Creation Science and NAR with Dr Anthony Silvestro | Apologetics Live 0029

Striving for Eternity Videos

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:13

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

00:22

Christian Podcast Community. All right, this is

00:36

Apologetics Live, and we are live. Glad to have you all here with us.

00:42

We are here another week, but we do not have the Slick one, which means we're going to have a lot more fun.

00:48

No, we have a doctor in the house, quite literally, a doctor, well, specifically a dentist.

00:56

Yeah, I'm not a real doctor. Yeah, people say you're not a real doctor. This is Dr. Anthony Silvestro from Striving for Eternity, and we're going to have some fun talking two main topics tonight, which we're probably going to get into some others.

01:08

We're planning to talk about creation science, which happens to be his expertise, and the main thing he ends up speaking about for Striving for Eternity, but we're also going to talk about something else, which is kind of his favorite love,

01:22

I think. Would it be fair to say you have a love -hate relationship with the New Apostolic Reformation?

01:29

Yeah, the NAR and Catholics, for whatever reason, are just always on my radar, always.

01:36

Everyone around here is either one of them. So Matt Slick is trying to pack up his house for folks who have been following along with us.

01:46

Matt is trying to pack up and he's getting, I believe it's this week, the carpets come in, the paint goes up, and he's trying to get everything out of the house to be able to do that.

01:55

They're still trying to figure out how to get to move. They're trying to get, for folks who have been following, you know that his wife is basically not very mobile, and so they needed to get an

02:08

RV to travel down to Arizona. They have to get that first. They also have to, and they're kind of borrowing someone else's, is what they're looking to do because they can't afford to rent one, but they're looking to do that, and they found out something interesting with their health insurance.

02:26

They discovered that if they move right now, the health insurance that they've already paid the deductible in full starts all over, and they get to pay the deductible all over again.

02:39

Yeah, they get a really high deductible and that's going to be hard. So they're trying to figure out when would be the right time to move.

02:45

This move may get put off a little bit. They're trying to figure this out. So, there is someone in the chat named

02:54

Paul Mars. Paul, make sure you go to, and for anyone else, go to apologeticslive .com

03:02

and there is a link to join us from there. There's a reason I'm asking Paul to join us because we're going to be talking about a topic, the

03:08

New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR for short, and he had some questions on that, and so we're going to talk about that.

03:15

And actually, I was kind of amazed, Anthony, that in the Apologetics Live Facebook group,

03:20

I asked folks what it is they wanted to talk about tonight. Had some, you know, basically just trying to get some topics and New Apostolic Reformation came in.

03:30

A lot of people wanted to talk about that. We did have one that maybe it's up your alley.

03:38

Maybe, you know, Steve Ludwith really wanted to talk about Bigfoot and Nephilim and Flying Demon Babies.

03:45

Now, I guess that's based out of Genesis 6 with the whole thing of Nephilim, so I guess maybe he wants you to answer.

03:55

I wouldn't feel right doing that show without Frank on. I mean, that's Frank's term, so.

04:02

Well, okay, the Flying Demon Babies is Frank. That's right. That's Frank. Frank Mullis is who we're speaking of, but I guess he dropped a picture in there, and I guess

04:14

Matt had some video that he did called Bigfoot and Nephilim, Total Depravity and Covenant Theology.

04:23

So I guess those were the topics that came up on his radio show at one of the times, and I guess Matt was saying that maybe the

04:30

Bigfoot or Nephilim, I don't know. I essentially said that neither one of us are capable of answering anything about Bigfoot or Flying Demon Babies, because neither one of us believe that they exist.

04:45

So let me start. I want to ask you some questions first about creation science, and then we'll move over into discussing

04:52

NAR, because that's probably going to be a longer talk. For the folks who are in the room, if you have questions, just give a shout in the side chat there to let me know that you have a question so that we can add you in.

05:05

But Anthony, real quick for folks, there's a big, there's lots of debate on the issue of evolution, the issue of creation science.

05:15

On my rap report podcast, every once in a while, I try to go over different issues of logic.

05:23

I gave one recently called confirmation bias. You're familiar with that,

05:28

I believe, right? Okay. I gave the example of how it's used with evolution. Could you give the, explain, well,

05:36

I'll explain confirmation bias, and then I'll ask you to give how we see this work out when we talk to people about evolution.

05:42

Confirmation bias is basically the idea when you only accept evidence or supporting arguments that support a conclusion that you already hold to.

05:55

In other words, you hold to a conclusion and if evidence comes in that supports that conclusion, you accept it.

06:02

If it doesn't accept the conclusion, you reject the evidence. That's called confirmation bias.

06:08

You have a bias towards something you already confirm. Anthony, how do we see this play out when it comes to evolution?

06:15

Oh, easy. You talk to an evolutionist and they will say, all science points to evolution.

06:24

Then they start ratting off certain things. The reality is that there's lots of good science out there, they ignore most of it, and if any science that we bring up says, wait a minute, this is where evolution has problems, where evolution can happen, that's what they reject.

06:41

Then they go back to, and they usually fall into other logical fallacies, such as pointing to people like me not being real doctors and have no authority to speak on a subject.

06:53

They will also point to the myriad of scientists, what they would call the myriad of scientists out there.

07:00

Like I admit, do the majority of scientists buy into evolution? Seemingly so.

07:07

I will also say, though, that there's many more scientists that are secular. They hate

07:14

God, but they still realize the big, big problems with evolution.

07:20

It's interesting. What's actually out there is not what's being taught in secular schools. That's where you see this confirmation bias coming out.

07:28

It's really with the science and what they reject. All right. Let me do this throughout the show, is whenever we get anyone to give us a super chat.

07:36

By the way, if you want to give us a super chat, on the bottom, if you're on YouTube, there's a little dollar sign.

07:42

Just click that and you can donate. The money goes to karm .org. And so Jason Manning gave $2 and said,

07:47

God bless. So anyone that does that, we give shout outs too. But so that's how you give a super chat.

07:54

And John isn't chatting away in there. He doesn't want to come in here.

08:00

John thinks, wants to, his thing that he wanted to talk about was, I got to look it up now.

08:07

Something about being addicted. He wants to talk about Bible coveting, a serious issue among striving fraternity leadership.

08:14

Anthony, do you covet other people's Bibles? You know, I saw that and I responded to John actually.

08:22

I mean, I got, John, I got this very nice goat skin

08:27

ESV. I'm not coveting yours. See, John, it's kind of like if there's a piece of food on somebody's plate that you really want, you'll lick it real quick and then they won't eat it.

08:37

You just do that to Andrew's Bible and he'll give it to you. No, see, I got another one right here that, that someone bought for me.

08:43

Another goat skin. So I don't need your goat skin. I don't need a red one, John, John, John got a red goat skin

08:50

Bible and he, um, I just like taking it from him. But so real quick, get back to creation science.

08:59

So with creation science, I'm looking for some Bibles I can pull out, too much work.

09:05

So, okay. The argument people will make is, well, there's several arguments.

09:13

One people will make the argument that anything that creation scientists do hasn't been done through peer review or double blind studies.

09:22

Is that true? And how much does that actually matter? Well, so here's another issue of confirmation bias.

09:29

They will make the claim that we don't have peer reviewed science journals. And then we say, look at all these journals that are peer reviewed.

09:36

Look at all these articles that are peer reviewed, some of which are peer reviewed in secular journals and they reject it.

09:42

They won't read any of the journals. So ICR at creation .com

09:48

AIG, they all put out journals, good, heavy research, technical journals done with actual

09:54

PhD scientists. And these things don't get looked at. So we have plenty of peer reviewed journals, peer reviewed articles in those journals.

10:04

They just, again, they reject everything systematically. If it doesn't, if it doesn't fit with their worldview, it's gone.

10:13

They don't think about it. And that's sort of what Ben Stein was trying to get across in that movie.

10:18

He did expelled, expelled, and what do they do with that?

10:24

They're like, oh, well, that isn't serious. If it doesn't start with the conclusion they want, they just reject it and say, well, that's that doesn't count.

10:34

So here's what's crazy, though. If you go into certain secular scientific journals, you can find, you can find articles and in research where they show, you know, people, you know, guys that do the research together speaking among themselves within the article talking about how they can't see how things like evolution works.

10:58

There's plenty of, there's plenty of journal articles. They know that they're, they're, I don't even want to call it theory is not a theory, but their hypothesis is broken and they know that they don't have a mechanism in terms of the mutation issue.

11:12

It's the one thing I exploit in the book. It's the one thing that when, as you've heard me teach multiple times, the thing about mutations is that's the linchpin for evolution and they know they don't have it.

11:22

Same thing goes for the big bang theory. It's the reason why people probably don't know this, but the reason why the

11:28

Higgs boson particle was so, so, so important for them to find a few years ago and why they had all kinds of excitement for what they thought was a

11:37

Higgs boson particle is because in the big bang dilemma, it brings up something called a horizon problem.

11:44

So maybe I'll explain that here for a moment. I just heard this on Easter Sunday as I was witnessing to my father -in -law and, and a brother -in -law.

11:57

So Julia was gracious enough to walk away and take the rest of the family with her. And it left me with, uh, with them for, for several, several hours.

12:07

And uh, we had, we had some interesting talk. So the brother -in -law who thought he's been really smart says,

12:13

Hey, have you ever looked at a telescope before? I go, well, of course he goes, well, don't you think that we can see billions of light years away?

12:22

And I said, uh, Oh, Oh, we got a break for this. Are we seeing, are we seeing, we're seeing it, but I didn't show him and he wants to show here.

12:32

We'll put them on camera. He can show his, now he does not put his camera on, but he, but he needs to get faster internet so people can actually see something other than, but he's showing a red

12:47

Schuyler Bible. Yeah, that's pretty. Yes. And he thinks

12:54

I'm coveting that Bible, but the reality is, the reality is we paid for that Bible.

12:59

I could have bought two as he rubs it, you think he was just looking at that Bible.

13:06

Yeah. So nobody takes it from him. That's, that's how it works. Okay. So let me let, let folks in on the background here.

13:13

Okay. Okay. John, John, John won this Bible at a contest that we're having and the, he, so he got, he wins the

13:22

Bible. He brings it to a conference that we're at in, out of Washington and he brought it.

13:29

I took his Bible and hit it on him so he couldn't find his

13:34

Bible. And so ever since then, can

13:41

I say that you actually put me in a chokehold? Well, Hey, it worked, you know, it did.

13:51

I sacrificed my Bible for you, it's one of the best

13:58

Bibles I've ever owned. Thank you so much. Well, thanks. I love it. And it still smells good too.

14:05

It still smells good. All right. You got to work on your internet there cause it's kind of choppy.

14:10

You may have to, I'm getting dizzy looking at it. Yeah. All right. So, so now, first off, you were mentioning the particle and I don't even know how many folks,

14:20

I mean, people who study this will know, you know, the importance. So could you, so back up one second, first explain the particle and what's going on over at CERN, what they're trying to do, and then let's get into the horizon problem.

14:35

So well, basically it's a, it's a tiny, tiny, tiny particle. Now let's talk about the horizon problem first and then we'll backtrack to this and it'll make sense here.

14:44

So this is, this is the horizon problem. When my brother -in -law questioned me and asked me, well, you look through a telescope, right?

14:50

Don't you think we're seeing 6 billion light years? And it's because of the thought that if something is 6 billion light years away, that it takes 6 billion years for that light to travel before it enters the telescope to enter our eye and we see it.

15:03

And and so therefore the universe must be billions of years old. And I said, well, you know, here's the problem is that we don't actually know what the speed of light is.

15:16

Sounds crazy, right? Except that anytime you read in a textbook, the speed of light, it's the average speed of light.

15:22

It's not the speed of light. We don't actually know the one way, the one directional way speed of light.

15:29

And you know, Jason Lyle has, has some good research on this or good thoughts,

15:34

I should say behind this and some of the math behind it. He's got several ideas as to how light would travel faster than what we think to be the speed of light today in one direction, in one direction.

15:46

Right. It's one of the average boys. Yeah. When you said the average, it's really when we measure light, we can only measure a round trip.

15:54

We can measure a light beam hitting a mirror and returning and returning at photons, boom and back.

16:00

And we can measure that time. We know the distance there. We have an average speed of light we have. But we don't know.

16:05

And we suspect it could be faster one way. Some guys think it could actually be instantaneous one way.

16:13

And then you see the lag on the way back. So who knows? Who knows what the answer is?

16:19

But the thing is, is that we as creationists get, get pointed at by the secularists who say that, that we've got the issue because we believe if the earth is only 6 ,000 years old, then the light must travel faster than the speed of light.

