internal belief system. It's something like it until you get baptized. When you get water sprinkled on you or immersed, whatever, get baptized with water.

41:44

That's when you have no real faith on that. Now you're really believing. Well, I'm just telling you what

41:51

Galatians says. If you'd like for me to go through Galatians with you. Go through your position. Because we're talking about faith and belief.

42:01

So when you believe, is that when you have faith? And you're saying no. How do you have faith without belief or have belief without faith?

42:10

Incidentally, it's the same Greek word, pistos in the Greek. Does the

42:15

Bible say that demons believe? Yeah, they have a censure. And that's

42:21

James 2 .19. Okay, well, you could say that people have a censure. And then when they receive baptism, they have the true faith.

42:29

That makes no sense to us. Are you saying that water makes true faith occur in us?

42:37

That's what, well, if you'd like, I could go through the scriptures. Are you saying that when you get water baptized, that's when true faith then suddenly comes into you?

42:46

That's when you have it? I'm telling you that's what the Bible says. So the answer for you is yes.

42:51

So faith is like a substance then that comes into you at baptism. It's a supernatural occurrence that occurs in someone whereby they receive the true faith.

43:03

Do you know what ex operata is? No, I don't.

43:09

By the doing it is done. So through the ceremony of baptism, when a person who believes in God and does all this stuff, acknowledges, and then he's not a true believer, doesn't have that true faith.

43:20

It's just a censure, I guess. But by the doing it is done, ex operata, when the water is there, then that's when it all manifests.

43:28

And that's when he's really saved. So it's a ceremony that you have to go through to get saved. Well, we discussed that before, but it's not necessarily a ceremony because the thing is, you don't have to go through a ceremony to get water baptized.

43:44

Somebody could be on their deathbed, and they don't have to do anything. They could believe, and someone else could come along and baptize them.

43:51

And that person that's on their deathbed doesn't have to do anything. All they have is their belief. So, no, no, no, no.

43:58

If they die before water's applied to them, they go to hell. That's what you said. So their faith in Christ is not enough. Well, you didn't hear what

44:06

I just said. Somebody comes in and water baptizes them. So then when somebody comes in and water baptizes them, because that person believes, because obviously you're not going to baptize an unbeliever, right?

44:17

You didn't hear what I said. I said they believe in Christ, they trust in Christ, and they just happen to die seconds before they get water baptized.

44:24

You said they go to hell. So you're denying that they're saved by faith in Christ. No, I'm telling you, and I'm trying to get to the

44:33

Scriptures, if you would allow me, to prove that they receive the faith when they get baptized, that believing is not the faith.

44:40

Believing prior to baptism is not the faith. We'll go to the Scripture. But I'm going to have to put you on hold for just a sec.

44:48

I'm going to have to put you on hold. I have to go to the restroom. I'll be back in about a minute or two.

44:54

Sorry about that. All right. That's an interesting one, Matt. That's a first for that.

45:00

Hey, so let's talk about what happened on your show today. On your radio show, you had a caller.

45:08

Yeah, just a caller who said that he could keep the commandments and his salvation was dependent upon his ability to keep the law along with his faith in Christ.

45:17

Same thing this guy's teaching, is that salvation, justification before God, is by faith in Christ and something else, and the ceremony of baptism.

45:27

And notice what he said. He said that if the person doesn't get water baptized before he believes, before he dies, he's trusted in Christ, he's appealed to Christ.

45:37

By faith, he's asking the Lord, seeking the Lord. He dies before, sorry, you go to hell.

45:43

That means he's not justified by faith. And the Bible says Romans 3, 28, Romans 4, 5, Romans 5, 1, having therefore been justified by faith.

45:50

And you have faith when you believe. And then what's interesting is he wants to differentiate faith from belief. How do you do that?

45:58

Well, I might, the question I have, and someone's asking this in the chat as well. What about the thief on the cross?

46:05

I mean, he had no opportunity. I think this is where you're kind of going, but there Christ said he would be in paradise if he was baptized.

46:13

So is Christ a liar? Or is baptism not necessary for salvation?

46:19

That'd be a question I'm curious of. Well, I'd like to see his answer. In fact, I'm going to use the restroom too. All right.

46:27

So I don't know if James is back. But folks, if this is a good time to let you know that this is a podcast, it's part of the

46:37

Christian podcast community. If you are a podcaster and would like to be part of a Christian community of podcasters looking to help one another out, you can feel free to go there.

46:47

If you want to listen to all the podcasts, this would be one of them. You can go to Christian Apollo, sorry,

46:55

Christian podcast community, search for that, and you'd be able to listen to all of them, one of which would be my podcast,

47:04

The Wrap Report. That's one of the ones that is out there. And so you'd be able to have that one that you can listen to as well.

47:12

James, are you back yet? Okay. Are you able to hear me?

47:19

Yeah. So Matt's not here for a sec. He went and did the same thing you did.

47:25

So I have a question for you while we wait for him to get back. So my question is on the cross,

47:35

Jesus was there. There's a thief next to him. He says to the thief who had no opportunity to be baptized that today you will be with me in paradise.

47:46

So Jesus was saying that that thief who had no baptism was going to be in heaven with him.

47:53

So I guess my question is, did Jesus lie? Was he wrong?

48:00

Or is baptism not required for salvation? That's a wonderful question.

48:08

And I would love for Matt to be here. Matt's here. Good. Matt's back. Okay. Yeah.

48:16

Did you hear that, Matt, about the thief on the cross? I told him what I was going to ask you. I didn't.

48:23

Go ahead. Okay. Yeah. This example of the thief on the cross fails. First, the law of baptism, which

48:31

Jesus made binding on every man, became an obligation after Jesus' resurrection when

48:37

Jesus gave the command to preach the gospel and to baptize all nations in Matthew 28 -20.

48:43

So the good thief died under the old law before the law of baptism became binding on everyone.

48:49

Second, the good thief did not... Can I continue and then you can respond?

48:56

Well, you just shut that out wrong because the covenant ends with the death of the testator. Hebrews 8 -13, Hebrews 9 -15 -16, not the resurrection.

49:03

So it was under the old covenant. He died because Jesus died first.

49:09

The new covenant was in effect. And that means that the thief died and then baptism would have been required.

49:15

You're wrong. Flat out. Okay. Can I respond?

49:22

If you can, against scripture, give it a shot. Okay. Okay. I don't disagree with you that the supernatural miraculous effects of Jesus' death on the cross did bring about the new covenant, but he didn't institute it, make it binding under the law until after his resurrection.

49:39

The Bible says in Hebrews 9, look in the text, for this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant so that since a death has taken place, the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those have been called, they receive the promise of eternal inheritance for where a covenant is, there must not necessarily be the death of the one who made it.

49:56

The death is the differentiation between the old and new covenant, the death. Jesus died before the thief on the cross.

50:02

Therefore, the thief on the cross is under the new covenant. Okay. Well, maybe you didn't understand what

50:14

I just said. I actually agree with you. I'm telling you that I agree with you that the new covenant took effect with Jesus' death on the cross, and I agreed with you last

50:25

Thursday as well. But what I'm telling you is that the law of baptism didn't become binding until after Jesus' resurrection in Matthew 28 -20 when he made it binding through his institution and he agreed on the apostles and he told them to go out throughout all nations and baptize.

50:46

Therefore, it wasn't binding on anyone to get baptized is what I'm telling you.

50:53

Okay. So what you're trying to tell me then is that the words that Christ gave in the

50:58

Great Commission was the binding formula for salvation? Well, what

51:05

I'm telling you is that he instituted it. In other words, I'm asking you a question. You're the one implying that.

51:17

Well, the thing is, I believe that I'm correct when

51:23

I'm saying that Jesus instituted it. You can disagree. But second, the good... Wait a minute.

51:28

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You're the one who's saying that baptism is part of the necessity of the new covenant for salvation.

51:34

And then you went to Matthew 28 -20. Okay. We look at it. There's nothing in there about the necessity of being saved by baptism.

51:43

Go, therefore, make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it's disciples.

51:49

This is how you make disciples. It's part of the baptism. Baptism is part of the disciple -making process. There's nothing about saving them.

51:56

And you're the one who's taking it out of its context and applying it to that. Well, I'm not really taking it out of its context because I could give you many, many scriptures which shows the necessity of water baptism where it does make it mandatory.

