Live Q&A Session with Matt Slick, 10/29/2020, 9PM EST

All right All right.

Now, here's another experiment.

I've tried this a couple of times before in the past and We'll see how it works tonight.

I really don't expect much difference but I Opened this up to everybody

and I'm hoping that people will want to Participate in a live

discussion thing.

One of the things I'm thinking about doing occasionally is to Do this on a

regular basis, maybe Wednesday night and just do something like this so people can call in

and get Put on YouTube and Facebook.

We've got people watching and As you can see and I guess you're listening.

We have some people who You know are watching if you want to participate you have a

question you have a comment And you want to ask anything?

All you got to do is, you know, just type in the text and I'll see it.

Or you can come into the room and the URL all the information is there.

So the reason I I was doing this tonight is because on the CARM

discussion boards There was some you know,

there's Arminianism versus Calvinism and as it's pretty typical the

Arminians don't really Represent Calvinism very well, and they think they do and they speak

Authoritatively when you're missing it here.

You're missing it there.

I go to correct them, you know gently.

So no, it's not a position or this is that you forgot this, you know, they don't learn and I thought okay.

What's I think is better is to?

We'll do this okay inside of your stream yard and So what I would

I'll say to them, you know, I say well if you wanna do this better Just have a discussion with me.

So I offered to have people The Arminians to come in and and

discuss the issue of Performed Theology so that's what I wanted to do and It

you know, this people say we'll be interested and this is what's happened.

It's the third time I've done this in like six months.

I've offered people the opportunity to be able to To come in and talk

Facebook YouTube and live here in the

In the stream yard room.

Yeah streamer doing a couple three things or get a little distracted.

So I put this up a few days ago and people said they're interested and we'll see I'm hoping some of the anti Calvinist Come in.

Yeah do is Is just open up to everybody so they have questions or comments we could talk and

that's what I'm doing right now.

So if anybody is there?

Yeah, I have a couple of questions.

Okay.

Man, okay, so I don't want you.

I know that you know, I'm Catholic and I am right.

You're Catholic.

I'm Catholic and I don't want to like be anti Calvinist because I respect them.

But I have a couple of questions and specifically with your of the scripture.

You do a good job of a talking Catholicism.

I don't mean this as a derogatory comment, but I haven't ever seen you give a response to how

you believe.

Not how you refute the Catholic position, but how you believe we got the Bible without

invoking any External source.

I would like to hear one defense and I don't mean this isn't that's not my position.

So I'm not gonna defend it.

Okay.

So can you then articulate your position on how we got the Bible without invoking any external authority that will be called

the church?

Any kind not just guess no.

No.

Well, wait, wait, wait.

Wait.

I'm gonna tell you is this That God worked through his sovereign will to give the inspired

scriptures of the Jews.

The church didn't give us the Old Testament.

God did through the Jews and then God through the Apostles and the the believers

recognized the Word of God in the New Testament and then it was codified and recognized through councils of

Christians different times different ways and That's that's it.

That's my position.

But did those people who codified by it have any authority to codify it it's not an issue of authority.

See you Catholics make this mistake all the time.

What authority do you have?

What makes you think we have to have authority?

Where'd you get that?

Do you think that any person has equipped to room to?

Where'd you get the idea that we need authority?

That's the question.

Well, it seems to be definitional if someone Definitional it was definitional that we don't need any church

authority.

I Didn't mention church.

I said said just said any kind of authority to codify the books, right?

I mean you admit that I don't have that authority to say that something belongs or doesn't.

No, no, no.

No, it's it's you're not getting it.

You're not good.

I'm saying Catholics always do this.

They don't listen.

They don't really think through the issue.

It's not an issue of authority.

We don't it's not an issue of authority.

It's an issue of the sheep those who are regenerate recognizing the Word of God.

This was this occurred in churches.

It occurred among Christians.

It occurred among councils.

That's what happened.

