Apologetics Live Round two with a Roman Catholic HD 720p

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

All right. Matt Slick from CARM .org, Andrew Rappaport with Striving Fraternity. We are here at Apologetics Live to answer your apologetics questions. Now, we've had an interesting week. I think both of us.

But I want to start by letting you folks know that this is available on podcast now. 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.

And 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. And so we are going to be working on giving some giveaways as well.

Matt is going to be having his newest book. Well, actually, no. It came out a week later. He had a second new book. Atheistica is a book about atheists having their own island.

Island nation. Yeah, island nation. Yeah, they want to rule themselves. And I don't make them look like morons or anything like that. But we just deal with philosophical issues. And that's all.

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. 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 given maybe one way by the end of the month or so to the best atheist caller. Or I guess you wouldn't really be a caller here, but we want to answer your apologetics questions.

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

He was. Okay. He was. But then he was two guys, actually one who wrote a 27 ,000 word article. But he actually just wanted to build a platform for himself so he can sell a new book. He's right.

27 ,000 word article. Yeah. Yeah. All about your tag argument. Wow. I think my novella Atheistico is 25 ,000. I mean, think about it. The article is this big. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. All right. So and he thought we'd have time to read it and interact. I don't read it. He's from. We'll cut him some slack.

It is one in the morning for him. Yeah. If you can't make it, you can't make it. But I'm not reading any 27 ,000 word article. 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. First off, it was Anthony Svester. It said some of the claims he said. There were some that you said that he wanted me to argue as if I said them.

And there were things I hadn't researched. So I wasn't about to debate things I haven't researched. But it was interesting thing because he kept moving the goalpost. 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. 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 just keeps telling people that I'm running away from a debate when he keeps changing the topics of the debate.

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. That's an important thing. You've had several debates wherever 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. I know. And that actually, by the way, was two years ago, I think today. Really? Yeah.

I guess it was. That was an interesting time, too, because I remember that debate well. I don't know. Wait.

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

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

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

I was so tired. I remember that. I remember being outside there. I could have gone to sleep. And maybe it was something I ate because we had eaten just shortly before. And then maybe it was something in that food.

I don't know. But I had trouble staying awake. It was like someone drugged it. I'm not saying they did. And then I remember when Matt Delhonte was actually given his presentation as he went first. I remember 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, I would have gone to sleep. And I remember that. And then when it was my turn to get up and speak, I was wide awake.

Weirdest thing. Never had that happen in any debates before, but that's what happened.

Well, look, you did two debates back-to-back. David Smalley one night. Then it was Matt Delhonte the next night. No big deal. They only had to prepare for one. You had to prepare for two different debates.

That's okay. I think it was one of those days of jet lag. There was no jet lag, really. It was just a two-hour difference. Just food. And who knows? Maybe I was fighting something. But anyway, no big deal.

But that's what happened there. So that's it. So we had, you know, I thought very interesting that we got to know some of the people who listened to the show, some of the atheists. And we do have a number of atheists that listen, but don't want to call in, by the way.

They don't seem to have that courage. But you got to meet with some of them. I remember the one woman that said she was really surprised how nice you were because she's so used to listening to you and disagreeing with you.

Well, yeah. People, what they'll often do is think the worst of somebody, particularly when you're an atheist. And, you know, the enemy, you have to vilify the enemy in order to justify hatred, condemnation, judgment.

And then they find out I'm really a nice guy. And we get along great. You know, no big deal. 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, I didn't think you'd be this nice of a guy. And I go, sorry, you know, whatever. That's what it is.

All right. So we got some questions that did come in through the Apologetics Live Facebook group. So there's some folks out there. And that's one place we're going to look to do to get a Q &A going or a 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. So that's one thing you would be able to do. And we also should mention, Matt, that, you know, we're trying to do this.

It's on YouTube. It's in podcasts. But we mentioned already one of your books. But you have a second one that came out recently as well, like a week after Atheistic, I believe.

Yeah, it's an old book I just kind of forgot about and then resurrected and finished up. And it was a serious idea I have called Apologetics and. So Apologetics and Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam and Atheism.

And so I resurrected it and finished it up. And it was only 90 percent done already. So it wasn't a big deal. And in fact, I just talked to a guy named Eli yesterday who was reading it. He said it was halfway through it.

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

I might say something like, welcome to Apologetics and Christian theology. This is where, comma, hopefully, comma is what I do, where hopefully you'll learn what the basis of the Christian faith are. You can just flow along with me as I ramble through what we'll be discussing, things like the Trinity.

Talking like that and just having fun. And so the guy said it was very, very, very easy to read, very easy to follow, flowed very nicely. So that's good. And so I'll be doing a series on those kind of things as well.