52:10

You're the one who brought this up. Wait a minute. I brought up the issue of the covenant, the thief and the cross, okay? And the ratification of the covenant is at the death of Christ.

52:18

That means the new covenant requirements are already in place. You have to get out of that. And the way you do it is by going to the end of Matthew.

52:24

And it doesn't work because it doesn't support your view. So you got anything else that you want to go to where it's an institution of baptism after the resurrection?

52:33

No, you're continually claiming that I'm saying something I'm not. I'm agreeing with you that the new covenant was in effect after Jesus's death.

52:42

In other words, the supernatural miraculous grace of his sacrifice on the cross was in effect.

52:51

But it wasn't made. The water baptism under the new covenant, would you agree that the water baptism under the new covenant wasn't instituted until Jesus's words in Matthew 28 through 20, 2820?

53:07

I would say that they were formally instituted at that place. Do you know what a covenant is?

53:15

Okay, then I agree with you. They were formally instituted at that point. Do you know what a covenant is?

53:23

It's like a contract agreement between two parties. Covenants have rewards, stipulations, punishments, and things like that.

53:30

Yes. So where is the issue of the

53:36

New Testament reward stipulations covenant requirements found in the New Testament? Well, I could get to that.

53:44

Mark 16, 15 through 16 repeats what Matthew 28 through 27, 27,

53:51

I mean 20 said. And it speaks of the reward salvation through baptism. So that would be a reward salvation of getting into heaven.

53:59

So it says, quote, And he, Jesus said to them, go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.

54:07

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.

54:13

So Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.

54:22

Now, I know you and many Protestants, you you'll say, well, why didn't

54:28

Jesus say he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be saved? Well, the answer is that those who don't believe are not going to get baptized anyway.

54:41

So it's not necessary to go ahead and mention baptism again. What's the point? And even if they even if somebody was baptized, that was an unbeliever, it would be an invalid baptism.

54:52

It would be meaningless. Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body he died in?

54:59

Yes. So are you familiar with the issues of Mark 16, 9 through 20? I don't know.

55:08

Go ahead and mention it to me. It's not found in a lot of the early manuscripts, plus there's 17 suddenly new words right there in those 11 verses that don't appear any place in the entire

55:19

Gospel of Mark. Plus, we have an issue here that Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them.

55:24

Verse 12, it didn't appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he died in. So you realize that if you have to go here for these issues, it's a weak part of the scriptures.

55:33

And not that I attack the Word of God, I defend the Word of God, but this is just textual fact. So the fact that you go here is really interesting.

55:41

But Mark 16, 16 says the ones who believe and is baptized, would you agree that those who believe and go to church and and love the

55:50

Lord Jesus Christ would also be saved? I would say those that are baptized and they continue in the faith.

55:57

Yeah, they'll be saved. The answer is no. You wouldn't say then that someone who trusts in Christ loves the

56:02

Lord God and has trusted in him. You wouldn't say he's saved. I'd say he's saved.

56:09

No, you wouldn't because he's not been baptized. That's the thing about baptism there. You're the one who says that he has to be water baptized in order to be saved.

56:16

You're a heretic. You're the one who puts a requirement of a ceremony on salvation.

56:22

We are justified when we have faith, not justified when we get baptized. Never do you ever find any place at all where it says we're justified by baptism in water.

56:33

You find we're having therefore been justified by faith. You have faith when you have faith. You believe that's when you're justified when you have faith.

56:40

But you say no, you're not justified by faith when you believe you're justified by faith when you get dunked in water.

56:46

So it's not justified by faith. You could you contradict the scripture. And the reason you do this is because as a set of a cantus, as a

56:53

Roman Catholic, because you hold to the false doctrines of the satirical theological system of the Roman Catholic Church, you're not regenerate.

56:59

And because of this, you don't have the mind of Christ. You don't know what the gospel is. And you are seeking to make a work and a ceremony part of your salvation process.

57:08

I asked you if water baptism was necessary. And you said yes. That means that you cannot be justified by God before God by faith alone in Christ alone.

57:19

It has to be something and a ceremony you have to experience in order to be saved. That's what you teach.

57:24

You teach a false gospel. And it needs to be labeled for what it is. OK, well,

57:32

I was asked about the thief on the cross. I'd like to continue if I may. Sure.

57:38

I showed you that you were wrong about that in your institution of baptism in the covenant sign there. When you went to Matthew 28, 18 through 20, is just a declaration of the issue of that for the purpose of discipleship, not of salvation, not justification, which is what you implied and you misapplied it.

57:55

You got any other place you want to go to? You know what I find interesting, Matt, before we move on, is he's giving you scripture and explanation of scripture, but he's not quoting the church.

58:06

Yeah, I didn't know that he can have a private interpretation. That was something that he would be doing is quoting what the

58:12

Bible, what the church says the Bible means. Well, at least he's trying to go with scripture and that's good.

58:18

Better than most Catholics. It is. Relying on private interpretation. He's not quoting the church when he gives that.

58:24

Actually. That's actually incorrect, Andrew. I didn't hear you quote the church.

58:31

Yeah, that's actually incorrect, Andrew. Well, when we move along with what we're talking about, we're going to sidetrack yet again.

58:39

So what was it? Yeah, when I when I go ahead and give an explanation of a verse,

58:45

I'm doing it in the context of church's teachings. Obviously, that's the church's teachings with regards to baptism that baptism saves.

58:52

It's necessary for salvation. So my second I'd like to continue.

59:00

I was asked a question about the thief on the cross. I'd like to continue. You know,

59:06

I'm not good with all these debates. I'm not like a professional debater or anything. So when I when I'm trying to answer these questions, it's hard to like when

59:14

I'm interrupted to ask questions. It breaks my concentration. Secondly, the good thief did not go to heaven on the day that Jesus was crucified.

59:24

Jesus himself did not go to heaven on that day. But instead he went to what the

59:30

Apostles Creed refers to as hell. But a more accurate term is Hades, which is comprised of two levels.

59:36

The higher level being Abraham's bosom and the lower level being Sheol. This, of course, is it's it's not the eternal hell, which you know, is also called

59:44

Ghana. I think that's how they pronounce it or the Lake of Fire. But it's instead it's it's it's

59:52

Abraham's bosom. And it's it's the the waiting place of the just of the righteous of the

59:59

Old Testament. You know, the the saints of the Old Testament. That's where the good thief went with Jesus on the day of his crucifixion.

01:00:07

Jesus referred to it. Yeah, well, Jesus referred to it as paradise for two reasons.

01:00:14

First, because it's not a place of torment and suffering. And second, because Jesus would be there.

01:00:21

God himself would be there. And we see in Jesus Jesus and John, John John 13 says no one has ascended into heaven.

01:00:33

So we know nobody went to heaven. You know, these people that lived under the, you know,

01:00:38

Old Testament times prior to the new covenant. So nobody at that time had gone to heaven where the father and the angels are.

01:00:48

No one went to heaven until after Jesus did. Jesus had primacy in all things.

01:00:54

As St. Paul says in Colossians 118, Jesus didn't ascend into heaven until after his resurrection, as John 2017 proves.

01:01:04

So no problem with that. Yeah, so the so the good thief is not an example against the necessity of baptism for salvation.

01:01:16

Was the thief safe from his sins without being baptized in water? Well, we know that I don't know exactly if all those prior to the new covenant.

01:01:28

I mean, it wasn't binding on them. So I don't know the thief. Was the thief saved from his sins without being baptized?

01:01:38

OK, that why I'm trying. If you allow me to explain, I'm getting to the thief. I'm speaking of all those prior to the binding institution because you've already admitted that Matthew and Matthew, he actually instituted it.

01:01:50

So I'm speaking of all those prior to that salvation. You well, that's that's that's your belief.

01:01:59

I believe it's to salvation. Hold on. You have to stop doing that by. Matt has been very clear on things and you keep trying to say that he believes something that he corrects you and says he does not.

01:02:11

He said that the covenant came with the death of Christ. He made that abundantly clear.

01:02:17

So for you to say that he was agreeing with your position is false. If you're going to Andrew, I, Andrew, actually,

01:02:27

I agreed with Matt on his position. Then if you go back on the video, I mean, let me tackle him, let me tackle him.