There was no issue of authority because if you're gonna say they had to have authority, I'm gonna say well.

Where'd they get their authority from?

Do these is it self -appointed if they got it from God?

Well, how do you know they got it from God because you said so.

But is there some some rainbow in the sky that says look you've got authority to do this.

No nothing like that.

The Catholics asked the wrong questions.

Okay, but here's what my problem is with the view of just scripture alone.

Ultimately for example when it comes wait, wait, wait, wait, you know, I just answered you and then you just

dismiss it and go on.

What did I dismiss?

Where do you get the idea that we need authority to be able to recognize what God's Word is?

Because otherwise people would always have disagreements.

Okay, where do we need authority in order to not because you have a reason that they you know that they might have disagreements.

That's not an issue of authority.

What makes you think that we have to have somebody's authority in order to recognize God's Word?

Did the church recognize the scripture and give it authority of the Old Testament?

No.

Notatively defined what was all right, but it wasn't the church that gave us the Old Testament.

Now, was it?

No, it was other authoritative people.

What authoritative people the Jews you said it the chosen people.

Which Jews?

The twelve tribes who recognized those books.

The twelve tribes recognize those books.

So you're saying then that all the Jews recognize them or some of them did or didn't we don't even know just so you know.

No, I know exactly how they they recognized it.

But it must have been some authoritative people.

It wasn't just everybody like we agreed, right?

So Presumably God imbued some people with authority to recognize where other people were mistaken

because you for example Believe that Catholics are mistaken in recognizing Tobit as book.

So presumably they don't have the authority to say that those books are in.

So who has that's my question just saying they don't.

Sure, but for sure God does.

God is the one.

Jesus is God in flesh and Luke in Luke 1151 Jesus says from the blood of Abel to the blood of

Zechariah.

There was a first and last books of the Old Testament.

He rejected the Apocrypha at that point.

He said the law the prophets and the Psalms are about him.

He talked about Luke 24 44.

He didn't recognize the Apocrypha.

No, so we shouldn't Jesus had authority by the nature of who he was.

Why did he exclude the Apocrypha?

But would you say that the humans had a Role to play in recognizing the

books.

Why did Jesus?

Reject the Apocrypha, I presumably he was referencing the Pharisee canon because that's the people he was talking with.

He said all that is written about me in the law the prophets and the Psalms.

So he was saying that the law and the prophets and the Psalms are about him.

Sure.

We agree with it.

All right.

It says in Luke 24 44.

He said to them to the Jews These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you that all

things which were written about me and the Of Moses the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

He excluded the Apocrypha, didn't he?

Well, yeah from that statement.

He did.

Yes, he also excluded the book of Revelation from that statement, right?

No, no, no.

No the law the prophets and the Psalms are the Old Testament.

It's your one.

No, it's the Old Testament like that, right?

The Old Testament only came after Old Testament was known by the time Jesus was there.

It was called Bible.

It wasn't called.

Oh, wow.

Okay, look the Old Testament the Old Testament.

Jesus quoted the law the prophets and the Psalms in Luke 24 44.

He excluded the Apocrypha.

Where does the Catholic Church get its authority to include the Apocrypha when Jesus himself excluded it

from God?

Well, if it gets it from God Then it better act like it got it from God and it certainly doesn't because it teaches so many heresies.

The question I'm sitting here trying to ask you is why did Jesus himself exclude the Apocrypha?

He excluded it in this statement.

He says all that's written about me in the law the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

He knows what was about him.

He knows the Holy Spirit the prophets everything bears witness of him.

He did not include the Apocrypha.

He excluded it.

He knew about it.

He excluded it.

He also said in Luke 1151 For the blood of Abel to the blood of

Zechariah who was killed between the altar the house of God.

And what he was saying is was from Genesis to Chronicles, but in that time They have the same books that we do now

in the Old Testament.

It's just the arrangement was different and Chronicles was the last book like our Malachi's last book.