16:33

Ha ha ha. Joke's on you. Type of deal. And we said, well, wait a minute. You've got a problem too.

16:38

Because within the big bang theory, you also have to assume that the speed of light is a whole lot faster than what we have as the average speed of light today.

16:48

And this is what I mean. So if we took in a cup of coffee that was piping hot and you put a nice couple ice cubes in the top.

16:57

Now let's assume that it was enough ice cubes that, that when they melted and mixed together with the coffee, it would bring it down to an average temperature that you could drink it and not scald yourself.

17:10

Okay. That's our assumption. Now let's say you drop those two ice cubes in and the moment the last ice cube melts, you drink it, what happens?

17:20

You're going to burn yourself still. And the reason why is because there's not enough time that has passed to allow the heat transfer in that cup of coffee.

17:30

You'll end up having colder coffee on top, hotter coffee in the bottom. The way that we get around this problem is we stir it up, right?

17:37

And so that's how you, you, you mix it together and it's, and it's good. Well, the horizon problem says this when they've tested different areas of the universe, obviously not right next to a star.

17:50

We're talking in the vast amounts of space because most of the universe is space. As we test different areas of space, we found that the temperature is very, very uniform.

18:01

We're talking 10 to the negative fifth Kelvin. So a fraction of a degree.

18:10

The problem is for the secularists is that not enough light from stars has transferred back and forth across the universe to make what should have been hot and cold spots a uniform temperature.

18:23

Because according to the Big Bang, for stars to have formed, we've got hot spots, for planets to cool down, for the vast amount of space to be really cold, you would have had right, right from the get -go of the

18:38

Big Bang, these hot and cold spots having to appear. Those hot and cold spots, there is not enough time in their

18:46

Big Bang model of 13 to 14 billion years. There's not been enough time for light to transfer, which is heat for it to transfer enough to be able to make the uniform temperature that we see in the universe today.

18:59

That's the issue. And so secularists know this problem called the horizon problem for us as creationists.

19:05

When I do training on creation, I don't worry about the three different theories that Jason Lyle has, the two different theories that Danny Faulkner has, the other half a dozen theories that are out there as to how light can travel faster than the speed of light.

19:18

All's I say is, look, you secularists have the exact same problem we do in the horizon problem. Now, the

19:25

Higgs boson particle, they theorize that if you had enough of these Higgs boson particles right from the get -go, it would have accounted for a lot more mass and they could have accounted for hot and cold spots that would have dissipated a lot faster,

19:42

I guess is the easiest way to say it. So it's just a way that they could have tried to tweak their model.

19:49

And that's really about it. And I think we're seeing a bunch of stuff coming up now. I actually have some questions from Vincent, who

19:56

I haven't talked to in quite some time. All right. Well, let's bring him in. I thought you were talking about the other chat, but Vincent, I brought you in.

20:04

Well, I don't know if there's another chat. I only see the one here on the screen. Yeah. There's one on YouTube. Oh, yeah.

20:10

I'm not that fancy. Well, I have really more comments towards some of this. It's interesting.

20:16

A topic for sure. Can y 'all hear me, by the way? Yep. All right. I never know.

20:24

Just the whole subject of the speed of light and how it's measured, and I really encourage y 'all to look at some of the earlier experiments that really led

20:37

Einstein to come up with his theory of relativity. It's called the Michelson -Morley experiments, where they were trying to measure the speed of light, and it led to some very interesting results.

20:48

And it's what really propelled Einstein to come up with his theory of relativity, because they couldn't even come close to quantifying the speed of light to what they thought it would be.

21:04

And so they had to use all these mathematical equations to try and normalize it. It's an interesting topic if you look into it really further.

21:12

The Michelson -Morley experiments, they've done them multiple times, and the results were always not what the scientific community expected.

21:21

So it's an interesting topic. And like other things that they don't expect, they don't talk about either.

21:28

No. I mean, really, the whole reason for the relativity theory and transforms is because, in order to maintain the status quo in the scientific community.

21:40

All it is is to keep what they already perceive to be the truth, to maintain it as their truth.

21:50

Well, that's the confirmation bias again. I mean, it really is, right? Because if their argument is that this is what all scientists believe, and all of a sudden we see that there's some good science on the other side, that presents a problem.

22:06

So I don't know if anyone here has watched this video, but there's a video out there. I could probably find it and put up a link at some point here.

22:14

But there's a video of a guy who, he seemed very sincere.

22:21

He's a secular, I think it was an anthropologist, but he was going back and finding bones of what he believed to be one of the intermediate species between Bigfoot.

22:35

We're back on Bigfoot. I like Bigfoot. Yeah. Flying demon babies. So actually flying demon babies,

22:41

I think are a mix between pterodactyls and humans. That's what it is.

22:47

We'll have to tell Frank that. Now you got me forgetting what

22:54

I was talking about. What? Like we were paying attention? Probably not.

23:02

Oh, that's great. Okay. Vincent, do you remember what he was saying?

23:08

We'll see if anyone was actually paying attention. He was finding bones or something. I don't know. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

23:14

So in his drawers, he pulls out a drawer of hips, the pelvis.

23:28

And he's talking about how he knows this to be the pelvis of an intermediate species between us and a chimpanzee.

23:38

And he said, but this looks way too ape -like. So as he studied the pelvis, he saw some areas that he thought that, you know, well, okay, let's just say this.

23:51

He made an assumption that the hips somehow got crushed. So this whatever ape died, bones laying there, it gets crushed right before it gets fossilized.

24:05

And then during the fossilization process, it reattached itself, refused.

24:13

And the problem is, is that this set of bone that they knew to be an intermediate species, but looked way too ape -like, he knew that this bone, this pelvis must have refused to make it look more ape -like.

24:29

Then we watch him for the next five to 10 minutes, taking a dremel and start dremeling the hips and then gluing the pieces back together into what he believes to be the intermediate.

24:41

And I know you've seen this, Andreas, you're shaking your head. If you haven't all seen this, I'll find the link,

24:46

I'll put it up. You got to watch this, but it is the ultimate in confirmation bias. I saw that on,

24:52

I think it was Discovery, if I'm not correct, or PBS. And it was amazing when

24:57

I watched it, because I'm just like, wait a minute, how do you know, like they're taking a pelvis that doesn't have any breaks in it, assuming it must have been this, cracking it, like, oh, let's just carve this part out, this part out.

25:09

And now, oh, look, now it looks like, you know, the missing link. I think Todd Freel did the same thing.

25:16

I think he showed us the same video on Wretched once. Oh, when you said he did the same thing, I thought you meant that he actually took a bone and...

25:30

So, yeah, I mean, this is the thing, I think it's so interesting when we get all these challenges for creation, because there's so much of the evidence that they ignore, because they just can't deal with it.

25:47

So let's go on to the, you know, one of the questions that we did get that someone wanted asked here in the

25:54

Facebook group. Since we were mentioning Frank Mullis earlier,

26:01

Eric Mancini had asked the question, and I just got it.

26:07

You see, you're laughing because you know Eric Mancini's, and so he was asking about the

26:14

Loch Ness Monster and which one eats more fish. He said, Loch Ness Monster or Frank Mullis, who eats more fish?

26:21

Anthony, what say you? Actually, I said Frank ate the Loch Ness Monster. He said it was a duck.

26:29

It was a fish. Oh, that's great. Basically, Frank likes to eat a lot of sushi, a lot of fish.

26:41

And duck. And duck. He does like duck, yes. So I don't know,

26:46

I see that Cody came in here. I don't know if Cody has any questions about creation.

26:55

Hey, so I was flipping through, while you're doing that, I was flipping through the comments as to topics people want to talk about.

27:02

They wanted to ask if we, one of them was, do we believe in global warming?

27:08

Yes. And I actually, believe it or not, I believe it conditionally. So what happens is, if you're in the

27:17

Northern Hemisphere and April, May time, we see the temperatures rising, right?

27:24

We get some pretty nice global warming. And then it turns into global cooling when

27:31

September and October rolls around. Well, actually. Okay. All together, it's climate change.

27:38

Well, I answered that I do. I mean, I do believe in global warming and global cooling.

27:45

I think it's a cycle. But here's the thing that when we come to the issue, and by the way, folks, if you notice, it used to be global warming.

27:55

And now, you're not allowed to use that term, and it was climate change. Now you're not allowed to use that term, and it's extreme weather.

28:05

When I was growing up, we were going into another ice age. The reason being is, you have a cyclical cycle where it warms and it cools.

28:15

Now, the irony is, when we're going into an ice age, the solution that they had was government control. When we went into global warming, the solution was government control.

28:24

The government can't control either one of these extremes. What they do is, they say, okay, let's look at, let's do some research and studies on global warming and what the causes are.

28:37

So we know that there's things of solar flares, basically flares that come off of the sun, come toward the earth.

28:45

And even, it's amazing because when these flares come, they blow out our satellites.

28:53

And you know, there's, so, but that, they go, nope, we're going to take that out.

28:58

That doesn't affect anything. So they remove solar flares. The earth actually will change its magnetic force.

29:07

Their magnetic field changes. Nope, we can't look at that. There's these solar storms.

29:14

Nope, we can't look at that. Volcanoes, we can't look at that. Essentially, what they do is remove everything except human beings and then say, man is creating global warming.

29:28

You know, there's, there's research out there. Now, so, okay. Does a greenhouse effect, could it potentially exist with carbon dioxide?

29:38

Yeah, it potentially, it could. The issue I have, I don't think it, I don't think that actually happens.

29:45

I believe what you think, Andrew, is that, that cycles within not only the earth, but the sun rotation of the planets and the solar system, how we rotate in the

29:56

Milky Way galaxy. I think there's, there's a whole host of issues that can play a role in terms of very minor fluctuations in, in temperatures.

30:07

The one, the biggest thing of the research that they've hidden that bugs me is when you look at the carbon dioxide that is in carbon monoxide, that's put up into the atmosphere.

30:18

Do you know what the largest amount of it is from? We're talking like more than 99 .9

30:24

% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Cow is right. Isn't it? No, it's volcanoes and earthquakes, especially ones that are in, in the oceans.

30:35

I wait, no. They're coughing them up. Al Gore told us it was cow fluctuation when

30:41

I know pass gas, he was the same guy that talked about preserving energy. And then we found out he had a $10 ,000 a month electric bill with all the lights on his man.

30:49

Well, he told us that the earth was going to be gone. What like, was it seven years ago now that we were supposed to be,

30:55

I think because, but you should join the Joe's witnesses, but you know, when you look at it, there is,

31:03

I mean, there was some studies that were done to show that one volcano does more damage to the ozone layer than two atomic bombs dropped in Japan.

31:15

I mean, if we tried to destroy the environment, I don't think we could.

31:21

I mean, the natural processes of just the volcanoes do more damage, supposedly, if you can call it damage, but do more damage than us dropping atomic bombs.

31:33

Not saying we should be. I mean, one of the things that both you and I hold to is that we are as Christians.

31:41

We do believe God gave us stewardship over the earth and we should care for it. We shouldn't be trying to do things that would damage the atmosphere and things like that.

31:50

But the thinking that we could actually do something that could destroy this planet.

31:58

When you look at what the planet's doing to itself, because that's part of the curse, this is part of what we see is the result of the fall.

32:07

You see this in Romans chapter eight, the entire universe is groaning. Yeah. Romans 8. 22.

32:12

Yeah. Because of the fall, because of what happened with Adam and Eve, there was a curse that affected the whole universe.

32:18

The entire universe is groaning. That's what we see. And if the earth hasn't destroyed itself now with all the volcano activity that's had, we're not going to do much.

32:29

Not saying we shouldn't try to take care of it, but we have a responsibility. Responsibility to a point.

32:37

Right. You're not going to affect a human life based off of trying to care for the environment.

32:43

We have to be aware of the fact that there is a political agenda behind it as well. There is an agenda behind all these things that have been attempting to create a, basically to take open markets and close them and create more of a socialistic mindset.

33:03

They've been trying a lot of different things to do, to do that. And global warming didn't work like they hoped, but LGTBQ has,

33:12

I mean, that's really been helping in creating a worldwide socialistic thinking. But yeah,

33:18

I think it's just government control. That's all they want. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, so as we're talking about the

33:27

LGBTQ movement, this might be a good time to bring up Equip Ohio, right?

33:35

So and actually, Andrew, do you want to talk about that for a moment? I've got to go watch Anthony run home from the neighborhood real quick.

33:40

All right. Sure. So Equip Ohio is going to be

33:47

June 1st in Cleveland, Ohio at Olmsted Falls Baptist Church. It's where we've held the previous ones.