01:02:33

Go ahead. I agreed with Matt. Andrew, I agreed with Matt on his position with regards to when the miraculous effect took supernatural effect of the new covenant took place.

01:02:43

If you go back on the video, you'll see that Matt agreed with me with regards to Matthew that Jesus didn't actually institute.

01:02:51

You misrepresented me a few times. I wouldn't trust that. No, no offense meant.

01:02:56

But look, I asked you a question. Was the thief saved from his sins without being baptized?

01:03:04

It's either yes or it's no. Well, personally, I would say no. As a traditional

01:03:10

Catholic, probably a lot of those in the Vatican II sect would say yes. The thief was damned to hell? No, I, no.

01:03:17

None of those that went to Abraham's bosom were damned to hell. And allow me to explain. The thief was saved from his sins?

01:03:27

The thief was not saved in the sense of the new covenant whereby the gates were opened to.

01:03:33

Wow. Was he saved from his sins without being baptized? I'm, the thing is that Matt, when you ask me a question, if you want me to answer, it's hard for me to answer you if you keep cutting into my answer.

01:03:45

Okay? I'm trying to explain. Your answer is long, convoluted, and lengthy. We'll do an experiment.

01:03:51

Watch this, everybody. I'm going to ask you a simple question. Okay? Was the thief saved from his sins without being water baptized?

01:03:59

Go. I already answered that and I told you that I believe that the thief needed to be water baptized.

01:04:07

So you're repeating a question that I answered. If he needed to be water baptized, that's, I agree.

01:04:13

He needed to be water baptized. He should have been. Okay, now here's a question, different question. Was the thief saved from his sins without being water baptized?

01:04:23

No, I don't believe, personally, I do not believe that. Okay, so no, then he was damned.

01:04:33

No, let, let, if you allow me to explain, I mean, I could explain it for you. If you allow me.

01:04:40

Go ahead. Try it. Okay, as, as a traditional Catholic, again, the Vatican II sect, and all of you

01:04:46

Protestants will probably disagree with this, but I believe as a traditional Catholic that all those saints under the, that lived during the

01:04:55

Old Testament times that were in Abraham's bosom, I believe that they were all baptized either by Jesus himself or by his angels, or they were water baptized.

01:05:05

Or remember that we see in the Bible itself that they rose out of their graves. So I believe they could have been baptized then.

01:05:12

There were many opportunities for them to get water baptized. So I believe that they were water baptized before getting into heaven.

01:05:20

Now, again, you could disagree. Vatican II sect could disagree.

01:05:25

And I'm not saying you're wrong because again, it wasn't necessarily binding onto them because they, they died prior to when it was made binding.

01:05:34

It was binding under the new covenant. So if you say, if you Matt Slick says, if you say, well, he, he went to heaven and all the, the

01:05:45

Old Testament saints did eventually go to heaven, I'm not going to necessarily disagree with you. I'm just telling you my opinion, my opinion.

01:05:52

And I'm also telling you my opinion might be wrong. I'm asking you a question.

01:05:59

It's a yes or it's a no answer. Was the thief saved from his sins without being water baptized?

01:06:06

You're, you're repeating a question I answered twice already. You said, so you believe they were baptized by Jesus and or the angels before getting into heaven.

01:06:15

In other words, you're pulling a rabbit out of your hat. You're saying something that the scriptures don't say.

01:06:21

You're just making things up, but I'm asking you, was the thief saved from his sins without being water baptized?

01:06:27

It's either yes or it's no. Well, I, and I answered you twice. I told you, and I'll repeat it a third time.

01:06:34

I'll repeat it a third time. No, which one is personally? Matt, now you're better than this.

01:06:40

Come on, Matt. Now, the thing is I've repeated it. I'm going to, I said it twice. I'm going to repeat it a third time.

01:06:47

Personally. I believe that all of them were baptized either by Jesus or the angels.

01:06:54

Or when they resurrect when they not resurrected because it wasn't the actual resurrection other than your covenant.

01:07:01

But when they rose out of it, they could have gotten baptized then. I personally believe they were water baptized, but I might be wrong.

01:07:11

Okay. So you just believe he's water baptized. That's all. What the Bible doesn't say.

01:07:20

It doesn't say. That's what you affirm. Do you have, and since you've said the Bible doesn't say, you have no evidence for that.

01:07:26

You're just assuming it. Well, I'm assuming it based on John 3, 5 because Jesus says unless a man is born of water in the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

01:07:39

Therefore, my opinion is that nobody gets into heaven unless they're water baptized. So the thief and the and the murderer on the cross left and right of him.

01:07:49

They both were hurling insults at him. Right. Yes, they were.

01:07:58

They both were writing Christ. So it looks like that as Jesus was on the cross, this man actually became a believer.

01:08:08

So since he was insulting Christ, he would have gotten baptized. That doesn't work for you. You're just digging yourself a hole.

01:08:16

You've got to stop the error. Look, the New Covenant started with the death of Christ.

01:08:21

I gave you the exact references for that. I put it in the scriptures. You go to the end of Matthew, the

01:08:27

Great Commission, and say this is the institution of baptism as a requirement for salvation. It doesn't say that. It says for discipleship.

01:08:34

OK? You took it out of context. We talk about the issue here of the thief going, uh, thief on the cross.

01:08:41

And then you say you believe he was baptized. You have no evidence for that. You say the angels maybe did it.

01:08:47

No evidence for this whatsoever. You just say this. Maybe Jesus did it. Maybe the angels did it. However... I have John 3, 5. I have

01:08:53

John 3, 5. No, no, no. You don't. You don't have... John 3, 5 doesn't say that the thief was baptized. John 3, 5 says that nobody gets into heaven.

01:09:03

James, James, James. Both the criminals, both the criminals were deriding Christ on the cross.

01:09:09

So, he's deriding Christ. Do you think that means he was already baptized in Christ and trusted in him? You are so...

01:09:18

There are many people that commit sin. Oh, brother. OK. So, what we're doing now is talking with someone who's just irrational.

01:09:26

OK? So, you have no evidence that he was baptized. You just believe it. When I show you that he was deriding Christ, and I'll define the exact references, but they were both hurling insults at him.

01:09:35

And you're saying, yeah, he was baptized. Oh, but he was backslidden. You know, you just go through such incredible lengths to deny the gospel and make people twice a child of hell as yourself.

01:09:51

OK. You kept me out of response. I'm responding to you now. When I ask you simple questions, you can't even answer simple questions.

01:10:01

You can say, I don't know, and that's perfectly legitimate. I don't have a problem if you say, well, I don't know. OK. That's fair.

01:10:06

But there's only two possibilities in actuality. The thief was either water -baptized, or it's not the case that the thief was water -baptized.

01:10:13

We have no place in the Word of God that says he was water -baptized.

01:10:18

But because you hold to this position, you have to affirm that he was, even though nothing in it says so, and he was deriding

01:10:27

Christ before him. But you say he was a believer because he got baptized, but yet he's insulting Christ. You make no sense whatsoever.

01:10:36

You don't believe in justification by faith alone. Because your Roman Catholic Church denies the true

01:10:43

Gospel, and adds works of salvation, and as Canon 9 of Trent says, and Canon of justification, if anyone were to say that by faith alone someone is justified, and no works are necessary...

01:11:01

Matt, you muted yourself accidentally. I do not know how

01:11:10

I muted myself accidentally. What's the last thing you heard? Sorry. Last thing you said was...

01:11:19

You hear Canon 9? Yeah, you were quoting that. Canon 9 says that if you teach that you're saved by faith alone and Christ alone, that kind of thing, have you to be justified without works, then let them be anathema.

01:11:33

The Roman Catholic Church is anti -Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is anti -Christ because it teaches an anti -Christ

01:11:42

Gospel of works added to the faith that we have in Christ. Galatians chapter 5 refutes that.

01:11:49

Romans 3, 4, 5 refute that. You have gone a long way, and I've been trying to be as patient as possible to listen to your heresies.

01:11:57

You have gone a long way to try and show that the thief, among other things, was baptized when nothing in Scripture says so.

01:12:04

You've exceeded what's written in the Word of God. You've gone way beyond it. This is why you're lost.