That's the idea anyway.

All right. And if folks want to come in and join, they can go to apologeticslive .com. There 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, Matt, here's the first question we have for you. Why do people believe Elijah went up in a chariot? He says the Bible says differently.

I'll have to go look at it and see. It's not a question I've been asked for. Asked, let's see, where is that?

Let's see. I think 2 Kings 2 is my guess. Elijah. Elisha? No, Elijah. Elijah. So 2 Kings 2, 11. And as they went up, as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses, and fire separated the two of them.

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. So I guess that's the specific verse.

Yeah. Verse 12, 2 Kings 2, 12. The church of Israel and its horsemen. And he saw Elijah.

That's why they say it's a chariot. Well, I guess the chariots maybe, as I'm looking at this verse, it seems like the chariots are separating Elijah from Elisha. So there were chariots there. But it says that he went up in a whirlwind.

Yeah. I don't know that we know if he actually went up in chariots per se.

Yeah. I could do an analysis on it and look at the 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 version. And it came to pass, as they went on and talked, 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. Yeah, the whirlwinds took him up. So a chariot separated them, which would be interesting. Why would a chariot of fire separate them? That's a question I don't have an answer to.

I'd like to know what that is about. But anyway, I don't know. Good question.

Yeah. I mean, I could see the separation. I can see that being a thing of because in the account, in the context, we ended up seeing that there was definitely an issue where Elisha wanted to be with Elijah when he was there.

So he didn't want to leave him. So maybe that would be why there'd be a need for separation. Maybe.

Maybe. 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 or whatever, someplace like this. There's a basic possibility.

But without further study, I don't know. It's a good question. There's lots of stuff like that in the Bible I don't have answers to.

All right. So here's another one. And this one may be a little bit more sensitive. But the person said for you, I want to talk about remarriage, divorce and adultery. I have some people in my Bible group who condemn others who are remarried.

They say they're in perpetual sin and going to die and go to hell. 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?

Yeah, that's a common, huge, excuse me, legalistic mistake a lot of people who don't understand grace seem to make. What they fail to understand is that I'm looking for the reference. Let's see. I think it's Jeremiah 3.

Now, if a husband divorces because now it's in Malachi. God issues a writ of divorce to Israel. Oh, yeah. And Malachi. Yeah. And I'm trying to find that. But the problem is if divorce is a sin and yet God, so to speak, divorced Israel, what does that say about God?

All divorce is not a sin, for example. If the spouse commits adultery and refuses to repent, the person has the freedom of divorce, not the obligation. And I've written articles on that, about what the issues are of divorce, the grounds.

I think it's abandonment, 1 Corinthians 7, and adultery, obviously. Jesus talks about that in Matthew 19. So those are the grounds. And since God himself issued a writ of divorce 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 staying in a condition where you've divorced and married somebody, whatever, and you're going to hell. That's just, that's idiocy. That's got to be called what it is.

That's stupidity. Because we're not saved by our compliance with the law, whether it be divorce, laws, or whatever it is. And so this person who's saying this may not be a true convert, may be a false convert.

I'm not saying is or isn't at that point, but may be a false convert. And who is putting legal requirements on the maintenance of salvation. And everybody is in perpetual sin, one way or another. There are people who are so arrogant, like the guy I had on the radio today.

Basically said he doesn't sin anymore. But he has, but he doesn't, you know, he can keep the law, he's pretty good at it. You know, such arrogance and foolishness is a continuation of a sinful attitude in nature.

But 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 pride, doesn't see his own humility. Others see it, but the person who's guilty of it doesn't see it, generally speaking.

But anyway, it's just ridiculous for people to say that if you're in that kind of perpetual sin, then you're not saved. 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.

So, wrong.

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. Not true. And that's, yeah, I think the same thing here. I know there's 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, husband and wife.

Yeah, but what that means is, anermia squinicus, a man of one woman. That's what it means. And in the polygamous context, it seems to be one-woman-man. Well, what happens if a man who's an elder of a church, his wife dies?

Can he remarry? Well, by their strict literal interpretation of that, he couldn't even remarry. And if he did remarry, oh, he can't be an elder anymore. And also, 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? I'm sorry, you're going to have children, plural, so you can't be an elder. So, you get way too legalistic on this stuff. And a lot of these legalists who think that they're compliant, the law is pretty good, will put burdens upon people they themselves cannot carry and don't seem to really understand what the true nature of grace is in these things.

That's unfortunate. Yeah, I mean, that's the exact thing I always bring up. What if someone got divorced and never remarried? Could he then be a leader? Because he only had one wife, right? So, it's not the divorce issue.