33:56

And June 1st, the doors are going to open 8 o 'clock, 8 a .m. This one is going to be different than we've done the past ones, because this is going to be more of a mini conference.

34:05

So it's going to run until just before noon. And then around noon to six o 'clock, we're going to set more time aside for the evangelism.

34:14

And the reason that Anthony was saying to the LGTBQ is because there will be a

34:20

Gay Pride Festival. And that's one of the reasons that we're going to try to go a little bit earlier, is to be able to go and do some outreach there while there's a lot of people at the parade.

34:31

We don't go into the parade, don't need to. The speakers for this, though, are going to be

34:36

Dr. Anthony Silvestro, Michael Coghlan and Pastor Austin Hessler.

34:41

If you've been to our other Ohio conferences, you should know those names. And so June 1st, doors open 8 o 'clock at Olmstead Falls Baptist Church.

34:53

If you want to get more information about that, just email info at strivingforeternity .org.

35:01

Info at strivingforeternity .org. And so that would be a good place to go, get trained up if you want to get trained to do some evangelism.

35:15

Now I'm just trying to look at some of the comments that we had from our

35:21

Facebook group because there was another one I wanted to address. I'm going to have to look.

35:28

But if folks want to join in here, ask any questions, give any challenges, go to Apologeticslive .com.

35:34

There is a link there to join. And I'm going to add in, let's see, who was first?

35:40

I think Chris was first. Okay, so Chris, I added you if you want to unmute yourself.

35:49

And I don't know if you have any questions for us tonight. Not in specific.

35:59

Well, I did have a question for Dr. Silvestro. I'm pretty sure

36:05

I know where he is because he talked about the earth being 6 ,000 years old. And I was just wondering if that's something that we should affirm as far as young earth creation is concerned and if that's what

36:14

Genesis 1 and 2 and 10 teach. Well, I will answer for Dr.

36:22

Anthony Silvestro because I will give a better answer than he could. And the best part is now that he's back, he doesn't know the question.

36:31

He just gets to hear the answer. Flying demon babies. You know, at some point we're going to have to explain this flying demon babies of Frank's.

36:42

Frank's got to get on for that. Yeah, Frank will have to get on. All right. So here was the question was, Anthony, do we, must we, it was, well, should we affirm a young earth creation?

36:54

Now, I think you and I may have a little bit of a different view. I would say we should, but not must.

37:00

I'm a little bit, I'm not as hard line,

37:06

I would say maybe as Anthony, I think that there are folks who may think that scripture allows for an older earth and they have reasons from scripture, but I don't think it's, um,

37:19

I just don't think they're very good arguments. Uh, however, I don't say that we shouldn't call them brothers.

37:26

I don't think that they're somehow giving up the Bible. What say you, Anthony? Heretics? No, you know, in, in all seriousness, the issue that I, that I have is when we look at the

37:43

Bible, the only reason why you get millions to billions of years is from secular textbooks.

37:50

You don't read the Bible and come up with the millions of billions of years. It is, it is strictly something that is taking from secular science and people do their best to import it into the

38:02

Bible. Um, that's an issue I have. It's, it's very different than many other conversations.

38:07

You know, Andrew, you and Matt different theology in a number of areas. You guys can have good talks about that debates that people enjoy, respectful debates, and you guys can both walk away thinking either you're right.

38:20

The other one's wrong. No, I'm always right. Yeah. But you, but you respect each other because you guys know that both of you start with scripture.

38:29

You know that that's where that's your starting point. And the starting point of somebody who looks at an old earth is not scripture.

38:38

When we listen to the arguments of Hugh Ross and some of these other guys who are, are professing

38:44

Christians, they are proponents of, of evolution and old age.

38:50

They never have scriptural arguments that are sound and they don't, they have no places where they can stick the millions of billions of years and other than actually just sticking it in somewhere.

39:01

Well, I think, you know, there are some who, and you, you be familiar with, you know, the, the whole idea that the

39:09

Genesis one two is more of a polemical type of argument. They're going to approach it from scripture, but the folks that hold to that also don't always take a position on whether it's old or young or they can go either way.

39:22

They don't make a deal that. So there are some folks who try to make an argument from scripture, not just from science that allows for it.

39:33

Now, I'm going to, I'm going to play the advocate here. I think that the way they will argue is that they're looking at scripture and looking at what they see in the world.

39:44

And we do this as well. Even if you take a young earth, we're going to have people that are going to take what we see in scripture compared to the evidence that we see, you know, we see fossils all over the, you know, all over the earth buried in rock layer.

40:01

We would say that's Noah's flood because we see a Noah's flood in the scriptures. We see the evidence we expect to see in a flood and we say, well, there we're looking, we're doing the same thing as what they're going to say that with a young earth position.

40:15

Yeah. Well, okay. So fossils brings up a whole different story. The thing is, is we can go through the

40:21

Bible and with Adam and Eve being created on the sixth day, we can add up genealogies, we can take the historical accounts and we come up with thousands of years.

40:31

We don't come up with, with millions to billions of years. The argument's now going to be that you could skip generations in there and that's not accounted for.

40:40

Maybe, maybe when you say so -and -so begot so -and -so there was actually three, four, five generations missing in there.

40:46

Yeah. Of course in Jude, it verifies Enoch being a seventh from Adam.

40:52

So, so there's people who make that argument, but yet we can, we can point to Jude there and that lines up perfectly.

40:59

Maybe they did it after Jude. Maybe that practice only started, you know, or not after Jude, after Enoch.

41:06

Maybe it was the, you know, after Enoch, there's like eight generations missing and you know. Yeah. No.

41:11

And I, and I, and I suppose people can come up with all kinds of things, but again, what is their starting point?

41:18

How does an idea of millions to billions of years even arrive into the brain if you're reading the

41:24

Bible at face value? Well, that's, that's the first issue that I have. Here's the second issue though, and this is going to be the, the, to me, it's, it's the dagger for all of this.

41:35

We look at, we just celebrated Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

41:41

We just celebrated what we see as the core of the gospel. First Corinthians 15 verses three and four. What is the point of Jesus dying?

41:50

I make this argument in the book, right? What is the point of him dying? In what book? In my book, the origin of kinds.

41:58

Well you just say the book, like every, like every book. It's the book. Do you have a copy of the book to put on display?

42:06

Like I do over here or mine, you know, now he's got to go get it now. I will say this,

42:12

Anthony, I'm going to, we're going to, we're going to wrap up creation. I want to get to NAR and I, there's a couple of people in here.

42:19

Eli is here and also traditional Catholic. And I think that it'd be fun to have you in traditional

42:25

Catholic, have a nice conversation. Yeah, we should. So let me finish this thought then. So, so the here, here's the, the biggest problem with, uh, with believing in an old earth is that you have to presuppose death before sin.

42:39

You look at the fossil record that you brought up and it's the fossil record is either a record of death over billions of years, or it's a record of death that happened in literally one fell swoop over the period of about a year during Noah's flood.

42:55

Why this is important is because when did death enter into the creation is, is death the result of sin as we read in Genesis two, as, as what

43:08

God tells Adam will be the result of sin. Do we believe God there? And then when we read in Genesis three, we see an immediate spiritual death and the promise of future physical death.

43:18

This is what the Bible teaches is that death entered into creation through Adam and his sin.

43:25

Not before we're, we, we've got really good genealogies, Adam and Eve being real people where you could not have had, you could not have had the death before Adam and Eve.

43:36

And here's the reality, Andrew, you brought up the issue of genealogies before they're old earth. People don't argue with genealogies.

43:43

They may, there's some guys, I mean, John Whitcomb, one of the guys that wrote the Genesis flood with Henry Morris, who

43:48

I had a pleasure to meet just six months ago. Um, it is 90, 92 years old.

43:54

He argues, he believes that, that there's some genealogies missing, which would push it up to in the neighborhood of nine to 10 ,000 years of an age of the earth, not millions of years.

44:04

Whenever you see the millions of years entered into scripture, they're either entering it between Genesis one, one, and one, two, which goes by a number of theories, um, or gap theory, rune reconstruction,

44:16

Lucifer's flood, there's all kinds of them. Or they do them as days of creation are our old ages, but the, what, what they don't ever attempt to, to change is the genealogical record.

44:29

So I'm, I'm confident to be able to say, if we look at Adam and Eve, whether I believe it's about 6 ,000 years, let's give them 10, let's give them 20 ,000 years.

44:38

I don't care. The point is, is that if death started because of anatomy of sin, that means that before then there was no death of humans nor animals.

44:50

Why do we think this? We read in Genesis one that the food that was given to humans was only plants.

44:57

They were vegetarian. What was the food given to animals that we read in Genesis one? Guess what? They were also vegetarian.

45:04

There was no death in that original creation. God, every, every day except day two said that his creation was good at the end of his days of creation.

45:14

At the end of day six, he called his creation very good. Did God look over his creation and say, wow, after billions of years of death, killing thing after thing, after thing, after thing, by the way, by the way, this death is what he calls the last enemy to be destroyed in first Corinthians 1526.

45:38

He would be using his last enemy to be destroyed for billions of years to bring about everything we see in Genesis one on the sixth day through all this death, disease, suffering, famine, thorns, this is all the bad stuff that we see today.

45:58

Going back to now our millions of years Christians, they have to take death and put it before anatomy of sin.

46:06

This is what I think is the death knell to, to old earth creationism. And I think they undermine the gospel because for Jesus dying on the cross, he literally took the punishment that God subscribed to sin back in the garden in Genesis two.

46:22

That was the punishment. He didn't have to go get, get a spanking in the corner or have a timeout or, you know, ludicrous things like this, right?

46:31

Death, death. So this, these are where the arguments, these are arguments

46:36

I make, and I just don't see how you, how you get around it. All right. I want to change gears.

46:42

I just added Paul Morrison. I'm going to bring his volume up. So all right.

46:49

So Paul, Paul had some questions that for folks who don't know, uh, basically since we added, uh,

46:56

Anthony Silvestro to the speaking roster at Striking Fraternity, he's kind of been the main guy to speak on creation science,

47:05

Genesis, because actually always Genesis, because it doesn't matter what topic you give him to speak on, he's going back to Genesis.

47:13

So every, every topic, it just seems to go there, but, uh, but there's one, maybe we won't go to Genesis and Paul had some questions with the new apostolic reformation.

47:24

Folks may not be super familiar with this. I do do a podcast with Amy Spearman on new apostolic reformation.

47:30

If you go to rap report, um, I don't know which episode, but just do it just when you get to a rap report on strikingfraternity .org,

47:39

look up our podcast, go to the rap report, find the one with Amy Spearman on new apostolic reformation.

47:44

We define it there. It's basically in the short, this idea that there is people who, uh, churches that, that can still have apostles and prophets today.

47:53

They speak through the apostles and prophets. So that's kind of the idea. Anthony is kind of our resident expert that we have at Striving for Truth on NAR.

48:04

So I said to Paul, why don't you come on in and ask your questions of Anthony, because he's going to be able to answer them better than I.

48:11

So go for it, Paul. All right, Paul. Thanks a lot, guys. Appreciate it. Hey, um,

48:16

Anthony, I, I've been in a month long discussion with a distant family member and, um, he and I shared both, both grandkids.

48:24

His, his daughter's married to my son. And so, uh, and I love this brother. He's a sweet man, but he's been really promoting this, uh, new apostolic reformation of leaders in it and other prosperity gospel leaders for a while.

48:38

And so that's kind of what sparked our conversation. I, I said, listen, um, I don't think I want you promoting those things to me.

48:44

And I certainly don't, uh, and I don't want you, I really wish you wouldn't promote them at all and hope that we could talk about it.

48:51

So we've zeroed in on pretty much Bethel Redding. How do you view

48:56

Bethel Redding in their role in the new apostolic reformation? You know, so we have to, we have to remember the

49:05

NAR, we, as the outsiders, we look at this whole movement and we call it the

49:10

NAR. And I think a lot of people think that it's a denomination. It's not right.

49:15

So we want to make sure that we, we understand that it's really a very loose, um, amorphous type, um, combination of, of a number of, of places.

49:29

I will say though, that Bethel Redding is probably number one on the list. So when we look at the leaders of the new apostolic reformation, it is certainly

49:38

Bill Johnson that is at the forefront. I would, I would put almost on the same level,

49:45

Mike Bickel of IHOP, not the pancake place, but a international house of prayer.

49:53

So they're, they're kind of the, the two big guys today. This is what's also, and so mind you,

50:00

NAR is really confusing. You know, I, I love Justin's, um, 12 hours,

50:06

I think, or 14 hours of, of hot water. Yeah. Justin Peters, clouds without water.