So he was saying from the first to the last book of the Old Testament.

That's what he was saying.

He excluded the Apocrypha.

So where's the Roman Catholic Church get off?

Including it well from the same place we got when we included Revelation in the Bible, even though Jesus excluded it.

Did Jesus exclude it?

Yes, he said so what he?

Was he what so when he said from Abel to Zechariah?

He's talking Old Testament when he says law the prophets of the Psalms is talking Old Testament.

Well, he's talking about what was the Bible then there was no such thing as the Old Testament.

But either way take your right hand and put it in front of your face.

Yeah, I know what you're gonna say slap yourself, but I was over the head.

Being ridiculous.

All you're trying to do is support the Roman Catholic Church.

Sure.

I agree with that.

But this is what I didn't want to.

I didn't want this to turn into Catholicism where I want to hear you're asked.

I did but what I'm looking for is What's your version like we

understand this is ours and you think it's ridiculous and that's fine.

But can we hear an alternative and an alternative?

I don't mean saying God did it because everybody every sect believes God did it.

What's the means by which he accomplished and if you're gonna say that it's through some people then I'm asking Why

don't you recognize the authority of these people?

He used that the Christian Church.

Exactly.

So Where is that church?

Okay, whatever it was wrong question wrong question.

All right.

What is the church a group of believers.

What is the church.

Group of saved believers or believers.

The word church Ecclesia is used in several different contexts, right?

Sure, of course.

Okay.

It's used in several different contexts.

Let me do this word study on church.

On karma.

I Hope I'm not taking anybody else's time because no one else's is is in the room or that's waiting down

I can see and so the church grid what you go to karma or church hyphen grid,

right?

It's use of the body of Christ a gathering of people local churches people of God ecclesiastical body.

And you say the church what you mean is the Roman Catholic Church.

You have to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church with the authority of Christ.

Before you can even begin to ask that question.

Okay, I won't ask that but whatever church you have in mind, where is it?

It's not a church.

See, look, it says the local church, right if he refuses to listen to them tell it to the church.

Which church is he talking about in Matthew 18 17 the Christian Church the Christian Church the local church.

Was it was there a Pope at that point?

No, not at that point.

Was there a magisterium at that point?

Yeah.

No, no, there wasn't no don't Magisterium, so if there was no magisterium, I don't understand then

how do you believe that Apostles wrote inspired by God?

Hold on there was no magisterium and Jesus is saying tell it to the church.

So which church is he talking about the Christian one?

Which Christian Church?

The only one that Jesus founded Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death and on that day of persecution

began against the church in Jerusalem.

Yes, and they were all scattered.

Is that the true church?

That would be the Jerusalem Diocese as we call it the Jerusalem Diocese.

What you're doing is you're imposing your Catholic view on the text, okay, it doesn't say that but that's what it has to mean.

According to your Catholicism.

Okay.

Sorry.

Sorry.

I understand that I understand but what I'm saying is it seems to be like we are in agreement to a

certain point and then You kind of stop to say it's not Catholic.

It's not I'm willing to entertain that argument say it's not Catholic agree with you.

But then I want to ask you where is that church and and just saying it's not Catholic doesn't which church.

That Christian Church, which is referenced in those texts.

We read together.

Wait a minute.

What about Acts 11 26 and for an entire year they met with the church and oh.

They were in Antioch and when they found him he brought him to Antioch and the entire year they met with the church.

Where is that church?

It was in Antioch I get it, but that church is presumably the same church that was in Jerusalem teaching the same

doctrine, right?

No, there was a church in Antioch.

There was a church in Jerusalem.

And how were they unified were they not unified?

There was a church in Antioch.

There was a church in Jerusalem and that's what we call diocese.

Now.

I'm asking you where does it say diocese?

Where does it say say it's diocese where?

Well, the term is something we termed right to make it clearer.

But what I'm saying is you do agree that the Antioch Church and Jerusalem Church were unified, right?