It's the remarriage issue then. And then what happens if you divorce someone when you're an unbeliever? And, I mean, you're a pagan. You're an atheist. You divorce. And then 10 years later, you become a hardcore believer.

I mean, you are dedicated to the Lord. And then you marry a good godly Christian woman. Oh, sorry, can't be a pastor because you were divorced back then. Well, you know, the old things are passed away.

So, why are they holding this old bondage of legalistic yoke upon people? Plus, I don't use this very often, but Romans 7, verse 4 says, He who has died is freed from the law. We've died with Christ, Romans 6, verse 8.

We've been crucified with Christ, Romans 6, verse 6. So, if we've died with Christ, we don't have to keep the law. Therefore, we're free. And then 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, move forward.

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

I was going to say also, wouldn't 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? I mean, if that person cannot be forgiven for divorcing and remarrying, then, yeah, it's like, what's the point of, I mean, that's not the context of what the unforgivable sin is.

Yeah, the unforgivable sin, Matthew 12, 22 -32, saying that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the evil one. So, that's what this specifically is said to be, 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 biblical, Reformed theology so that they can stop being theological whannies.

All right. So, Matt, this next question, you've dealt with this, and for folks who don't know, you do a live radio show five days a week, Monday through Friday. Kevin's calling me back. Matt Slick Live is available on podcasts as well.

They can just search for Christian Apologetics Research Ministry or search for Matt Slick, and you can get five days a week of Matt. But you have been dealing with this. I know recently this came up about a week or two ago.

But here's another question for you. The person says, why do you think the Hebrew movement is picking up speed again, or did it never really go away? I only became aware of it when I was reading modern-day head coverings.

How do we comfort those that we incite Galatians?

Well, if they want to, it depends on the reason of doing what they want to do. If they want to hold to head coverings, hold to head coverings. What's the reason? If they want to do it because they want to honor God and they don't see it as a means by which they're pleasing him unto salvation, then fine.

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.

And that's no big deal. 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, I think once a month or so I might see it. But so what? If they want to wear head coverings, let them wear head coverings.

Who cares? But the thing is, they should not obligate anybody else to do that. And in the context, I think it's, where was that, 1 Corinthians 12? 14, 14. I don't remember. 2 Corinthians 14. I mean, the idea was concomitant with the issue of a woman going around appearing as though she was a loose woman.

A lot of people don't know, but a man could divorce his wife if she let her hair down in public. And this is really important because the hair was a sensuous thing, and it was bundled up and recovered.

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

And what's really interesting, to take a sidestep, when the, I believe it's Luke 15, or was it? When Simon said to Jesus, come and have dinner with him. And then all the people went over. And the woman came in, the prostitute, and let her hair down and touched his feet with her hair.

I mean, we're talking, that's an incredible social more that she broke. Incredible. And she risked her life for that, actually. She could have been stoned. 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 Hebrew movement. Oh, yeah.

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

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. Romans 14, 1 through 12. Period. That's it. And that's how it should be.

They want to have their heads covering?

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 Hebrew Israelites who now they just call themselves Hebrew Israelites.

There's the Hebrew Roots movement that you've seen, you've interacted with. 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?

It's on the rise because our population's increasing and also legalism is increasing and people are not understanding the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that black Hebrew Israelite-ism is ultimately a racist movement, and it feeds on people's prides and prejudices.

Believe it or not, black people can actually be prejudiced. How about that? So that's what I think it is. Plus, I think there's something to the effect of 2 Thessalonians 2. 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.

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. One is coming in accord with Satan, and it says in verse 11, 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. Anyway, 2 Thessalonians 2, it has these phrases like this, and I just, I don't know. The rise of the cults, the rise of Islam, the rise of 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.

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. 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, and you think about the Flat Earthers, or you think about the Black Hebrew Israelites. Most of these groups, they're such pride. I mean, they're so arrogantly like pride.

It's not just that they have a pride issue. It's an aggressive pride that they end up having with a lot of these groups, and 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 Mr. Calvinist Klein came in. Hey, buddy. Umaz Josh. I don't know if he has a question. I added him in.

He can unmute himself. He should know how to do that. No. Anonymous Guy says, Catholicism is not heretical. Oh, yes, it is. It's extremely heretical.

Josh didn't come in, so I'm going to add Anonymous Guy. I think his name was James, actually. So let's see. Anonymous Guy, let me turn you up here. Okay. All right. James, are you there? Okay. Are you able to hear me?

Am I coming in loud and clear? Louder. All right. So you and Matt talked last week about Catholicism and baptism, and you just made the statement that Matt responded to that you said Catholicism is not heretical.

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

So. And he's a Sedevacantist. That's all. It doesn't matter because even the Sedevacantists are flaming heretics, as they hold to Trent.