50:12

It's eight hours. Well, two is longer. I just don't know how long it is, but yeah, so it's, um, you go through all kinds of stuff and what you're going to find is that there's a number of beliefs that seem to be universal among all these leaders.

50:32

There's some things they're going to disagree on, but one of the hallmarks of the NAR is ecumenism.

50:39

They believe, they believe in, in literally a type of collective salvation, almost what we looked at with, um, with what

50:49

Obama seemed to be promoting at times, the mixing of religions and certainly

50:55

Oprah preaches on this type of thing. NAR is very much like this. So similar to, um,

51:01

I don't want to pull the Catholic in, in quite yet, but the, one of the issues that we see with Catholicism among, among many issues with Catholicism is that Pope's have been getting softer over the time.

51:15

And, uh, it's now, it's now, as long as you believe in some type of God, you know, yeah, you can go to heaven at some point.

51:23

Popes are getting softer. No, no, no. I have a question whether this current Pope is even Catholic, maybe with a really good

51:31

Lutheran satire video that questions that too. But, but so my point, Paul, is that we go back to the

51:37

NAR and, um, they kind of affirm anybody who believes in some type of God and their, their focus is literally

51:46

God. They speak Jesus, but they don't, they don't believe in the same Jesus that we do.

51:53

They believe in a Jesus that when he came to earth, he wasn't God. Right.

51:58

Can you explain that in detail? What is, what is the nuance there?

52:04

Because I think a lot of people might benefit from knowing, like, what's a specific example of, of what they might say to, you know,

52:17

Yeah. So this, this is the problem though, is that they don't, a lot of them don't know the theology of the

52:25

NAR. So people who are adherents to the NAR and are fans of Bethel don't know a lot of this stuff among what the leaders teach.

52:34

Okay. But I mean, okay. So for us, let's talk here for the people that are here. Why is it important to understand that Jesus is both

52:42

God, fully God and fully man, right? Let's start there. Oh, you know what?

52:47

I think maybe we have somebody who wants to speak instead. So Andrew, answer for us.

52:52

I mean, you do have, you do have the book written on the subject. Yeah. No, I didn't. You know, this is very important.

52:59

I just spoke about this on Good Friday is if, if Jesus Christ was not truly man, then he can't be a sacrifice for other people.

53:08

He can't be a sacrifice for other human beings. So to be a sacrifice, he had to be sinless, never breaking the law of God.

53:17

Right. That way he can be a proper sacrifice. But if he wasn't fully God, then we're dead in our sins because if he wasn't truly

53:26

God, then he wasn't eternal and he had to be eternal to pay an eternal fine.

53:32

That's what makes him unique. Yeah. Thank you, Andrew. If I'm understanding Johnson specifically and correctly, he sort of holds to this view that Jesus laid aside his deity when he came to earth.

53:46

That's what they say. What that means is that he wasn't God when he was here.

53:52

Now here's, here's the, this is where it gets really interesting. Okay. And this is the important point to pick up on this.

53:59

I mean, well, the most important point is what Andrew just brought up that, you know, Jesus isn't God, then none of us have salvation.

54:08

But I would say the second most important point is this, because people in the new

54:14

Apostolic Reformation, you have what they call the living apostles, Bill Johnson, Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Todd Bentley, the list goes on.

54:25

There's a number of these apostles, so to speak today. And they, and this gets in a different conversation, but they believe that they have the same gifts of the

54:34

Holy Spirit, the apostolic gifts that were 2000 years ago. Well, what about for the normal person, the average person?

54:42

They look at Jesus, not as an apostle, but as a normal person who walked in the spirit.

54:52

So I get you. Yeah. So the father granted certain powers of the spirit for, and that's how he operate in his three years of mystery, which means then that anybody who's an adherent to NAR theology follows

55:12

Bethel, guess who they can also be like? Right. Jesus.

55:17

And they can walk in the same power of the spirit granted by the father, just like Jesus was.

55:24

He's the role model. He's the model for people. Right. So that's where it really gets interesting.

55:33

And that's why you see all kinds of really wacky stuff. I mean, in just the last couple of weeks where we saw the tarot card stuff come back out, right?

55:42

There, you know, I saw a brief thing on that today. Is that real? They're really using something that's like a tarot card about, oh, yeah, that's bizarro.

55:51

And here's what's crazy too, is because this whole movement is highly affirming, even if something seems not right, the leaders will affirm it.

56:03

Right. Chris Valitone, the guy who does the grave sucking. I mean, this stuff's ludicrous.

56:10

Right. So for those of you who don't know what grave sucking is, you can go find this on YouTube. But Chris Valitone, who is,

56:15

I think, third in charge at Bethel, I think is a worship leader. I think the second one, maybe.

56:21

Is he second now? Yeah, second in charge, maybe. But yeah, he's like the worship leader. Okay. Yeah, the worship leader. So he goes and takes people on grave sites of people that they believe were specially anointed.

56:32

So there's different levels of anointing of the Holy Spirit that people get. People who are really anointed with the

56:37

Holy Spirit, they go lay on the graves to suck the anointing off of them and take it for themselves.

56:43

Bizarro. It's bizarre. Yeah. Versus that. Can I give you a practical example of why?

56:52

One of my first views of Bethel was a number of years ago. My mom and dad lived in Weaverville, where Bill Johnson is from.

56:59

And then later they moved to the other side of the valley, up to Shingletown, which is across the valley from Reading.

57:05

And mom got a diagnosis of cancer.

57:10

And so she went to the hospital. They did some imaging and basically they took an image of her head.

57:19

And the nurse who was assisting her just gave her a hug and said,

57:26

Hey, listen, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but this isn't good. And kind of gave her some of the details.

57:34

And basically, mom learned that day that she was going to die. And as her and my father left the hospital, she had hundreds of tumors.

57:42

That's what she was learning. And as she left the hospital, they get in the elevator, they ran into some folks from Bethel Reading who were on something called a treasure hunt.

57:54

Ah, yeah. And my dad, who walks with slight limp from a hip surgery and he had a cane, they honed in on him and completely unaware of the weight and gravity of the situation.

58:07

They said, Hey, sir, we'd like to pray for you. Jesus will heal you if you'll just.

58:13

And my dad said, Hey, listen, no, thank you. They said, No, sir, you don't understand.

58:18

He said, No, I don't think you understand. See, they completely missed the entire gravity of the situation, looking at the visual of and thinking they knew what the situation was, or maybe had some kind of divine insight to it.

58:31

And they were completely lost at the gravity of the situation. And of course, mom passed on just a few months after that.

58:37

And I thought, how strange is this to go and think that you're working in the authority of the

58:44

Holy Spirit and that you're going to claim a healing. And then completely missed this whole situation.

58:52

How terrible is that? And I would suspect that there are things like that to play out time and time again, that the fruit, the end fruit and result is, let's say we profess a healing over somebody of diabetes.

59:03

And then they claim a healing. Maybe they even feel good for a day or two, but they quit their meds.

59:11

You know, I mean, the fallout can be difficult. And so anyhow, that's a concern

59:16

I have. I have another question for you, though. And this came up from my family member,

59:21

Bill. And Bill would want to ask this. He asked this of me this morning. He says, how does God speak to us today?

59:28

And my immediate thing was, well, primarily right through his word. I mean, that's what we have. What a gift the word of God is for us.

59:35

Well, let me give you the question. You could ask him back. Yeah. OK, because the argument for folks who may not be familiar with NAR is the idea that we somehow we need these prophets and apostles today.

59:48

Now, this is one of the things you see in almost every cult, that they're going to teach that the average person can't have the authority to understand

59:58

God's word. You need them as leaders, because that's what gives them that authority to have the control over your life.

01:00:04

Well, that sounds like Jehovah's Witness. The Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Roman Catholic, any of them.

01:00:10

They have that central authority that's going to tell you, you can't interpret the Bible. We interpret it for you.

01:00:16

It's the same thing that you have with NAR. They're going to say, well, they have the prophets. They have the apostles.

01:00:22

Only they can interpret. But the question is, why haven't we had it for thousands of years?

01:00:27

And all of a sudden we need it now. OK, now, if you're going to deal with, let me give you the separation now.

01:00:33

Roman Catholics will say they've always had their popes. I think that's hard to show historically, but they're going to make the claim.

01:00:40

But Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, they have to say the church fell away. So for a guy like that's in Bethel that says he's part of the

01:00:49

Christian church and he's not part of one of these groups, where were the apostles?

01:00:58

Where were the prophets for all these years? They're not going to say the church fell away. They're not going to say that they've always had them.

01:01:06

But they don't even think through. You know, when we see three major times in history that we have recorded where miracles occurred.

01:01:17

OK, Moses. Elijah and Elisha. And Christ.

01:01:23

What do we see in all three of those times? Moses, we have the beginning of the writing of scripture. Then there's a period of silence.

01:01:30

Elijah and Elijah come onto the scene. They come into the scene. And all of a sudden after that, we have the writing of scripture.

01:01:36

After a long period of silence, we have the writing of scripture again with the prophets. Then period of silence.

01:01:42

Then all of a sudden Jesus comes on scene. All these miracles. What do we have again with the apostles?

01:01:48

We have the writing of scripture. Now it's gone silent. If we look at the pattern, we'd be saying,

01:01:54

OK, they have to have some new authority. Well, then there's got to be scripture being written.

01:02:00

Now, they're going to say that they don't need that. But here's the real thing that I would challenge you with, Paul, is if they're claiming, these prophets claim to make prophecies, we look at the scriptures, the scriptures would say that a prophet has to be 100 % right.

01:02:18

Yet for these guys, these guys say that their accuracy is about 86%, I believe, is the latest number

01:02:25

I saw. They're not claiming to be 100%. According to the Bible, we should stone them as a false prophet.

01:02:31

Now they say it's not a false prophecy. It was a prophecy that was just wrong. I think that's a strange excuse when we see a biblical standard for prophets.

01:02:42

In fact, Bill actually brought this up. He said, hey, a New Testament prophet has a different standard than an

01:02:48

Old Testament prophet. And I said, I don't know that I could find a basis. What verse does he turn to for that?

01:02:55

I don't think he did. Yes, because he can't. This goes right back to the confirmation bias.

01:03:01

Okay, so the issue to challenge him with, and this is really the issue, do they want truth or do they want the

01:03:11

Bible to say what they wish it said? Because the truth is, there's nothing that talks about a

01:03:16

New Testament prophet. Right. It sounds like evolutionists and millions of years. Yeah, it's the same confirmation bias.

01:03:23

You know, and so what it is, is Bill Johnson is going to set himself up as the authority.

01:03:31

Now, the nice thing when you do that is when you set yourself up as the authority, can you ever be wrong?

01:03:39

No, because you're the authority. That's right, right. That's exactly it. In fact,

01:03:44

I think Bill and I were discussing, not Johnson, of course, Bill, family member. We were discussing this idea of phrases.

01:03:51

Don't put God in a box, right? This is a use that Bethel Reading uses.

01:03:58

And so Bill would say, well, maybe Scripture gives us a snapshot, but it's not all inclusive of everything

01:04:04

God might choose to do at any given time in history. I mean, that's an interesting thing, and he brought up a nuance.

01:04:10

Well, how does God speak to us today? You know, we think, well, through His Word, He has spoken. We know that.

01:04:16

And then what about when we say things like, in fact, I was watching a Lindsay Davis interview on,

01:04:22

I think, Apology Occultish last night. They had released a video, and she said something like,

01:04:29

I was led back to Bethel. Of course, her intent was to witness the gospel to them, to the folks that were there.

01:04:37

And he said, well, what about that? What's this leading that God, has God speaking to her anything, or do we have an inclination?

01:04:45

And how do you view those type of communications between God? How's God communicating with us other than the

01:04:51

Word of God? Well, I think that we do have the indwelling Holy Spirit. Okay, so the

01:04:59

Spirit, though, His ministry is to illuminate Scripture. So it always goes back to Scripture.

01:05:06

Here's the thing we have to look at. There are some passages of Scripture we can examine.

01:05:12

Do we put God in a box? Let's take that one, for example. Well, does

01:05:17

God put Himself in the box? God has certain limitations. Titus 1 -2,

01:05:22

God cannot lie. He cannot. It doesn't matter if it's

01:05:27

Old Testament or New Testament. He cannot lie. Why? Because this is part of His nature.

01:05:35

Andrew, can I tell you something just slightly embarrassing real quick? I'm on my phone. It's about to die.