01:12:11

Let me ask you. If you were to pray to Jesus and just trust in Him alone for the forgiveness of your sins, would you sins?

01:12:18

And you ask Him to forgive you of all of your sins. Would all your sins be forgiven? Okay, did you just ask me a question if I simply believe in Jesus?

01:12:34

Am I forgiven of my sins, and that's all? No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said, if you were to pray to Jesus and ask

01:12:43

Him to forgive you of all of your sins, would He forgive you of all of your sins? Well, it depends.

01:12:50

Is there a priest nearby where I could go to a priest for confession? Because the Bible does speak about presbyters, and presbyters means priest.

01:12:59

And it does speak about confession. Presbyteros means elder. Episcopos means bishop.

01:13:06

Diakonos means deacon. Now, priest... Well, there's Greek scholars that would disagree with you.

01:13:11

I've had four and a half years of Greek. I've been studying this for years. Now, look. If you were to pray and ask

01:13:17

Jesus, and you ask Him to forgive you of your sins, I'm just talking about you asking

01:13:24

Jesus to forgive you of your sins, you know, hypothetically, what's your first name?

01:13:30

James. James? James. Okay, James. James, let's say that you, you know, tonight, you, you know, there's no priest around, there's no whatever, you know, you just go into your room, whatever your situation is, you know, and you just start talking to Jesus.

01:13:45

You just pray to Jesus, and you ask Him, you know, Jesus, you know, I'm not accusing you of being a big sinner.

01:13:51

You're no more sinner than I am. I mean, you know, you're prideful, stubborn. The basics of the basics, I don't try to be flippant about it, but, you know, you, me, whatever, we've sinned, and we go to Jesus, and you go to Jesus, and you ask

01:14:03

Him to forgive you of your sins. Is He going to forgive you? Yes.

01:14:09

Good. Now, if an unbeliever, by the work of the

01:14:14

Holy Spirit, John 6, 44, 665, being drawn, granted belief, Leviticus 129, comes in, he asks

01:14:20

Jesus to forgive him of his sins. Are his sins forgiven? Are his sins forgiven? Did he get water baptized yet?

01:14:27

Not yet. He wants to. Then his sins are not forgiven. Okay. So then what you're saying is that faith in Christ and asking

01:14:35

Jesus, who said, ask me anything in my name, and I will do it, John 14, 14, come to me, and I'll give you rest,

01:14:41

Matthew 11, 28. And Paul, who says, we maintain the amendment justified by faith apart from the works of the law,

01:14:46

Romans 3, 28, and to the one who does not work but believes. His faith is credited as righteousness.

01:14:53

If he does not work, doesn't do anything, his faith is credited as righteousness. You would say that such a man who has faith in Christ is not credited as righteousness.

01:15:04

That's your position. No, not at all. No, that's not my position. So the person who puts faith and trust and asks

01:15:10

Jesus to forgive him of his sins, is that faith credited as righteousness before him without being baptized? Well, I've already pointed out to you that true faith, and it's in Galatians.

01:15:22

Let's go to Galatians. John, please don't Please don't put words in my mouth. I already pointed out to you that the

01:15:28

Bible itself says that true faith comes from baptism. In other words, it's not simply being a believer.

01:15:35

come from baptism? Show me where it says true faith comes from baptism.

01:15:41

I'm waiting. Okay. Okay, fine. The Bible teaches that believers receive the faith through baptism.

01:15:48

Okay? They don't simply have the faith just by believing. That's why there are believers that are called.

01:15:54

That's why believers are called to get baptized. So in Galatians 3, we see the...

01:16:00

I'm trying to answer you, Matt, but you really need to calm down because I'm trying to answer you. Please stop interrupting me.

01:16:07

In Galatians 3, we see the link between receiving the faith and receiving baptism.

01:16:13

We see that one first receives the faith through baptism.

01:16:19

So in Galatians 3 .23, St. Paul says, quote, but before the faith came, end quote.

01:16:28

And in verse 24, he says, quote, that we may be justified by faith, end quote.

01:16:35

And then 25, verse 25, he says, quote, for you are all the children of God by faith in Christ, end quote.

01:16:44

So you agree with all that, right? Wait, I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying to say.

01:16:51

Galatians 3 .22 is where you started? Correct. I'm sorry, Galatians 3 .23.

01:16:59

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith, which was later to be revealed, the

01:17:07

Old Testament law, right? Therefore, the law has become a tutor to lead us to Christ, that Old Testament law, so that we might be justified by faith.

01:17:19

Okay, so you agree with all that, right? Yeah, we're justified by faith. You don't. Well, hold on, because St.

01:17:28

Paul explains exactly what he means by, faith in Christ, unquote, in the very next verse, which is verse 27.

01:17:38

Galatians 3 .27. No, the very next verse is verse 27. Actually, I already spoke to it,

01:17:45

I already spoke about it in verse 25. Let me read it, though. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor, no longer under the law.

01:17:54

For you are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.

01:18:01

Yeah? Exactly. in Galatians 3 .27,

01:18:11

he says, quote, for as many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, for you are all now one in Christ.

01:18:22

He goes on by saying, for you are now one in Christ. This clearly is teaching that it's not clear.

01:18:29

Please don't interrupt me. Please, please don't interrupt me. I'm trying to make a point. This clearly is teaching that it is by the means of baptism that one receives the faith.

01:18:43

That's why baptism has been since, you know, apostolic times. I'm sure I'm guessing you've studied, you know, the early church fathers and so forth.

01:18:51

Since apostolic times, baptism has been called the sacrament of the faith.

01:18:57

So without, you know, without baptism, one does not have the faith and cannot be saved.

01:19:07

What does it mean to be clothed with Christ or to put on Christ? What does that mean? Are you there?

01:19:23

He's muted for some reason. Did he mute himself? No, Henson actually muted him for some reason.

01:19:32

Henson, please don't do that. Who muted him? Henson. This one guy here in the middle.

01:19:39

Why would he do that? I don't know, but I saw that. Don't do that. We'll kick you out if you do that.

01:19:47

Sorry about that, James. Go ahead. Okay, thank you. Well, in Galatians 3 -7, we see that it only refers to those who have been baptized as putting on Christ.

01:19:59

It doesn't say that those who were believers prior to being baptized have put on Christ. So, obviously, only those who have been water baptized have put on Christ.

01:20:09

And it goes on to say that now, well, it's a change from the man, the flesh man, you know, what's happening is you're going from the humanity of conscious of intellect and all that stuff and you're going into the divinity of let me finish talking.

01:20:34

You ask me a question and you keep interrupting me. At least you allow me to explain. You go on forever. It's hard to wait.

01:20:40

You say so many things. Then why ask me a question? Why ask me a question to explain it? Just quickly and efficiently.

01:20:46

He asks you yes -no questions. You go on for five minutes. That wasn't it. No, I didn't ask him to know about that.

01:20:53

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, when he asked me to explain it, is that a yes -or -no question?

01:21:00

It's not a yes -or -no question. I actually explain it. Please go ahead. Other ones. He's already shown that you can't answer simple questions.

01:21:06

Answer quickly. Get right to the point. Stop going off on different things. Just answer it.

01:21:11

Please. What does it mean to be close to Christ? That was my question. Go ahead. Okay.

01:21:19

Yeah. So I believe that with regards to that, you're putting on Christ. What you're doing is

01:21:25

There's a remission of the sins that's happening, and the grace of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is applied to you.

01:21:36

In other words, the saving grace is applied to you because you were obedient in that you went ahead and submitted to the water baptism, and now you're seen righteous, and you're justified before Christ because of that obedience to Him.

01:21:50

And I could prove it. I mean, I didn't finish going on with regards to the other scriptures.

01:21:59

I can prove what I said. Go ahead. James, you say a whole bunch.

01:22:04

I just want to respond to the smaller chunks. Okay. The issue of a tutor that leads us to Christ, do you know what that is?

01:22:14

The tutor in the culture of the time to which Paul is referring? Well, I would say that it was probably the

01:22:28

Holy Spirit. I would say that it's the Holy Spirit guiding us to Christ. Okay. In the Roman culture of the time, a tutor was somebody who was usually a slave, and the owner of the house and the owner of the slaves would entrust the children to the slaves as an instructor, as a tutor.