Even though they were just they were unified.

They certainly weren't teach a Roman Catholic heresy.

Looks like at Acts 1541 and he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia strengthening the churches.

So just different churches.

That's how that's that's how that's one of the main ways that this at the word church is used.

So so you don't agree that those churches were unified.

I Didn't say there were or weren't unified.

I'm trying to show you something Romans 16 1 Paul Phoebe who was a servant of the church, which is that

centuria?

What is he there are different ways in which the word church is used it's use of the body of Christ.

This is upon this rock.

I'll build my church.

It could be said.

And the Lord added to the church daily.

Okay.

Okay.

So acts 15 is the great best example.

Let me ask you the question.

Sorry I want to ask you the question I understand that you also want to ask me questions and I for the sake

of this argument I'm willing to concede that Catholicism is heresy, so I don't agree with it, but I I'm willing of course.

It's heresy.

I can prove it.

Okay.

I I I'm not trying to be hostile because I've told you before I respect Baptist.

Nope, sorry, Presbyterian.

I don't respect that just Presbyterian.

I'm joking.

But look in Acts 15 the church Makes a decision

presumably you believe this is an infallible decision to not allow the Judaizer Harris.

Great.

Now, I want To say I believe it was infallible.

You don't I didn't say you hear what I say.

Sorry.

Sorry, I said I did not say it was infallible.

It doesn't mean I agree.

It was or disagree.

It was.

Okay, I think it was but fine.

Let's let's put that aside.

They came and made the decision now I want to ask you that church that

existed then you want to call it the Christian Church.

I'm fine with it.

Your body of believers.

I'm fine with it, but a certain Structure or an association of loose structures with

elders bishops and Apostles and Apostles, of course no longer are with us.

You know may they rest in peace.

But the elders at least are right or at least elders are supposed to be.

I believe you're an ordained elder as well.

So now I want to ask you where is that church that church the body that head of the authority

to make this issue?

Well, I just gave you an example the one that's 15 church.

Yes, those people died.

So that church ended died out that church in Jerusalem doesn't exist right now.

So that church died out.

That church does not exist right now in Jerusalem.

Does it so what was the point of continuing the faith if the church was to die?

It didn't say what do we might a church the entire church or that particular church?

Well the church that had the ability to make decisions.

No, it didn't have the church wasn't the thing that had ability.

It was the people who were the disciples and the elders.

Okay, so that you know what they said what they said therefore it is our judgment that we do not trouble

those who are turning to God from owing to Gentiles and that we write to Them and they abstain from things contaminated by idols and

fornication from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Yeah, so the Jerusalem Council said don't drink blood.

Correct guys.

Catholic Church does it?

Oops?

Obviously the Catholic Church is wrong.

But Matt this isn't addressing the question of where that church is.

The church I just told you that church there does not exist anymore.

So it died out.

Why don't you want to say that it died out?

I'm not say it died out because I don't know what that means.

We say died out that it's seized existing once the last member of it died.

I just said it's see it's not there anymore.

It's gone prevailed against which church.

His church.

No, you don't understand what you're doing.

You're equivocating.

There are different definitions of the word church, there's a local body.

There's the Universal Church.

You are equivocating.

It's a local church and acts 15 is gone.

Then I say then what you'll do is you'll equivocate you'll say well then does that mean all the whole church is gone?

No, it means the local body in Jerusalem that particular church is gone.

That's why it says apostles and brethren who are elders to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and

Cilicia.

So there's different local churches if a local church Disappears, it

doesn't mean that the Christian Church is gone.

They're different.

The Christian Church means the whole body the local church means an individual congregation.

The word church is applied in both sense.

Do you have to be careful how you use the term?

Do you have acts 15 open in front of you?

Yes, can you read verse 22?

22 then it seemed good to the Apostles and the elders with the whole church.

Just a second.

What does the whole church mean?

Does that mean the local church right there?

What just a Jerusalem one?