01:05:40

I got to run and get my charger, and I don't want to miss anything. But you may have to jump to something. We're just going to freeze. Let me go grab it.

01:05:47

We'll talk about you while you're gone. It'll be fun. Because, you know,

01:05:53

He can always go back and get this on audio, and then He could hear what we say about Him. That could be fun. But let me,

01:06:00

I'll answer this, and He can go back and rewatch. But here's the thing that we end up seeing with this.

01:06:06

We have to look at what the Scripture says. And I know, and that's what we have.

01:06:14

We have this case where if you want to hear God speaking, it is in His Word.

01:06:20

Now, what does His Word say in Hebrews 13? He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

01:06:28

In other words, what that's talking about doesn't mean that if He gave a gift in one period of time,

01:06:33

He's got to do it in this period of time. If He did miracles one period of time, He's got to do it. That's not the meaning. It's talking about His character.

01:06:39

His character doesn't change. So if God is faithful, He's always going to be faithful. If He cannot lie, He can never lie.

01:06:46

So when we look at these things, this is why it comes in. Because what these guys want to do is say that you're, if you question, could

01:06:53

God do something, then the issue is, you know, is

01:07:01

He, does He have to be? Okay. So I would say that, you know, when you look at this, there's people who try to argue that somehow

01:07:15

He has to be different. So, because what they're trying to say is that their view that they have is, you know,

01:07:31

He's doing these things today through Bill Johnson. Right. And others.

01:07:36

And yeah, and others. Okay. But the thing is, is that when we look at what

01:07:43

Scripture says, that's the authority. Because here's what your relative

01:07:48

Bill's doing. You're presenting Bible. He's presenting Bill Johnson.

01:07:54

That's right. So the question is, which is the authority? Because every time you present

01:08:00

Scripture and he rejects it for what Bill Johnson says, his real authority is Bill Johnson. And that's what you see in a cult.

01:08:08

I think, I think it's true. And I know that the, the specific Scriptures we wrestle with, he kind of wants to go off and argue about, he wants to argue about specific

01:08:20

Scriptures that aren't really relating to, I'm on an interview right now. Okay. Give me just a few minutes. Okay.

01:08:28

And teenagers. Anyhow, so he'll, he'll want to argue about things that are just general charismatics versus non -charismatics.

01:08:36

I'm like, look, this, that's a non -issue for me in this, in this type of discussion. Although I do,

01:08:42

I probably do have some issues with what I see in the charismatic movement. I don't know that that's the same as arguing the authority of Scripture versus Bill Johnson.

01:08:53

You know, so I keep trying to focus back and say, let's go ahead and, let's go ahead and look at what

01:08:59

Bill Johnson, Bethel Reading are representing, which I think is a very low view of Scripture, by the way.

01:09:05

And so, and, you know, another strange thing, not only speaking, but the manifestation of miracles that Johnson claims, such as the gold dust, the gems that are kind of popping up in angel feathers.

01:09:18

Again, I noticed that my friend Bill will want to argue specific Scriptures that don't preclude a possibility of things like this happening, but, or prevent it according to him.

01:09:32

But I just think that it, I just think when we take a look at what the

01:09:37

Word of God says, it just has nothing like this in it. In other words, these manifestations are, are strange.

01:09:44

I can't reconcile them at all to any experience we might have seen in the New Testament, or for that fact, at any period in church history.

01:09:54

Anyhow, that's kind of the gist of it. We're looking at gold dust and gems, and now we're discussing those kind of things, and I think it's so bizarre where the discussion's led.

01:10:06

Well, let's remember a couple of things here. I mean, first of all, while they would claim inerrancy of Scripture, they don't, they would not believe in sufficiency of Scripture, right?

01:10:16

And so that's why they believe that they're still getting downloads from God. I think that's, that has to be, that has to be owned by that group.

01:10:29

And, you know, I heard Bill Johnson say in a movie called Holy Ghost, produced by, I think it's

01:10:34

Wanderlust Films, which is basically Bethel Redding's video film production. I hope I have that title right.

01:10:41

But he said of folks like myself and others that are like -minded with the

01:10:46

Bible, that we basically worship the Bible. He has a phrase, it's not the Father, Son, and the Holy Bible.

01:10:53

It's the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. And then he goes off into a dialogue in that movie, Holy Ghost, about how folks like us tend to get into the worship of Scripture.

01:11:05

And I just think that's an unfair charge. I think we hold a high view of Scripture, because it is what 2

01:11:12

Timothy 3, 16, and 17, that it's God breathed, you know, and it's for every, it is the sufficiency of God's Word for all facets of Christian living.

01:11:21

And so I think they fall short there, Anthony. That's a good observation. Now, of course, let's remember, they make lots of money based off of the fact that they get people wrapped up in emotionalism.

01:11:33

They get people wrapped up in the signs and wonders. And so, you know, you look at all the excitement that comes around the church.

01:11:41

Where is it from? You see the tarot card readings, and they've got a huge Facebook Live presentation on this.

01:11:48

You've got people that constantly show the gold dust that supposedly fell, and they're showing this on camera, these big rubies.

01:11:55

You know, if you had a ruby that was literally that big, it would be worth millions. I mean, and these are just...

01:12:03

I saw one that looked like it was heart -shaped. I thought that's funny. Yeah, and it's in private. They would go buy themselves a new private jet, right?

01:12:10

That's what you think. Something you buy in a bag of 50 down at Party Central or something like that. And this is the part that is so amazing to me, is that people have got to know that these are fake, that these jewels that drop down, that they're showing on Facebook are fake.

01:12:24

They've got to know this. How do they reconcile in their heads? I think it's the same issue.

01:12:30

I think they're wrapped up in the emotionalism of it. Actually, because you mentioned gold dust.

01:12:37

Here, I don't know if you've heard this, if you heard from Justin, but Justin Peters actually met a woman who got saved, and her and her husband's job was to put this gold glitter in the ventilation every week.

01:12:53

Okay, now that is the kind of hard evidence that I think is helpful. And what I'm going to do is

01:12:58

I'm going to get ahold of you again, and I'm going to find out that information. I'm going to share that with you.

01:13:04

Here's the thing, though. She rationalized it in her own mind, and it was like, well, this is really

01:13:11

God doing something. Even though she and her husband, who still, I guess, is involved in it, they just think, well, this is really

01:13:18

God doing something, even though they know they're putting the gold dust in the ventilation system, and they still think it's something

01:13:25

God is doing. That's still God doing a miracle. And that's where Anthony's saying they're so blinded by it.

01:13:31

Even though they're physically putting it in the ventilation system, they still think it's something from God.

01:13:37

Sorry, I cut you off. No, it's okay. So go ahead,

01:13:43

Anthony. And I guess I was going to add a little bit to this in going back to something you said earlier about the treasure hunting stuff.

01:13:51

Treasure hunting is what they call evangelism. So they have videos, and just to give you a little bit of my background, why when

01:14:02

Andrew brought up how I have a thing for Catholics and a thing for NAR is because I grew up Catholic and probably a lot of professing

01:14:14

Christians today. So I grew up Catholic, so I got a special angst on that. We have a lot of family members still trapped in the cult.

01:14:21

But for the NAR, we had two friends. When I got saved, my wife's one of her really good friends.

01:14:28

Her husband started discipling me. He's a Reformed pastor. And over several years, just started getting some different things.

01:14:39

Next thing you know, he and his wife sell everything. They go off to YWAM. And they come back from YWAM nine months or 10 months later, and they were full -on

01:14:49

Bethel Redding people. See, and I see the connection there, Anthony. My son went through a devastating

01:14:57

YWAM experience, and I could not believe what that did to not only our relationship for a number of years, how damaging it was, but for his own personal faith and where that led him to an incredible brokenness.

01:15:09

And here's the quick. I sent him to Mexico on a mission in high school with YWAM.

01:15:16

I didn't know. And folks started prophesying over him. Oh, you're not even going to finish school.

01:15:21

You're going to the mission field. And he came back, and he was a complete rebel against his father. And I said, son, the

01:15:27

Lord hasn't shared any of these things with me, and I don't have a peace about what you're saying. I can't let you abandon this path that you've been on academically, which was excellent, by the way.

01:15:39

And we really parted on just terrible terms. Now, he and I are great friends today, my son, Steven, and I. But it was a difficult thing that happened as a result of these folks, adults and other teens, adults and teens, both prophesying falsely over him.

01:15:55

It's love bombing. They're trained to do this love bombing, where they have multiple people come up to you, and they just shower you with love, with praises, and then with prophecies.

01:16:09

And of course, it's to suck you into the whole movement. YWAM is really good at this. One of the things to keep in mind and what we end up seeing with these prophecies is most often it is a positive.

01:16:22

It may be hard at first, but it always ends in a positive note. So it may be like you're going to lose a family member, but you're going to gain a worldwide audience or something.

01:16:32

They always have an end prophecy that is feeding to the pride, to the flesh.

01:16:40

And people want that to be true. And that's the blinding part. That's where if they want to have that thing that was prophesied, and because they want that so badly, now if they give up on the

01:16:54

NAR cult, then what they're really doing is they're giving up their chance for that prophecy to be true. It is a sick way of controlling people, but that's how it's used.

01:17:05

It's used to control people, because what it does is it gets them to really, really, really want that prophecy to be true, because they want the result of it.

01:17:14

And so they're going to be sucked into believing it. And now what they do is it's a confirmation bias of a different sort, because what you end up having,

01:17:24

I always use this as an example. I remember I had a friend in college. She was very much into horoscopes.

01:17:31

I mean, every day she'd check her horoscope, and every day it would be true. And she did this for years, ever since she was in elementary school.

01:17:40

And what I did was I made her read not just her horoscope, but every one of them every day.

01:17:47

And the result was they were all true every day, because they're so general.

01:17:52

She would look for ways to make it true. So she'd see something happen and goes, that's the fulfillment. That's it.

01:17:58

It's done. That's like cold reading guys, the guys who do the cold reading on the street.

01:18:04

Which is that Bethel style of evangelism we saw in the movie Holy Ghost, where they would come up and they would start to try to cold read people and ask them these general questions and make, hey, do you hurt anywhere?

01:18:15

Do you have any kind of pain anywhere? I don't know anybody who doesn't have pain anywhere. I'm sensing a word that starts with the letter

01:18:22

B or L. Yeah, and we see that a bunch.

01:18:32

And so what I want to do, Paul, though, is I do want to try to get, we do have someone that's somewhat regular here, traditional

01:18:39

Catholic. I want to give time for he and Anthony, but we'll see what happens next week.

01:18:47

We might have, if Matt's not in, we'll maybe come back and we'll continue this discussion.

01:18:54

Sound good? I appreciate it. Thank you guys. It's not like you don't know how to get a hold of us either. By the way, just for folks who are watching,

01:19:03

I don't know, I've added traditional Catholic. I'm going to turn up his volume. He can unmute himself. I don't know why on YouTube right now.

01:19:10

Something changed, but it is constantly showing just me. I'm having to click between the speakers.

01:19:17

I don't know what happened there with this, but if you see it on me, it's not because I think it's all about me, but I'll try to fix that.

01:19:26

So traditional Catholic. Yeah, I can select all kinds of different pictures too.

01:19:32

Yeah, but that should just show for you. Just for me. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Traditional Catholic, are you here?

01:19:38

I forget his first name. Yeah. Are you able to hear me? Am I coming in loud and clear? Yeah. What was your first name again?

01:19:44

Was it Peter? It's no, James. James. I'm sorry. I knew at least was a biblical name.

01:19:50

You know, at least that. Okay. So I think you and Anthony, having already heard some of what

01:19:58

Anthony was saying, I think that you might disagree with Anthony and I just a bit.

01:20:05

I want to first ask whether you, I'm just out of curiosity. Do you agree or disagree with what

01:20:13

I said? How Catholic do you think the current Pope is? He is not

01:20:19

Catholic at all. He's an anti -Pope. All of the post -Vatican II papal claimants are anti -Popes, which means they're not

01:20:26

Catholic. They're false Popes. Anyone that accepts the

01:20:31

Vatican II, the teachings of the Vatican II Council are not Catholic because the Vatican II Council actually contradicts all the other church councils and all the cathedral statements from the other past Popes.

01:20:44

So they're not Catholic at all. Well, see, at least we partially agree. So I just think that I just think the ones before were also anti -Catholic maybe because yeah,

01:20:56

I'd say anti -Christian maybe, but we're going to disagree. So, but I'll let you and Anthony have some fun here.

01:21:04

Well, yeah. Well, first off, I'm glad that you have Dr. Silvestro. When I saw that name,

01:21:10

I was like, wow, Dr. Silvestro, that sounds like something from like a comic book or something, whether it be a superhero or a supervillain.