Do you have a question this week for us, James? Well, yeah. Hello. Hello again, fellas. Are you able to hear me?

Am I coming in loud and clear? Yes. Yeah. Okay, great. Yeah. First off, I'd like to thank both of you for allowing me to engage in the discussion on the faith from last Thursday. I would, however, like a chance to respond and to clarify the Catholic position, since there seems to be some misunderstandings about it.

So, as you remember, Matt originally said, baptism now saves you and 1 Peter 3 21 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.

And I agreed with Matt because I said, yeah, this, this means, you know, from the Catholic perspective, this means that water baptism ultimately in the end points to Jesus as sacrifice for our sins. And therefore the grace from his sacrifice in it, you know, initially occurs at baptism, which is why the apostle Peter said, you know, quote, baptism now saves you unquote.

Of course, as you remember, Matt objected because he said we're saved by faith alone and not faith plus works. And so Matt's response, you know, to me was that Noah and his family were saved by the Ark through quote, their faith alone, unquote.

So, um, so I, you know, I, I responded by saying that in Catholicism, the act of receiving baptism is not a work done by, you know, the one that's receiving the baptism, but instead it's the work Jesus did for us on the cross and the grace that our Lord, you know, from our Lord's finished work is simply being applied at the moment one receives water baptism under the new covenant.

And as you remember, Matt's response was, was to claim that baptism is an act done at a moment in time. And he compared it to a ceremony. So he attempted to claim it is, you know, a work we do. So before I continue, do, do you, do you agree, Matt?

You know, so far with my account of last Thursday's discussion about one Peter three, uh, 2321. Yeah, that's pretty accurate. Okay. So I have, I have a few responses to that about three responses,.

Uh, maybe four. Firstly, let's do, let's just take them. You get the back. Okay, go ahead. One of them and then let Matt respond.

Okay. Firstly, let me explain why you're, you're not being consistent, Matt. Okay. Again, you, you said that Noah and his family were saved from the flood waters by the ark through, through a quote, their faith alone.

Unquote. So 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, 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, 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, uh, you know, maintaining all the animals on the ark.

That's a lot of works done over a very long period of time. Um, so, you know, uh, well, if you want to respond, go ahead. I was waiting for your conclusion.

I know you want to say that your faith and your work saves you. That's what you're trying to get at.

Yeah. What I'm saying is that's a lot of works, but you said, uh, yeah, last Thursday that they were saved by their faith alone as though there wasn't any work.

Before God, by faith alone in Christ alone. That's the position, right? That's what the position is. You want to add works to it?

Is that what, okay. Is that what the, uh, old covenant, is that what the old Testament says that there were justified and saved by their faith alone?

Yeah. When Paul quotes, uh, the issue out of Romans chapter four and Abraham believes God righteousness. Yeah, he does. Romans four, maybe you might want to check it out. Verse three.

We're talking about Noah and the ark. We're not talking about Abraham.

You said any place in the old Testament.

No, I didn't say that. I was specifically referring to Noah and the ark and the works that Noah did.

Look, look, look, look, what you're trying to do is simply try meticulously construct something. 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.

And I've heard these kinds of arguments. I just wish you just get to it. So we can have a dialogue on it because it's not a dialogue. 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, 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. There were works involved. And you're saying that, um, he was justified by his faith alone. He was saved. You said he was saved by. Yeah.

Justified as we're seen righteous before God.

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

No, you're the one that's claiming that he's justified by God, by his works. You, but last Thursday you said that he was saved by his faith alone through the arc.

So, um, I'm simply pointing out that, um, I'm not sure what it is. You're quoting from me last week. I don't review everything. It's it's on video.

James, you got to let him finish. Go ahead, Matt. Unless Matt froze. Okay.

Let me see. Okay. You guys hearing me at all? Yeah. You're, you're froze there for a minute.

Um, let me just say that, uh, what I teach is, and what the issue here is, you just need to get to the issue. We're justified by faith in Christ alone, not by faith and works. 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 new Testament.

Oh, you're wasting time. This is get to it.

Get to the issue. Okay. Well, I just went ahead and mentioned that, you know, Noah did do works. He was, he wasn't saved by the arc through his, uh, faith alone. Secondly, Matt, you use.

Hold on. Let me respond to that because what you're trying to imply is that he's justified before God. You say saved. You're not defining what you mean. He was saved from the flood by entering into that arc.

Absolutely. He was saved in the, by that, uh, the flood. It doesn't say that he was saved from his sins before God by entering into the arc. 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. You're the one that's, I didn't mention sins at all. You said that he was saved by the arc, by his faith alone.

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

You want to teach that we're justified by faith and works.