01:22:48

This would happen often between the age of six and seven until puberty. Oh, that's good to know.

01:22:54

I didn't know that. It is. You can just check it out. It has to do with the word there and stuff like that.

01:23:00

See, we learn stuff from each other. Mm -hmm. And in Roman society, when a child who had undergone the care of a tutor had reached that age of maturity where he was, so to speak,

01:23:12

I'll use the word graduate, guess what he was given at that point?

01:23:19

It was a robe or a toga. He would be clothed as a signification in that culture of the completeness of his tutoring and his teaching and that he had graduated.

01:23:37

And what Paul is doing, most probably, is alluding to this kind of a thing here. So when you say...

01:23:45

Well, that's Matt Slick's interpretation. He's using eisegesis in regards to this. I'm just going by the word that the

01:23:51

Scripture says. Actually, it's from Wolver J.

01:23:59

F. Zuckroy, the Bible Knowledge Commentary. That's just me reading into it.

01:24:04

Is that Protestant? Is that a Protestant? Don't commit the genetic fallacy and say because it's Protestant that therefore it can't be trusted.

01:24:11

If you're going to do that, I'm going to say anything and everything that comes from the Catholic mouth can't be trusted.

01:24:17

Be careful what you wish for, because it'll bite you in the rear. You need to do some homework.

01:24:22

What you should do is say, Interesting. Let me go check it out. That's fair. Go see if there was anything like this.

01:24:28

You need to read the context so you understand what's going on. I did the homework.

01:24:39

Okay. Well, with all of this, we've kind of deviated from what I was talking about. 1 Peter 3 .21.

01:24:46

I had several points I wanted to make, and we've kind of deviated with that with the thief on the cross and so forth.

01:24:53

I'd like to continue. No, I don't know if I want to, because this is a criticism.

01:25:00

You just want to go on and on and on and on and talk for long periods of time, and you don't want anybody to really talk to you and say,

01:25:05

Wait a minute. I can't agree with that as you build your case. That's not agree. I don't agree. You don't want that to happen.

01:25:11

You don't have a platform for a half hour to say whatever you want to say. Also, Matt, we do have other people here who've been waiting.

01:25:19

I don't want to be rude to them either. James has been here for an hour last week and over an hour this week.

01:25:25

Oh, yeah. I didn't know that. I'm sorry about that. I didn't realize there were other people waiting.

01:25:30

If there are other people waiting, can we continue this next Thursday? Maybe not the week after.

01:25:38

Yeah. The week after we got some special plan for next Thursday. Sounds great. Sounds great.

01:25:43

Okay. Sounds great. Before you go, James, before you go, look, you and I disagree and we may step over a little bit.

01:25:50

I think maybe I did over you a little bit more than you did to me. But the thing is, I appreciate your desire for politeness to stick with the word.

01:25:57

I appreciate that. Okay. I mean, I do. And you know what? I appreciate you too,

01:26:02

Matt, because I really enjoy watching the debates you have against atheists because I think, and you should look at the debate

01:26:10

Trent Horn had recently with that guy. I can't remember his name.

01:26:17

But Dan Barkley? No, no, no. Dan something, I think. Dan Barkley.

01:26:23

I think so. Correct. And he used your argument. And I think that's a very good argument against atheism.

01:26:33

Who's the he? The other person? Trent Horn. He's from Catholic Answers.

01:26:39

Catholic Answers Live. Trent Horn. Okay. And what argument did he use? The tag?

01:26:46

Correct. Okay. The logical fallacies of atheism.

01:26:51

Correct. Okay. All right. Well, thanks. Right. So next, who is in here?

01:26:59

Although I almost want to, you know, Jerry had a great question for you, Matt. I'll ask his one question just for fun, and then we'll get to JMD.

01:27:10

His question was, do you have a second blessing of, you know, with grace and with the patience you bestow upon people?

01:27:20

Well, to be honest, I... To be honest, I don't think I was as patient with him as I should have been.

01:27:29

So, if you think I'm patient, then great. I got some land I want to sell you in Florida.

01:27:36

I could learn, always learn to be better and patient. It's something I've always had to work on. I just focus on what he's saying.

01:27:41

Could I listen? You know, point one, point two, point three. In a formal debate, you just wait.

01:27:48

And then you write your notes and you go back and respond. But here, let's have a discussion. So... And part of the thing is, and folks don't even understand, is that you're trying to think of how to respond to this and they add another thing and it's how to respond to that.

01:28:02

And then it becomes too much to keep track of in your mind. So... There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, a formal debate versus more of an interaction, things like this.

01:28:13

But in my opinion, I don't think James was able to answer very directly. Yeah. Well, I've added

01:28:18

JMD apologetics. He had a question for you as well. You've unmuted yourself.

01:28:24

Let me make sure your audio is up. It is. So, go ahead. See if your mics work.

01:28:30

Yeah. Hey, man, I called into your show probably a month ago about the... Oh, brother. Here goes the show.

01:28:37

I don't know if you got my last email, but you know who Steve... Wait a second. Let me see.

01:28:42

I got... Sorry, I'm laughing. I got your last email. This is how many emails I have. I can't look on that one.

01:28:48

Your email instantly goes to the waste box, I heard. Oh, it's only 9966. That's how many emails

01:28:55

I have. Sorry. Go ahead. Well, I'm sure with the grace of God, you can get through them all.

01:29:01

Oh, yeah. By hitting delete. So, I think you know who

01:29:07

Steve McRae is from the non sequitur show. From the what show? Oh, non sequitur show.

01:29:12

Steve McRae. Steve is... I can't understand the word. The non what show? Oh, non sequitur show.

01:29:19

Sequitur. Sequitur. Okay. No, I don't know. That's the guy after us this week, Matt, that posted and tagged you and I on Facebook and was going with me on Twitter.

01:29:27

That's the guy. Yeah, I think you interacted with him on the tag argument as well.

01:29:33

But... I don't remember. And then they complained that... Oh, yes, you do remember. I don't know who you are.

01:29:39

Sorry. You just talked to me three months ago. Sorry. Sorry. But go ahead.

01:29:45

Yeah. So, basically, I... Well, my one friend who helps me with my channel and stuff like that, he did a response video to them.

01:29:51

It was pretty funny. Basically, they were arguing that you can argue any theological position in the Bible because, you know, you can find texts...

01:29:59

I agreed with him. You can, but if you don't do proper exegesis, then, yeah, you can support any theological position not knowing what the text actually meant and that's just exegesis and so on.

01:30:09

And I've tried pointing this out to him, but he sort of strawman me. Then he went to something else other than a theological question.

01:30:15

You know, how old was King Uzziah when he became king, basically?

01:30:21

And, you know, he was saying it was a scribal era, but I gave him your article and I don't think he read it.

01:30:27

But, basically, my question has to do with what's the best way to present exegesis to people like Steve who think that you can just read anything into the text and so on?

01:30:37

Easy. When someone does that to me, you know, let's just say whatever verse it is, we're reading a verse and he just rips it to shreds by reading into the text what isn't there.

01:30:51

Just go with it. Just go with the flow. And so what they'll do, they'll say something.

01:30:57

They'll go, Yeah, that's right. I am handsome. Thank you. And then he might go, No, no, no.

01:31:03

I said blah, blah. No, I didn't have pizza last night. Why? It doesn't matter what they say.

01:31:10

I'm going to now isegete whatever I want into what they said in order to get them to say whatever

01:31:16

I want them to say. They can do it. I can do it. And if they want to say it's not fair, why isn't it fair?

01:31:23

If I, you know, why can't I say that when you said and you pick a sentence that they have, now you're having him explain himself linguistically.

01:31:31

He gives you the principles and you port them over to the scriptures and say, Now can you do the same thing over here? And then have them do this.

01:31:42

Well, have you noticed that whenever they want to argue against the Bible, they can apparently know what it means whenever they critique, you know, stuff in the

01:31:48

Old Testament and stuff like that. And at that point, I'm just like, well, geez, are you actually doing exegesis now?

01:31:54

No, they're not. This guy's an unbeliever, Ben. He's an unbeliever. The interesting thing with Steve is that he would then argue that Christians who study theology can't talk science because we haven't studied science.