01:21:17

But I was like, that's an awesome name to have. But, oh, no,

01:21:23

I think, I think we just got it. We just got the moniker. It's going to be Dr. Anthony, the supervillain dentist.

01:21:31

But I just wanted to tell you that we traditional

01:21:37

Catholics, we absolutely dogmatically believe in a young earth.

01:21:43

We reject the idea, any idea of evolution whatsoever, that the earth is old.

01:21:51

Now, that's the Vatican II sect that has adopted that. In fact, what they did a while back, they actually held a, you know, they held a, you know, meeting whereby a conference whereby they only accepted those that were proponents of evolution.

01:22:09

And they rejected those that believed in intelligent design and young earth.

01:22:17

So that's my question to you, Dr. Silvestro. Have you ever, I'm guessing you have speaking engagements at different places.

01:22:26

Have you ever had a speaking engagement with anyone in any diocese under the

01:22:33

Vatican II sect? No, because if I spoke at the

01:22:40

Catholic Church, I wouldn't speak on creation at all. I would be preaching the gospel continuously and teaching the

01:22:47

Bible and why I believe Catholicism to be a false religion. I believe it to be a cult, actually, as Andrew would have in his book.

01:22:56

So no, I've not had that opportunity. Now, having said that, I have a lot of friends on Facebook, you know, you know, friends, people that you haven't talked to in like 20 years, you know, since high school, and they friend you over the years.

01:23:11

So the number of them are Catholic, and we've had some interesting discussions about young earth.

01:23:17

And you're right, there's a lot of Catholics who don't believe in evolution, despite what has been said over the last several popes.

01:23:24

Because I think Pope John Paul II was the first one to really make a statement on this in like 1995, if I'm not mistaken.

01:23:33

And so there's a lot of people that reject the idea of evolution, a lot of Catholics, I should say.

01:23:39

But no, I've never spoken in a Catholic Church. Of course, if you want to invite me, I'd be happy to go.

01:23:47

Well, if you, I don't know if you have any material, any books or anything, but maybe you could contact the

01:23:54

Most Holy Family Monastery, if you go to vaticancatholic .com, they have their contact information, and they have some information themselves, you know, promoting a young earth, and they cite several examples.

01:24:13

So maybe you could collaborate with them, or you could, you know, send some of your information to them and look at the information they have as well.

01:24:21

So I wanted to know, I wanted to know, when

01:24:26

I speak to atheists, they always bring up plate tectonics.

01:24:33

And I don't know how to respond to that. Do you know, what's the position, what can

01:24:41

I say to them, you know, when they bring up the plate tectonics, and they claim that it proves that the earth is old?

01:24:49

I, I, it's, it's a different starting point. I mean, when we look at plate tectonics, we would say it's because of the flood, the fountains of the deep breaking open, that this is, that we would believe as biblical

01:25:03

Christians, young earth creationists, that there was one landmass that was broken up sometime during the flood.

01:25:12

And the continents moved apart probably pretty quickly early on. They're still moving now at a really, really, really slow rate.

01:25:21

But we would look at the plate tectonics all coming from the flood, the one major catastrophe that happens on this planet.

01:25:29

And by the way, I'll tie this in now to something Andrew said earlier, with the, with the understanding of ice age.

01:25:37

Secular scientists believe there's been multiple ice ages. The reality is, is that there is only been one ice age.

01:25:45

And we can demonstrate this through lots of computer modeling, that the only way you can have an ice age is you have to have lots and lots and lots of water that got evaporated.

01:25:56

You also have to have stuff, you know, like volcanic dust that would partially block the sun with the evaporation and have that massive amount of water come back down as snow.

01:26:10

And so we see wonderful models to show that as a result of floodwaters being evaporated, that that came down over the next several hundred years or so in an ice age.

01:26:23

So that's how all that connects. But yeah, plate tectonics, I'm going to point to the flood. And I'm not even sure why they believe that plate tectonics has any evidence for millions to billions of years, except for their belief that they also believe in a

01:26:40

Pangea of sorts. At the beginning of whenever the earth formed and that these continents have broken up now in their mind, they're going to see that the slow rates that have, that are occurring today in terms of, of plate tectonics and plates moving, they're going to say a uniformitarianism.

01:27:00

They're going to say that because what we see going on today being slow, that it's actually always been that way where we would say, well, wait a minute.

01:27:10

We looked at a global flood, founds the deep breaking open a major earth catastrophe that caused this to happen in a rapid manner.

01:27:21

We can demonstrate this with actually a number of things. Decay of the magnetic field seemed to have heightened during the flood times.

01:27:33

And several other examples that we could bring up. Does that answer your question?

01:27:40

Yeah, yeah, it absolutely does. And I just wanted to say, I think you're doing great work.

01:27:46

And I know you said that you'd bring the gospel to the Catholic church.

01:27:51

Well, the true Catholic church already knows the gospel. It's the Vatican II sect that seems to have swayed away from the true church.

01:27:59

Just like Protestantism. So, I mean, we could discuss it, but yeah. So what's the gospel then?

01:28:06

This gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ, his incarnation, God becoming man, his life and his death for our sins, for our salvation and his resurrection.

01:28:16

That's the gospel. That's the gospel message. And it's not just the only gospel message.

01:28:22

All the teachings of Jesus is also part of the gospel along with the teachings of the apostles.

01:28:28

If you reject any of the teachings whatsoever, then you're rejecting the teachings of Jesus, rejecting the teachings of God, you're rejecting the teachings of the gospel.

01:28:38

So you have to include all of that within the gospel. You can't just say, well, I believe in this little slither part of the

01:28:47

Bible. And if anyone believes in that, they're true Christians. That's not what the Bible says. The Bible specifically says that if you depart from any teaching of Jesus and the apostles, you're a heretic.

01:28:58

You're not a member of the church. You're not a member of true believers. So you have to accept all the teachings.

01:29:04

So James, so then you would agree that it's not by works that we're saved, correct?

01:29:11

The teachings of the Bible. Yes, it's not by our works that we're saved.

01:29:17

And that's actually what the Catholic Church teaches. If you look at the Council of Trent, it specifically says it's not by our works that we're saved, but instead it's by God's works.

01:29:26

Now, this is where we disagree with Calvinism. Calvinism says that there's no free will, and we disagree with that.

01:29:34

We believe that if you look at Ephesians 2 .10, we specifically must do the works that God has laid out for the faithful.

01:29:45

Now, that's a saying yes to it by choice. Now, I don't know if you're a Calvinist, if you accept

01:29:50

Calvinism or not, but Calvinists reject this. Okay, most Protestants are not

01:29:56

Calvinists, which is great, but the small number of Calvinists that exist, they reject that.

01:30:02

They don't believe that you can say yes. They believe God is sort of like a Jedi doing a Jedi mind trick on people and making people do things, you know, whereby they have no free will.

01:30:14

Hold on, hold on, Han. Okay, first off, you have a straw man, so your whole argument's invalid, okay, because that's not what

01:30:22

Calvinism believes. So, do you believe that any works are, other than what

01:30:31

Christ did on the cross, are there any works that contribute to our righteousness? There are no works in Catholicism.

01:30:39

This is what Catholicism teaches, and again, if you go to the Council of Trent, it specifically says this, that we merit no grace from our own works.

01:30:49

Any works we do is meaningless to God. Okay, so? It is saying, hold on, hold on.

01:30:56

Okay, go ahead, go ahead. Because we only have like 30 minutes left. Okay, so baptism.

01:31:03

Does someone have to be baptized to be saved? Yes, someone has to be baptized to be saved, but remember that when somebody is baptized, that person that's getting baptized isn't doing any work.

01:31:17

They're being baptized. In other words, a work is being done to them, but they're not doing anything.

01:31:23

And I pointed this out in the debate with Matt Slick. Hold on, hold on.

01:31:29

James, hold on. You're going off on several topics. I know we've talked about this in the past, because you hit like 10 different topics, and we're trying to, let's stay on one, okay?

01:31:42

So, short, quick answers that answer specifics. Okay, so the question now that I have for you.

01:31:48

And I just want quick answers for a moment. So, you're saying baptism is a work that someone else does to the person.

01:31:56

Is that correct? It's a work that God's doing through someone to the person. In other words,

01:32:03

God has laid out certain works that the faithful should do, and that would be a work that God has laid out.

01:32:13

Hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on. So, it was a yes or no, but he answered it a little differently.

01:32:19

Fine. So, you're saying God does it. So, God is the one who baptizes the infants, yes or no? Yes. Okay, so God does it, not the priest.

01:32:31

Well, God works through persons, just like he worked through the prophets. The prophets didn't do anything on their own, and no priest can do anything on his own.

01:32:40

God works through persons. We see this all throughout the Bible, God working through individuals. So, it's

01:32:47

God always doing it. No one can do it in and of themselves. Okay, well, actually, I'm going to disagree, and I'll tell you why.

01:32:54

There are plenty of Mormons that get baptized. Are you going to say that God did those baptisms?

01:33:01

No, Mormons are not Christians. They don't accept the Christian faith. They don't even believe in the

01:33:06

Holy Trinity. So, they're not Christians, so their baptisms are invalid. God's not doing anything through Mormons.

01:33:11

Hold on, we just got to do an apples to apples, because you said that God does the baptism, and you said no one could do that work apart from God, but now you're accepting that Mormons can do it apart from God.

01:33:22

So, how do you resolve this conflict that you just created for yourself?

01:33:28

Well, I just explained to you. I just told you that their baptisms are invalid because they don't have belief.

01:33:34

Remember, the Bible says that you must have belief and be baptized, just as we see in Acts 2 .38.

01:33:40

So, if you don't have belief, the correct belief, which is a Catholic faith, and you get baptized, let's say you believe in faith alone, and then you get baptized, well, your baptism is meaningless because you don't have the true faith.

01:33:57

But now you have yourself a dilemma because the Mormon is going to say the same exact thing to you, that you don't have the right belief.

01:34:03

They do. Your belief is a belief that needed to be restored by Joseph Smith. Your baptism is not valid.

01:34:10

Theirs is because they do it in a temple, and you don't. So, the problem you have is what you're ultimately appealing to is your confirmation bias, that you believe your

01:34:23

Catholic church is right, and you just explained something that you don't even see as the contradiction.

01:34:28

You said no one can do the work apart from God, yet the

01:34:34

Mormons do the same exact work, and you suddenly say, well, that's not from God. Now, you're explaining it away, but your standard is your church, not the

01:34:44

Bible. No, no, no, no. My standard is the Bible. I just explained to you that Acts 2 .38

01:34:51

says you must hold the belief, and you must repent, and you must be baptized.

01:34:57

So, you have to have all three. You can't have any one of the three. A lot of Protestants believe that all you need is faith alone.

01:35:04

That's one of the three. No, you must also have the repentance, and you must also have the baptism.

01:35:09

Otherwise, your sins are not forgiven. Unless you reject Acts 2 .38. I don't know.

01:35:14

Maybe you reject Acts 2 .38. I have no idea. That's what the Bible says. I reject your private interpretation of Acts 2 .38.

01:35:22

I'm not giving a private interpretation. I'm telling you exactly what Acts 2 .38 says.

01:35:27

It says that you do not receive the remission of sins unless you believe, repent, and be baptized.

01:35:33

Let's read exactly what Acts 2 .38 says, and see if it says that all three are necessary for salvation.

01:35:40

Well, hold on. If you're going to do that, it doesn't say the word believe.

01:35:47

But if you go to Acts 2 .37, because you'll have to read Acts 2 .37 along with Acts 2 .38,

01:35:54

because we see in Acts 2 .37 that the Jews, when they heard the message, they came to believe at that moment, which is why they asked

01:36:02

Peter, St. Peter, what they must do to get right with Jesus. Acts 2 .37.

01:36:08

Is that what you want us to read? Correct. Start with Acts 2 .37, and then go through Acts 2 .38.

01:36:14

Sure. Now, and what we're looking for is where it says all three are necessary to be saved.

01:36:20

As you said, you're just reading Scripture. You weren't giving a private interpretation. So we're looking for that exact phrase, what I'm questioning.

01:36:26

Let all the how— Well, hold on. I said what I said was— All three are necessary.

01:36:31

What I said, my exact wording was, all three are necessary in order for one to have their forgiveness of sins.

01:36:38

And as you know, unless one's sins is forgiven, then one is not saved.

01:36:46

And one is not reconciled unto God unless one's sins are forgiven. James, I don't want to have to play with your—to mute you.

01:36:54

But what you said, and this is—I know that you're having some difficulty here.

01:36:59

I know that it's hard when you get put on the spot and your contradictions get pointed out, but the right thing to do would be to give up the

01:37:06

Catholic Church and just accept truth. But what you said was you were not giving a private interpretation. You were reading

01:37:12

Scripture. So if you're reading Scripture, we should be able to see in Scripture that exact phrase that you said was not an interpretation, but exactly from Scripture, correct?

01:37:24

And it's there. It's there. Go ahead and read it. It's there. Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both

01:37:33

Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles,

01:37:46

Brothers, what shall we do? And Peter said to them,

01:37:53

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the

01:38:01

Holy Spirit. That doesn't say what you said. You weren't reading it. You were interpreting it. I don't see any—

01:38:07

Wait a second. Wait a second. You just said that it didn't say what I said. So let's say in Acts 2 .37,

01:38:16

that does it implicitly suggest that they came to believe— No, no, no, no, no. When you— 2 .37.

01:38:22

Here's the whole point. When you say it suggests, that's an interpretation. You said you weren't interpreting.

01:38:29

You were reading. So were you reading or were you— Okay, well, okay.

01:38:34

Well, do you agree with me that in Acts 2 .37, it implicitly suggests that the

01:38:42

Jews at that moment came to believe, which is why they asked St. Peter, how do we get right with Jesus?

01:38:49

How do we get right with God? Well, what I'm addressing is this private interpretation that you have.

01:38:55

I understand. Okay, I'll go ahead and concede your point. I'll concede your point,

01:39:01

Andrew, and say I'm wrong. I was interpreting it. So do you agree with me that Acts 2 .37,

01:39:09

that the Jews in Acts 2 .37 came to believe at that moment? In Acts 2 .37,

01:39:16

yeah, I believe that they would have gotten saved at that moment. Now— I didn't ask you if they would have gotten saved.

01:39:23

I asked you if they came to believe at that moment. Believe what?

01:39:32

Believe in God, in Jesus Christ, which is why they asked St. Peter what they needed to do to get right with Him. See, maybe this is the different view that we have of what salvation means.

01:39:42

They would have to believe if they were regenerated. Okay, so is that a yes or no?

01:39:49

Did they come to believe in Acts 2 .37? It's a yes or no? This text is saying that at this point, these particular

01:39:56

Jews at this particular time, hearing this message, were regenerated. And they would have believed if they were regenerated.

01:40:03

Okay, great. So we agree that in Acts 2 .37, they came to believe. So there's no argument there.

01:40:09

There's no disagreement. Now, if we move on to Acts 2 .38— Hold on. No, no, no. Let's get to one thing, though.

01:40:16

When did they get regenerated in this text? At the moment they heard that and asked that question?

01:40:24

Do you agree that they were regenerated, that they believed at this moment when they hear this?

01:40:33

Well, I don't know what Protestant doctrine is with regards to regenerated. If one is regenerated in Protestant doctrine, then are their sins forgiven?

01:40:41

Okay, I'm asking you. At the moment— I said I don't know, because I don't know Protestant doctrine.

01:40:47

I need to know your answer to that question. If one is regenerated, then are their sins forgiven?

01:40:54

Yeah, their sins would have been forgiven at the cross. Okay, so look at what

01:41:01

Acts 2 .37 says. It says you and I both agreed that— You would answer my question if I answered yours.

01:41:07

I answered yours. Now you're going to answer mine. That's the way this works. You said you needed my answer to be able to respond.

01:41:14

So at the moment that they heard this, in Acts 37, they heard and they were cut to the heart

01:41:25

Now, when they were cut to the heart, did they believe? Yes.

01:41:30

Okay, were they then changed? I'm going to try to use words that might not cause confusion for you, with you thinking it's

01:41:38

Protestant doctrine. Would that be the time that they now would be a child of God, turning from an enemy of God to a child of God?

01:41:47

No, and let me explain why. I—because you've just said that Protestant doctrine says that regeneration and forgiveness of remission of sins occurs at regeneration.

01:41:59

And yet, if we look at Acts 2 .38, we don't see that the remission of sins occurs until they repent and they're baptized.

01:42:09

So therefore, baptism, belief—I'm sorry, holding belief, repenting, and being baptized are all three things that must be accomplished in order for the remission of sins—as you say, regeneration—to occur.

01:42:26

If you go by Acts 2 .37 and 2 .38, you can't disregard what it's saying there.

01:42:34

You can't say, well, let's just disregard the repentance and baptism part, and let's just say, hey, they believe, and just add to Scripture, which isn't in Scripture.

01:42:43

Instead, we have to go ahead and accept what Acts 2 .37 and 2 .38 says, which is that you must believe, you must repent, and you must be baptized in order for your sins to be forgiven, which you said is regeneration.

01:42:58

Well, when was the payment of sin paid for? 2 ,000 years ago.

01:43:04

Okay, so their baptism couldn't be for the remission of sins if it was paid for 2 ,000 years ago. Well, then you're disagreeing with the

01:43:12

Bible, which actually links water baptism to Jesus' blood on the cross. I'm disagreeing with the application of it, because there's—see, this is the problem.

01:43:22

When you had the word baptism, which we have a perfectly good

01:43:28

English word for, by the way, it's called to dip or to plunge, but when we created a word for baptism, the assumption is that there's only one baptism, water baptism, but there's not.

01:43:44

There's several baptisms. Okay, then you disagree with the Bible because the Bible says under the new covenant, there's only one baptism.

01:43:54

Yes, there is. There is only one indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I agree with that. But you just said there's a bunch.

01:43:59

You said there's more than one, so you disagree with the Bible. There's lots of plunging, okay?

01:44:05

See, you're doing—and this is what maybe you have to do—is a fallacy of equivocation to use one term and use it multiple ways, or to take something that could have multiple meanings but use the same term to say it's all the same thing.

01:44:20

But I didn't do that. You just did that when you said that there's multiple baptisms. Okay, so is there a baptism of the

01:44:27

Holy Spirit? There is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, but that's not the baptism under the new covenant.

01:44:33

The Bible explains what the baptism under the new covenant is. It does. In Ezekiel 36, it explains very clearly what the baptism is.

01:44:42

What the new covenant sign would be is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is that the Holy Spirit will indwell each believer.

01:44:50

That, my friend, is what Ezekiel 36 says, okay?

01:44:56

That is what it is. So you have it wrong according to Scripture. Ezekiel 36 says the sign of the new covenant will be what we call the baptism of the

01:45:05

Holy Spirit, the fact that God's Spirit will live within us. We will no longer need a priest to tell us what

01:45:12

God's Word is because the Spirit will do it within us, okay? So that's the baptism of the

01:45:17

Spirit. You just said there's only one baptism. Now you're again in a contradiction with yourself because you just said there's two baptisms, which, by the way, is what

01:45:27

I was saying, that there's a water baptism, there's a baptism of the Holy Spirit, there is also a baptism that is what

01:45:35

John the Baptist did, which would have been a Jewish ceremony. That's not the baptism of either one.

01:45:42

So you have John's baptism, you have the baptism of water, and you have the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

01:45:48

There's three baptisms. Now, why do you have three? Because someone didn't translate, they transliterated.

01:45:54

They didn't translate the word baptismo into dip and plunge because they would sprinkle the water and pour the water, and therefore they didn't want to translate it properly, and therefore there wouldn't have been the confusion on what the

01:46:10

Holy Spirit plunging is versus water plunging versus a ceremony that was done when a

01:46:17

Gentile became a Jew, which would have been what John the Baptist did, okay? So, we now see that you accept multiple baptisms, which is nice.

01:46:26

So, again, we go back to the passage and— No, no, no, no, no, you just put words in my mouth.

01:46:33

I didn't say that I accept multiple baptisms. There are metaphorical uses of baptisms that are shown in the

01:46:39

Bible. For example— I will ask you again so we're clear. Is there a baptism of the

01:46:46

Holy Spirit, yes or no? There is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, but it is not the baptism under the new covenant, and I can explain if you allow me.

01:46:54

Is that the same thing as water baptism? If you're speaking of the indwelling of the

01:47:00

Holy Spirit, then yes, indwelling of the Holy Spirit occurs when one gets water baptized. So, they're exactly the same thing?

01:47:08

Well, we see that the baptism of the Holy Spirit can occur before one gets water baptized, and we see that it can happen when one gets water baptized, and we see it can happen later on after one gets baptized, much later.

01:47:23

Wait, you said that the water baptism—or sorry, that the Holy Spirit baptism, the sign in the new covenant, could occur before water baptism?

01:47:32

The Holy Spirit baptism is a metaphoric use of receiving the gifts of the

01:47:38

Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, prophecy. That's what the Holy Spirit baptism refers to.

01:47:45

If you're speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that occurs when you actually get water baptized under the new covenant.

01:47:53

If we look at the passage you wanted us to look at, it makes it quite clear what this baptism is, because it says exactly, almost word for word what you just said, because it says to be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you'll receive the gift of the

01:48:08

Holy Spirit. That's the baptism of the Spirit. What do you know? Well, let me ask you this.

01:48:14

Let me ask you this. Is water baptism linked to the blood of Christ? One of us is reading the

01:48:20

Bible, and one of us is interpreting the Bible, and you're the one doing the private interpretation.

01:48:26

Just saying. Well, Ephesians 4 .5 says there's only one baptism under the new covenant, and it says this—

01:48:33

Why are you jumping? Because you do this a lot, so why are you jumping? I'm going to the

01:48:40

Bible. The Ephesians 4 .5 says there's only one baptism, and it says— Ephesians 4 .5,

01:48:45

and the issue there, again, we're going to see when we go there, which baptism?

01:48:51

Is it the water baptism, the baptism of John, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Which one's being referred to there?

01:48:59

Well, it's speaking of water baptism because it's speaking of the baptism that Jesus instituted under the new covenant in Matthew 28, 19 through 20.

01:49:08

Now you've got to jump— Would you agree with me? Why do you stick to one passage?

01:49:14

You want it to go to Ephesians 4? Well, let's say we have agreement on something. Do you agree with me that when

01:49:20

Jesus spoke of baptism in Matthew 28, 19 through 20, was he speaking of water baptism?

01:49:27

Well, he wasn't speaking of baptism. He's speaking about being plunged or immersed. Okay, so we're speaking about water baptism, correct?

01:49:36

No. You're plunged and immersed in water, right? Or the

01:49:42

Holy Spirit. And John's baptism was different than the baptism that we would refer to after Christ, is it not?

01:49:53

John's baptism? You're saying John's—yeah, John's baptism is different from the baptism of Christ because John's baptism didn't have the grace of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, which enables us to get into heaven.

01:50:05

Or maybe John's baptism was a baptism of a Gentile becoming a Jew, and now it wouldn't have that same significance.

01:50:13

So the same exact act changed the meaning because now after Christ, it had a different meaning, much like we see with Passover changing into the

01:50:24

Lord's Supper and things like that. So we do have cases where you have the same exact behavior, same exact work, and the meaning of it changes because of Christ.

01:50:33

Well, let me explain to you, Andrew, because the thing is— You keep jumping around Scripture.

01:50:39

I know this is hectic to people— Andrew, if you don't allow me to speak, I mean, all I want to do is explain to you why you're wrong, and I'll go ahead and show you

01:50:47

Scripture that proves that you're wrong, but you don't seem to want to allow me to do that. No, no, it's not that.

01:50:53

No, James, what it is is you can't obey the simple laws of hermeneutics.

01:50:59

You're jumping all over the Bible. You're using logical fallacies. Once you appeal to a logical fallacy, then your argument is invalid.

01:51:09

So your argument, once you use the fallacy of equivocation on the one -word baptism, your argument's invalid.

01:51:16

Again, I didn't use equivocation because I'm not the one that's saying that there's more than one baptism when the

01:51:21

Bible itself says there's only one baptism. So listen, I know this is hard for you,

01:51:26

I understand. Is John's baptism separate from the baptism after Christ, yes or no?

01:51:35

Yes. Okay. Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit different than John's baptism and the baptism after Christ?

01:51:42

Yes. Okay. So there's three baptisms. The one word is used three different ways.

01:51:51

Okay, you go. But are we speaking, okay, but hold on. The original topic was the baptism for the remission of sins, which is the baptism under the new covenant.

01:51:59

So we're only speaking of one baptism. We're not speaking of John's baptism. We're not speaking of the baptism of fire.

01:52:05

We're not speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We're speaking of the new covenant baptisms. So let's stay focused on that.

01:52:11

Sure. So we're only speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, correct? Not water baptism.