01:32:06

Yeah. But he would argue he can exegete scripture when he doesn't have a background in that. Well, I also try telling him that, yeah, sure,

01:32:17

Christians don't agree on everything minor. Like, me and Matt would obviously disagree on Calvinism versus Molinism because I consider myself a

01:32:25

Molinist. Oh, you're a heretic. Let me tackle something with you. Let me try something, okay? Are we going into Molinism now?

01:32:32

Yeah, really quickly. I want to see something here. Are you a divine simplicitist regarding God?

01:32:38

Okay, so basically that's where God is not in composite, basically. Right. Yeah, I don't think

01:32:46

God in the material sense is not made up of parts. So would you say his holiness is equal, so to speak, to his omniscience that they're all just part and parcel equality of the total whole of what he is?

01:32:57

You can't part him out as one being greater or lesser? Well, do you think God is made up of persons in the

01:33:03

Trinity and so on? Yes, but that's not talking about the economic Trinity. We're talking about the ontological essence of the very nature of God himself.

01:33:09

So not about personhood. That's a difference. We're talking about the attributes of God and his omniscience, omnipotence, things like that.

01:33:20

His love, his holiness. So you would say that they're not composite attributes.

01:33:26

We could call them attributes because we describe things like that. But God is the one simplistic eternal whole, right?

01:33:34

Yeah, so God is omnipotent. God is omniscient and so on. But what he knows is not a part of him.

01:33:42

Because then you have to say is two plus two part of him, necessary truths and so on? When you say it's a part of him, you mean like his left arm is a part of him?

01:33:51

Well, are you saying that middle knowledge is sort of... I didn't ask you about that. Oh, okay. So he's a part of. So I'm just trying to get about the very nature of God.

01:33:58

It was called monism. Is God, by his own nature, one particular substance that's indivisible into parts in any way, shape, or form?

01:34:06

That's a biblical view. You understand that, right? Yeah, the Trinity. God is three persons and one being. Okay. Is his knowledge infinitely always infinite?

01:34:17

What do you mean by that? No end. There's nothing he has to learn in any way, shape, or form. It's always complete.

01:34:25

Yeah. Okay. So can his knowledge that's complete be dependent upon any creature's choices?

01:34:31

And his knowledge depend on their creaturely choices? If it's possible for free creatures to exist?

01:34:39

No. Meaning that if it's possible, then God would know what they would do and so on, a priori, before he creates anything.

01:34:45

Well, if he knows what they would do, then he's learning. That's not the right word. We have a sequence of events in which

01:34:52

God, logically, is learning or deciding what they're going to do by his...

01:34:59

Society isn't the right word. Looking into the future, kind of figuring it out, not the best way to say it either, because his knowledge would be dependent, in part, upon the free will choices under different circumstances.

01:35:11

Right? Well, now we get into necessary truths, you know, natural... I'm just asking this part.

01:35:16

Oh, yeah, I understand. I would just say God just knows, essentially, just like how we can't justify all these other things that God would have to know and so on.

01:35:25

So then if God just knows, he knows everything eternally all the time. Sure. So there is no middle knowledge?

01:35:32

No, I think there would be. I think that's... Generally, if all his knowledge is the same eternally. Because he would know what free creatures would do for eternity, a priori.

01:35:44

The only way he could do that is if he decreed that they do it. How would you... Why assume that?

01:35:50

Because nothing can occur without the will of God, Ephesians 1 .11. Unless you don't believe that scripture. Well, Ephesians 1 .11,

01:35:58

I'll actually write that down. It says, all things work after the counsel of God's will. So even the free will decisions of people are ordained by God.

01:36:06

Would you agree? That's how come God can decide what will and will not be known? Can God will creatures to be free?

01:36:13

Yes. So what's the problem? Define free. Being able to choose between two options and so on.

01:36:21

Sure. Can God choose between two options? I don't think...

01:36:26

In a moral sense, I don't think God can choose not to be omnipotent, but I think he could have created the world differently and ordained...

01:36:33

Can God choose between two options? Depends on what we're talking about. Give me an example of, you know, choosing between two options.

01:36:40

Can he choose to make your heart hair blonde, your born blonde hair instead of dark hair? Yeah. Okay.

01:36:48

So he has a potential of doing it, but he decided not to. Would God always do the first best or the second best?

01:36:53

First best, logically. So what you have is first best by his decree, isn't it? Why would red or blue hair, well, those aren't hair colors, but, you know, with your example, brown would be better than blonde or something like that.

01:37:06

Not an issue of better. It's an issue of what God would decree would occur. Because even your free will choices are ultimately decreed by God.

01:37:13

And the only reason any knowledge dependent upon any free will creature can exist is because God has decreed that it would exist.

01:37:19

Which means from all eternity before they were born, before any free will acts were done, or even perceived to be done, that knowledge is already in place.

01:37:26

Can I ask you this question? So are you essentially saying God knows what he decrees? Absolutely. So can

01:37:34

God decree something else and learn something new? No, he can't learn anything new unless you're a theist or maybe a

01:37:41

Molinist. Yeah, so he knows this knowledge before he decrees, it seems like. He doesn't know his knowledge.

01:37:48

Well, I thought that's what our notion is, is knowing all truth propositions and so on. No, no, no, no, no.

01:37:54

Knowledge is a set, and he knows it. No, he knows knowledge. He just knows what he is. He's just part and parcel of his essence and his nature.

01:38:01

Now we're getting back to the very nature of what God is. All of his knowledge is eternally constant and not dependent upon anything else.

01:38:09

Would you say then, there's a question, would you say that God's knowledge is in any way, shape, or form dependent upon any free will choices of any individual?

01:38:23

If counterfactuals are a legit truth proposition and so on, then I guess, but at the same time,

01:38:29

God would just know what these, what free creatures would do if he ordains them and so on.

01:38:35

Yeah, they'd only be ordained if God decided to create them and ordain them, which is already eternally done. So the question

01:38:41

I have for you is, is his knowledge in any way dependent upon free will creatures?

01:38:48

Well, would God's knowledge be dependent, and I'll ask you a similar question to answer the question, would God's knowledge of two plus two equals four, is it dependent on that equation or is that part of his essence of what you're saying?

01:39:01

It's part of his essence because logic necessarily exists because God, who is the necessary precondition for all intelligibility, relates to us, mathematics, part of his essence, into the material world, it's a whole interesting topic, and we can recognize the truth principle of two plus two equals four because of the laws of logic which emanate out of his essence.

01:39:21

So if God wants to decree something, does that thing have to exist in order for it to be decreed, basically, like the earth, for example?

01:39:28

It doesn't have to exist in order to be decreed. Well, it exists because it's decreed. But for God's decree to work, it has to exist, though, right?

01:39:37

Yeah, something can't bring itself into existence. Now, I'm not saying that God is dependent upon the earth, but at the same time, it still seems like that.

01:39:45

If God were to decree the earth, it would have to exist. Do you know what a seatee is? Yeah, self -existence, right?

01:39:53

Self -existence in all places, in all time, in all conditions, in all ways, right? Does God's knowledge depend on anything in the future or in any way on future...

01:40:03

Let me put it this way. Does God's knowledge, in light of his seatee, depend on any of the freewill choices of his creatures?

01:40:14

Well, if you agree that God can ordain free creatures, then I would say no from all eternity.

01:40:20

So the answer is no? But if you say free creatures, then what do you think a free creature is? Being able to choose between two options and if presented with the same options, again, you could do otherwise and so on.

01:40:33

Okay. Does that apply to God? Again, now if it's like a necessary thing, then obviously

01:40:41

God can't choose not to be right, essentially. Exactly. Yeah, but that's what's true.

01:40:47

So your definition of what free is is humanistic, not God -centered. Humans do not determine truth.

01:40:54

I don't think we can choose our beliefs and so on. You just did. You just determined what freedom is by defining what a man can do, not what

01:41:01

God can do. That's why I said immediately, twice and before, the second time, what can God do that? Because I want to see if you're determining your knowledge base and your monotheism based on human reason or God's character and essence, which is why

01:41:12

I keep coming back to the issue of a seatee and any knowledge of God dependent upon creatures. And you say, yes, if it's free.

01:41:18

But now God's knowledge is dependent if God makes them free in a sense. But then when I ask what freedom is, you use a humanistic principle to define it and not

01:41:27

God as a standard. So your humanism is coming out. That's why you're human. You're a Molinist. So going back on that, do you think

01:41:34

God is free? Could God create the world any way he wanted to? Yes, he did.

01:41:41

So if he has this freedom, can he give his image bearers this type of freedom as well with certain options, not like choosing.

01:41:48

What I was saying before was I don't think we can choose our beliefs if you're being a rational creature because you don't choose what the truth is.

01:41:54

You can't choose your beliefs. You can choose your beliefs. Well, I myself, if you're being a rational creature,

01:41:59

I don't think you can because you're submitting to the truth. You can choose to believe that when you drive a car tonight going to the store that the person coming in traffic won't hit on collision with you.

01:42:13

You choose to believe it based on evidence. You can choose your beliefs. Now, I could believe that when they're not walking, but when they start walking, then

01:42:22

I can't choose to believe that. That's sort of the thing. Now, I can sort of assume that they're not going to, but I can't be sure of that.

01:42:29

So perhaps - So you have, you make a choice and you base your life on a belief system that you choose to affirm based on the evidence.

01:42:40

I definitely think that - Does God have the option of doing anything second best?

01:42:47

Well, what do you mean with truth or with just deciding between - So I think

01:42:52

God can, if we both agree God is sovereign, He can create any world He wants to. He's not determined to preordain a certain world.

01:43:00

Because I think if you deny that, then you're saying God is determined to determine the world and so on.

01:43:06

So I think God - But on the other hand, we would go, I agree with you, but on the other hand, God can't choose to lie.

01:43:13

Yeah, that's in the moral sense. Right, because He's restricted by His own nature. And since He knows all things all the time,

01:43:20

He knows absolutely every single time in every situation, every single best choice. Right?

01:43:26

I don't like the word restricted. I would say if we go with divine simplicity, He is this.

01:43:32

So it's not something that's necessarily - It restricts Him, but it's just being

01:43:37

God. We are all restricted by our own natures. I can flap my arms and try and fly.

01:43:42

It's not going to happen. God cannot lie. It's a restriction upon His nature because He just can't do it.

01:43:48

His nature is what He is. It's kind of a tautologist statement. But the thing is -

01:43:54

Oh, go ahead. Say what you were saying before that. I just want to - So if God knows all things everywhere all the time, and there's no increase in knowledge, then whatever conclusions and decisions

01:44:04

He makes based on all of it would have to be the same, wouldn't it? It's always the best.

01:44:11

Could you unpack that a little bit more? Sure. If God - I'm going to say there's ten things that represent everything.

01:44:18

All right? And so He knows these ten things completely. So He has -

01:44:23

When item number one and two come together, because He knows everything, then He's going to choose to do something.

01:44:29

He's free to choose. But because He knows what's best, always,

01:44:35

He's most efficient, most perfect. What He's going to choose is going to be consistent with His holiness and His perfection.

01:44:42

He's always going to choose that which is right. He's always going to choose that which is most glorifying to His will, most glorifying to His character,

01:44:49

His essence, His nature. He's not going to be choosing things that are, well, maybe I'll just not have Christ crucified.

01:44:55

I don't know. Maybe we'll see what happens. Let's see. There's a point. Do you think, on your Calvinist view, do you think

01:45:01

God could have ordained Adam and Eve not to sin? Because that, to me, would be better. No.

01:45:07

You don't think that. That, to me, just limits the sovereignty of God, because you're saying - Not at all. I have a theory about that.

01:45:14

We'll take a little tangent and I'll explain. This is my opinion. This is my opinion. And you could just dismiss it and say, well, nice opinion, but I don't like it.

01:45:20

Well, I don't dismiss most things, because most of what I believe is his opinion anyway. But my opinion is that only

01:45:28

God alone is holy, and holiness is part of God's nature, and I define it as the inability to sin.

01:45:34

All sentient creatures will end up sinning because they don't possess this quality in nature and attribute of holiness.

01:45:41

This is why, and the clue for that, for me, is out of 1 Timothy 5 .21, when

01:45:46

God talks about the elect angels. The angels that did not fall, because there's no redeemer for them, they had to be elected not to fall.

01:45:57

They would have. They were chosen not to. That's my conclusion out of that. And so,

01:46:03

I believe, based on that, that all sentient beings will end up falling, and so when Adam and Eve were created, it's just a matter of time, they're going to fall, because they're not holy in the sense of sharing

01:46:14

God's essence and His nature. It's an incommunicable attribute of God. Can I ask you a question about that?

01:46:20

Sure. So now, are you saying, because Adam and Eve are not holy, they're going to do this, because now it seems like God's knowledge is dependent on that.

01:46:30

No. It's just an actualization, realization. That's just what it is. They're going to create, they're going to sin.

01:46:36

But God knows, does God know that because they're not holy or because He ordains it at this point?

01:46:42

No. The ordination is the fact that He worked out their existence in the way He did. And the ordination is that their souls are created the way they are in His image with the communicable attributes.

01:46:53

The necessity of their condition, I suspect, the necessity of their condition is that they're going to fall because they don't possess holiness as a divine attribute.

01:47:01

So before God ordained this, though, He knew that an unholy creature would fall, essentially.

01:47:09

When you say unholy, it has a pejorative sense. A non -divine holy,

01:47:15

I guess is the best way to say it that way. I know what you meant, but just be clear. A non -divine holy being doesn't exist.

01:47:30

What I affirm more and more over the years is that God alone possesses this quality of holiness.

01:47:36

There's a sense in which we could be holy by being in Christ and seen as holy, but that's different.

01:47:41

And so I think that the attributes of God in His incommunicable attribute is the holiness of His quality belongs to Him alone.

01:47:48

I define that in part as the inability to go against His own nature, hence the inability to sin.

01:47:54

And all creatures are not holy by that divine holiness sense, and therefore are going to fall. Now back to the issue of Molinism.

01:48:02

Hold on. I don't think you answered my question because I asked did God know what a being like this would do, like how you described

01:48:10

Adam and Eve before He ordained it? Because you said earlier God sort of knows because He ordained it.

01:48:17

I don't understand your question. I'm asking because what you were saying before was with Adam and Eve would fall based on how you described their nature.

01:48:29

God knew this and is it because He ordains it or because He knew it before He ordains it that if He were to create these type of beings

01:48:36

No, I'm not Emperor Supra. I don't go with that stuff. I just believe

01:48:41

God's knowledge is always instantaneous. Period. Always. So God knows before He ordains things to come.

01:48:51

No, I believe His ordination and His knowledge are simultaneously eternal. Fair enough.

01:48:57

But now with that could the ordination still change though even if it's simultaneously?

01:49:04

I don't believe God can change the ordination in the eternal sense. In a temporal sense, yes.

01:49:12

Eternal decrees versus temporal decrees. He could say Hey, I'm gonna spank you if you don't do this. Jonah, Nineveh they repented and then they were saved.

01:49:20

But from eternal decree that was already decreed. Yeah, now this gets into theory of time and so on and how can a personal being be timeless which is the most pressuring thing to think about but I think there's answers for that but going back before okay, so you're saying they're simultaneous but God's Yeah, I just don't see normal things.

01:49:44

Well, the word decree Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just gonna say that the word decree seems like a past tense so it sort of seems like an act of doing something which would seem to require time but I agree that if I start going down this route then other things with God that's why

01:50:00

I think all His this is why I think God actualizes all His decisions simultaneously. So ordination

01:50:07

No, He doesn't actualize all His decisions simultaneously because in our time well, to Him, no in our time the decision in an eternal sense is what

01:50:17

I mean Let's get back to Yeah, yeah some stuff like that What just happened?

01:50:24

Did I We're getting off I, if you said

01:50:29

I think Matt's having some kind of problem It's just the bandwidth looks like it's pixelating a bit

01:50:37

Okay All right, so Yeah, I think

01:50:49

Matt, maybe turn down your bandwidth there for a bit It should not be the case here

01:50:55

Yeah Well, we can hear you now So, let's do this

01:51:03

Matt, are you done with Well, I wanted to get some place with it but we're almost out of time anyway

01:51:10

I'm trying to show that God's natural knowledge His middle knowledge His free knowledge are all one and the same and not dependent upon creatures

01:51:19

That's my point Ultimately Now with middle knowledge are you saying different counterfactuals instead of like free creatures and stuff like that?