01:52:17

But no, I already told you that the baptism of the

01:52:23

Holy Spirit is referring to receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, prophesying.

01:52:30

Never does the Bible say that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that there's any grace associated with the baptism of the

01:52:39

Holy Spirit. It doesn't say there's any grace associated with the baptism of fire.

01:52:45

So it also doesn't say there's any grace associated with the baptism when the Jews crossed the

01:52:51

Red Sea with Noah and said they were baptized into Moses. So it's all metaphoric uses of the word baptism.

01:52:59

The only true baptism under the new covenant is the one that Jesus instituted in Matthew 28, 19 through 20, which is water baptism, which is why we see

01:53:08

Peter himself calling on believers to get water baptized so that they can be saved.

01:53:15

Okay. So here's the thing. All right. I'm going to try to make this really clear. I know because you're blinded, because you're part of a cult, you cannot see this.

01:53:23

And I understand that. But you just stated that the only baptism is the baptism of the

01:53:30

Holy Spirit, which is what is mentioned right here in the Acts passage that you wanted us to look at. And that's not what

01:53:36

I said. I didn't say the only baptism was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You're not listening to me.

01:53:41

You can go back and listen to yourself and see that. No, I said the baptism of the

01:53:46

Holy Spirit is the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which means speaking in tongues, prophesying.

01:53:53

We're just going to quiet you down while I finish my sentence then, because we're almost to the end. So here's the thing.

01:53:58

Okay. What he said here, folks, is that the baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit associated with the giving of gifts, which is exactly what it says here in this passage in Acts.

01:54:09

It is the one where gifts are given. That's not the water. So this is what you end up having to have when you're stuck in something.

01:54:17

He is equivocating on the term baptism. He wants to say water baptism when it's convenient, say spirit baptism when it's convenient.

01:54:25

And the reality is, is that because of that, he's going to, unfortunately, if he doesn't repent of this, he's going to spend eternity in a lake of fire because he thinks baptism, water baptism is necessary for salvation because spirit baptism is required for salvation.

01:54:42

So we would agree that we have to repent and be baptized with the Holy Spirit who gives gifts, just as it says in the

01:54:48

Acts passage that he quoted, that he referred us to, because in that passage, we are baptized with the

01:54:55

Holy Spirit, which is what we see as the sign of the new covenant, not water baptism.

01:55:02

That he tries to say the water baptism is removing the sins. That's not what the passage he turned to, though, says.

01:55:09

See, and this is the thing that you end up seeing. He has to equivocate on the terms because what this passage says is speaking of a baptism of the

01:55:18

Holy Spirit who will give the gifts. That's exactly what it said. All I had to do is read that.

01:55:24

It doesn't say anywhere in here water. You see, he reads that into it.

01:55:29

He interprets that by private interpretation into the text because that's what the Catholic church says it means when it says quite clearly here that be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the

01:55:44

Holy Spirit. It tells you which baptism this is. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

01:55:50

That's when we get saved. Water baptism comes after the irony is he even accepted that, and he said that that would be something that could happen.

01:56:02

You could have a separation in these two. So this is the thing, and we only have a couple of minutes left.

01:56:09

So unfortunately, we won't be able to continue. I know I kind of thought that Anthony was going to jump in, and then

01:56:15

I jumped in. Sorry. I'm fascinated at the website he pointed out, this

01:56:21

VaticanCatholic .com. It's almost like they believe this, the latter popes to be like what we would call the

01:56:34

Episcopalians or the United Church of Christ, like the complete heretical sect of the

01:56:41

Catholics, and they have a section on here that is a documentary on Protestantism's big justification lie, and what

01:56:53

I find fascinating about this is they have seven pictures, six of which are really good theologians.

01:57:01

They got Martin Luther. They got R .C. Sproul. They have John MacArthur. They have

01:57:06

John Piper. They have John Calvin, a picture of him. They have James White, and in this list of wonderful preachers, they have

01:57:15

Stephen Anderson, which I find really odd, but I don't know.

01:57:22

That's because they don't understand the difference between Stephen Anderson and all those other guys. All right.

01:57:29

Because we want to wrap up. We try to keep this to two hours. James, I do hope you come back in.

01:57:35

We can have more spirited discussions, and I hope folks understand. James and I are going to have some spirited discussions.

01:57:41

James and Matt will have them, maybe even Anthony and him, if I were to let Anthony jump in. Actually, I did. For folks to know,

01:57:47

I did in the chat say, hey, Anthony, sorry, I told you you were going to jump in, and he said, no, I'm just listening.

01:57:56

But the thing is, there is one thing that I do want to convey, and that is James and I make a very spirited in our disagreements, and we do disagree.

01:58:06

He disagrees with me. If he's going to follow Roman Catholic theology, he would think that I'm destined to hell because I believe in grace alone, not through a work of baptism that a human does or even a human does to another.

01:58:21

But the reality is that I would say it's by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, that there is no church that interprets

01:58:28

Scripture for us. There are no priests because that is what the promise of the new covenant was to Jewish people, was that when

01:58:37

Messiah comes, we no longer need a priesthood because the

01:58:43

Holy Spirit would indwell us and teach us his word. The fact that they have priests and say that there cannot be private interpretation proves that they are not under the new covenant.

01:58:55

Just a thought. But why is that a concern? That's a concern for me because I want

01:59:00

James to have eternal life. Right now, he's unfortunately in a condition of being condemned under God's word.

01:59:08

He's going to disagree with that, vehemently disagree with that because he thinks he's following God's word.

01:59:15

But folks, you saw how he equivocates on terms like baptism. You see that he says there's only one baptism and then agrees that there's three separate baptisms that have different meanings.

01:59:27

They're not the same. And so that's the game that has to be played, and this is what people do in their minds.

01:59:33

When they want to believe something, whether it's the NAR, like Paul was talking about earlier with his family member, they want to believe this, they want it to be true, and they're basing, literally basing their eternal soul on this.

01:59:50

But what we need to do is trust what scripture says alone. Now, I know that you have people that say, well, I'm just reading scripture, but they weren't because when he said,

01:59:58

I was just reading scripture, that's not what scripture said. And then what do you have to do? He had to equivocate on the term baptism to read a different baptism in than the one that the word actually says there.

02:00:09

You see, this is the game that gets played a lot, and that's what's going to condemn people to hell, is when they believe something and he said it, he said that the gospel is believing the word of God, and yet you just saw he doesn't believe the word of God because he's equivocating on terms.

02:00:26

He would be, by his own definition, a heretic, but he thinks that applies to us, not him.

02:00:31

All I did was read the scripture. That's all I did. I didn't need to go beyond that. I didn't have to jump all over the

02:00:37

Bible to see what the one verse says. That's part of the rules of interpretation. And so my concern is for not only him, but where anyone listening this, where will you spend eternity?

02:00:50

That is the most important question, because if you die in a rebellious state against God, thinking that you can work your way to heaven, you will spend eternity in a lake of fire, and I don't want to see that for any of you.

02:01:05

I want to see you have eternal life. We all break God's law, but we have to turn from trusting ourselves or our good nature that we think is good or our good works and turn to trust in Jesus Christ.

02:01:16

That's how you have eternal life, and I pray that James will do that. It would be a great rejoicing for many of us here when we see if that was to happen with And the thing, folks, is this is something we pray that you would be blessed by, that you learn things.

02:01:33

We're not doing this Apologetics Live just to have debates. I mean, it could be enjoyable to have spirited conversations where there's no name calling, and James and I didn't get into calling each other names and such, and that's how we can disagree.

02:01:51

We both think each other's wrong. Okay, and so the thing is, is that this is something we do to help people learn how to discuss our differences to be able to defend the faith, the biblical faith that we see in the

02:02:05

Bible. And if you want to see ministries like this continue, it takes your support.

02:02:12

Okay, if you would consider donating to help this, you can help us continue not only this, but other works that we're doing.

02:02:19

So you could go to strivingforeternity .org and donate.

02:02:25

What can you get from that? Because we actually give gifts. If you donate $2 a month, you'll get a copy of What Do We Believe?

02:02:35

If you give $5 a month, you get the copy of What Do We Believe?

02:02:41

Plus, you'll get a copy of What Do They Believe? So you'll get both books if you give $5 a month.

02:02:49

If you give $10 a month, you get those two books, plus the one that Anthony was just mentioning, the book

02:02:55

On the Origin of Kinds. So you'll get all three of those if you give just $10 a month.

02:03:01

If you give $20 a month, you'll get those three, plus a copy of Sharing the

02:03:07

Good News with Mormons. So you'll get all four of those books. By the way, Sharing the Good News with Mormons alone is $20.

02:03:13

You get all four of those for a donation of $20 a month. If you give $25 a month, what we're doing with that is we take that money and we try to find a missionary that we can help them get a podcast to get them the equipment and the hosting so they would be able to be podcasting instead of sending emails reports.

02:03:33

So that's what we'd be looking to do. So if you support us, it helps us to go out and do more. We're going to be doing some speaking events to let you know.

02:03:41

Actually, Anthony, yours is coming up before mine, so I'll let you mention your speaking events first. You've got some things coming up actually this week, right?

02:03:49

Yeah, so this Sunday will be the first of three Sunday sermons on evangelism. It's a pastor who knows that the way to grow a church biblically is through evangelistic efforts.

02:04:01

And so I'm going to be going down there and teaching. It's about 40 minutes from my house here, so it's local, which is nice.

02:04:08

Where is it at? Do you know the name of the church? Yeah, it's Medina Bible Church in Medina, Ohio. Pastor Mark Rice.

02:04:16

And what's cool is I'll be able to, I'm taking the associate pastor,

02:04:22

David Duell, and we are going to be going to Cleveland State next

02:04:30

Thursday. And I actually put that on Facebook as well. For anybody who wants to come out and evangelize at Cleveland State, it's one of my favorite places to go.

02:04:39

And I've got 500 of the booklets, What Time is Purple? from Wretched Radio.

02:04:45

And we're going to give every one of those away if everything goes according to plan. And I'm going to be teaching the associate pastor kind of how to do evangelism out there.

02:04:56

And so he and I are going to be working together a lot over the next couple of months as he's going to learn and then be able to help teach his church and start taking him out evangelizing.

02:05:06

You're speaking at that church three times. What are those dates? So it's this Sunday, and then it'll be,

02:05:12

I think it's May 19th and May 26th will be three dates. And I will be heading out to the

02:05:20

Philippines starting, I think, May 16th. Actually, I first head out to Justin Peter's church to a conference with Jason Lyle.

02:05:29

Then we had Justin and I head out to the Philippines. But here's the thing. Your support helps us get to the

02:05:35

Philippines and address this NAR cult that is prevalent out there because they need the help.

02:05:41

We're going to be doing a couple of conferences while we're out there. I'm going to be doing a conference to a bunch of church leaders on church discipline.

02:05:49

Then Justin will be doing a seminar on child evangelism. I'll then do basically a conference on open air evangelism.

02:05:58

And Justin and I are going to take people out on the streets. Then Justin and I are going to be doing a conference on discernment.

02:06:04

We're going to do that both in Manila and in Cebu. Now, the churches down there are taking care of everything once we land in the

02:06:11

Philippines. The thing is, we need your help to get to the Philippines. We're still looking to raise support so we can get over there.

02:06:19

And that's where you can help us. If you go to strivingforeternity .com, you could choose to use Patreon or PayPal.

02:06:25

Either way, whichever way you do, we will give those gifts out to you. And it helps us get to the

02:06:33

Philippines so we can help get the gospel out, the biblical gospel out around the world.

02:06:39

So I thank you guys. I hope that you will consider helping us out and supporting us.

02:06:46

Apologetics Live is a ministry of Striving for Eternity. We do it in coordination with CARM, two good ministries.

02:06:54

Matt Slick is with CARM. I'm with Striving for Eternity. We do this as a means of trying to help the church to better prepare the church to defend the faith of Jesus Christ.

02:07:03

I hope that you got some help in that in many different areas tonight, whether it be creation, whether it be

02:07:09

New Apostolic Reformation or Catholicism. I hope that what you listened to was helpful in that defense of the gospel.

02:07:18

Until next week, next week, I hope Matt will be back and we'll be discussing more. And I should say, while I'm at the Philippines, I hope you enjoy

02:07:24

Dr. Svestro because he's going to be filling in. And he and Matt will probably be talking a lot about NAR and the creation science, because that'll be a big topic,

02:07:33

I'm sure, with both of them. So look forward to that in a few weeks. Until next week, remember to share this with others.

02:07:40

Make sure that you're in here early next week, Thursday nights, 8 o 'clock. You can go to apologeticslive .com.