01:51:27

Because God decrees that they exist and that in His mind and He doesn't learn and His knowledge is not dependent upon any situation of any creature but violates

01:51:39

His aseity Now, would you agree that if these Am I echoing?

01:51:44

Yeah, I'm echoing No, you sound good Oh I'm echoing to myself for some reason

01:51:49

But um That gets annoying after a while But anyway So, it seems like you're saying middle knowledge was eternal as well along with free knowledge and natural knowledge

01:51:59

I believe all of it is simultaneously eternal Okay So, would you agree that free creatures could exist if they're dependent upon God's decree?

01:52:09

Depends what you define by free creatures If you mean just be able to make a choice then my cat was free

01:52:15

Between two things not being determined in the sense of um

01:52:20

I won't say in the sense of nature What universe do you live in? Are you saying that there are things that happen outside of God's control and sovereign will?

01:52:31

No Good Good, good So, when you say free creature you mean that they are under the sovereign will control of God This is where my beliefs get confusing

01:52:40

I say Yes I'm so glad to hear you say that By confusing

01:52:45

I mean if you don't think about it then it can seem very confusing but aside from that yes,

01:52:51

I believe God preordains over things but yet I believe we are free as well and second causes and stuff like that but ultimately

01:53:00

God ordains the ends to the means and so on So, you would say out of your Molinistic thought that God's knowledge is somehow, someway dependent upon the free will creatures of people even though the

01:53:11

Bible says that those free will creatures are enslaved to sin and will never come to God and you would have to adopt

01:53:20

That's a whole other debate Yeah, you'd have to adopt a kind of prevenient grace that comes in and why was one person going to believe when another was not under different counterfactuals which to me is heresy

01:53:31

Is it Well, I think I asked you before in the live chat is Molinism a heresy? You said yes but not damnable but that gets into the whole

01:53:39

Yeah Let's I'm going to do this just for the sake of time I'm going to ask you to come back in two weeks

01:53:46

I do want to give Jerry a couple of minutes at least since he's been waiting this whole time

01:53:52

Is that okay DMD JMD Yeah Actually, I sort of want to invite

01:53:58

Matt onto my channel if he has time Okay Well, we can Invite a conversation too Yeah Yeah Just hang out

01:54:05

Don't leave and after we go off air we can exchange that So, Jerry Welcome You can unmute yourself

01:54:14

See, I can do that too Let me unmute you There you go So, go for it Ask your question and we only have a few minutes left but I want to make sure you got in here

01:54:23

Hey, what's going on, Matt How you doing? Doing alright, man How are you? Alright, alright It's nice to be here with you guys, man

01:54:31

Quick question Would you consider that I'm learning a lot of this new reform stuff

01:54:38

I've asked Andrew some questions I've asked you some questions Andrew answers me more than you do I think you don't like Dominicans That's probably why

01:54:47

But What? You don't like Dominicans from Washington Heights Dominicans?

01:54:53

You're from Dominican Republic Yeah Do you speak Spanish? Yes Do you speak

01:54:58

Spanish? A little bit I studied in high school for 40 years I studied a lot but I decided to speak so I want to learn the language completely because I like to learn

01:55:12

Spanish but I don't know the language enough But you speak it very well and you know that God speaks

01:55:17

Spanish Thank you Thank you Okay We can talk about I know you believe that Really Let's just Very stupid

01:55:28

Very ugly Who is it? I don't want to talk about ugly

01:55:37

Okay I'm sorry man Alright I wasn't talking about someone on the far left of the screen

01:55:42

Okay Go ahead Yes Yes My question was I'm learning

01:55:48

So God's essence in man's were completely different Yes Now would you say that the only thing that is divine is

01:56:01

God or are there things that are outside of God that are divine because I don't understand The key here is to define terms and so what does divinity mean?

01:56:12

Now I could say my wife getting out of the pool on a hot summer day in a bikini Okay That's not what we're talking about Alright So what we're talking about is the nature and essence of God himself belongs to God himself

01:56:25

He alone is divine So no other thing can have that God is the only one who possesses that divinity

01:56:32

Okay So like angels wouldn't be divine or anything like that Well in the sense

01:56:38

I just described as having the God nature and essence No Okay But you know sometimes you could say they're the divine ones in that they come from the presence of the divine one and they could be called divine ones in that sense

01:56:54

But it's the essence of it This is why the definition of terms is really important And one last question brother

01:57:01

When Satan during the thing with Job when Satan approached

01:57:06

God was Satan able to look on him or like the seraphim he or we don't know

01:57:13

Is the Bible That's a good question Because the Bible says no one can look on the face of God and live

01:57:18

Exodus 33 20 or 11 And He doesn't underpush a light whom no man has seen or can see 1

01:57:28

Timothy 6 16 So in Job 1 they present It's logically possible

01:57:35

I would say from the arguments that we could lay out on paper and then argue which ones might be true

01:57:41

We could say the options are he saw God The options are he didn't see God There's only two

01:57:47

If he saw God to what degree a proximity a light a glow or That reminds me of something or he didn't see

01:57:56

God and This reminds me of something Sorry Okay Didn't see

01:58:02

God directly I'm sorry I wrote a novel called The Influence And in it there's a

01:58:13

It's been a while since I've even read it So I'm starting to remember it But there's a scene Oh no

01:58:18

It's of the devil That's right Hey don't ruin the book You haven't finished it There's a scene of the fall

01:58:25

And there's a There's my other setup because I'm trying to remember my own book and I can't remember I've written so many things So I lost my place

01:58:33

I forgot what I was saying and I There Now what I messed myself up pretty bad

01:58:42

You're going to slip that part right there Yeah Yeah It's a mental slip My frontal lobe was just glitched

01:58:52

So you're saying that that he might have not seen or he might have seen a glow or a blip but but yeah because I was

01:59:01

I was thinking about that as I'm learning more and more about the deity of Christ and Christ says that you know he has seen the

01:59:08

Father So I'm thinking that in itself is one one of those arguments that can be used to point to the deity of Christ that he is the only one who has ever been able to see the

01:59:18

Father And the Holy Spirit too Right Yeah The Holy Spirit Yeah So I'm I'm all these things I'm learning my brother

01:59:24

You know it's difficult It's very difficult and you have to learn Yes It's true It's difficult

01:59:29

It makes him think a lot It's true I have some stuff on this on Karm So here's what

01:59:38

I think or I suspect The Trinitarian essence of God is only known by the

01:59:43

Trinitarian essence of God And we creatures can never approach God because his glory can encompass the entire universe and if a kabillionth of a kabillionth of a sliver of his glory were to come to us we're done

01:59:55

So he somehow has to manifest himself to us It has to be done through the person and work of Christ Now the

02:00:01

Bible says that we cannot see God, John 6, 46 Not that any man has seen the Father And 1 Timothy 6, 16

02:00:06

You can't do it He was an unapproachable light whom no man has seen or can see This is talking about people

02:00:12

So can we apply that to Satan? I don't think so Because it says people So I wouldn't then apply it to Satan I would say

02:00:19

Well You know what? Think about this I should have thought of this from the beginning Before Satan fell

02:00:25

God created him He would have seen him It makes sense to say that Satan Lucifer would have seen him because he created him

02:00:34

Unless it wouldn't make sense to say God created him and then put him out some place so far out You can't see me

02:00:40

Stay over there You can't see me Who are you? But it doesn't quite make sense So he got close

02:00:46

I would say he saw him and then when he fell cast out of the presence of God But then in Job coming back after some sort of a relationship that still occurs and seemed to come back into heaven to some degree and have some communication and then

02:01:01

Hey look at Job my servant etc. etc. That's about the best I could give her Okay Can you give me 10 more seconds?

02:01:09

Sure The Holy Spirit when it says we're indwelt it's not talking about physically ontologically it's a communion right?

02:01:21

No it's a real indwelling If you go to John 14 23 the

02:01:27

Father and I Jesus is talking will come and make our abode with you

02:01:34

So he is in you Physically like ontologically physically? The essence of what he is is in you

02:01:45

Okay Okay Yeah I'm going to have to Yeah Because I I've read