Yeah, yes, because you know, why?

Why because Antioch Syria Cilicia were many many days travel away.

So are you saying then that the church right there in Jerusalem was able to get all this information out, you know cell phone.

What they had Pony Express?

But you're not with the local church.

But you're saying that this decision was only affecting the local Jerusalem Church.

They said this you said the whole church.

You want me to read the word whole church?

You want to say that the whole church is all the congregations.

I'm gonna ask you every.

Every time I see how did they get the information to every church all over the Mediterranean area?

Because their elders were gathered together in one place.

Where's it say that reads the beginning here it is.

Let me let me certain people came down for.

The church send them on their way and okay.

So here it is when they were welcomed by the church then so and the Apostles and elders meant to consider this question verse.

Just second.

Let me take a look at the whole thing.

You're assuming the representatives of every single body of local church all of the Mediterranean

area came to Jerusalem.

You got a you got to show me that in the scriptures.

Let me see, okay, so so here it is, right.

Paul and Barnabas were in sharp dispute.

When they met people in Antioch, that's verse one, right?

Here it is certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and we're teaching the believers this heresy.

This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.

So Paul and Barnabas were appointed along with some other believers to go up to Jerusalem from Antioch.

So this is the Antioch what we would call diocese, but if you don't want to use that word Antioch local church.

Sending Paul and Barnabas along with some other believers to go up to Jerusalem.

To see the Apostles and the elders about this question.

The church sent them on their way and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted.

So so here's an example of one local church.

Sending to Judea their local elders to meet with the Apostles and the elders in

the center to consider this so in this context the whole church does refer to at least Judea and Antioch

and If these were the key foundations because Antioch is where they were called Christians and Jerusalem is where the Christ died.

So this would be like two main diocese.

This would be like our equivalent of Constantinople in Rome, right?

So I Don't see how you can maintain that.

This is just a Jerusalem local church when it clearly says that they couldn't agree locally.

So they sent everybody to agree on the highest level.

Am I reading it wrong?

Yes.

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren.

Unless you're circumcised, so they're false teachers from Judea.

Yeah, and Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them the brethren

Determined that Paul and Barnabas and some of the others of them should go to Jerusalem to the Apostles and

elders concerning this issue.

Okay, therefore being sent on their way by the church.

They were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria.

Describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles and we're bringing great joy to all the brethren.

When they arrive at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the Apostles and the elders now.

Where does it say that representatives of all these different local churches were there?

Okay, so I mean it doesn't say that that way of course not but it doesn't say it at

all.

It just says they went through different areas and informed what's what about the teaching and stuff and that was it.

Can you read verse third again?

Verse verse 3 yeah.

Therefore being sent on their way by the church.

Just stop right there.

What's the church right there?

I Don't know.

I thought it would be the context to see that's the Church of Antioch sending them to the Church of Jerusalem.

Okay, let's go with that.

So the Church of Antioch sent them to Jerusalem and So they passed through both Phoenicia and

Samaria now you're wrecking that just second.

So by admitting this the whole church would refer to the two Greatest points right because remember

Jerusalem is where Christianity was born and Antioch is where they were actually called Christians.

So you're agreeing that the whole church in verse whatever it was when I read it refers to at least two

Greatest points of Christianity at that point, right?

Well, it says being sent on their way by the church by the Antiochian local body.

So so when the Jerusalem, yes.

So when the Jerusalem local body made the decision did this affect the Antiochian they sent him.

He just said Paul Barnabas go take a look why?

Because Paul and Barnabas needed to go take a look to determine what's going on because of the false teaching and would this

doctrinal False teaching of in the decision of the Jerusalem Council, would it affect the Antioch's local church?

Probably ultimately so where is why why but why because who was

there?

Paul and Barnabas the Apostles and the elders were there in Jerusalem.

So this is what I'm asking.

Where is that church that had this authority?

Why did wait second the Apostles and the elders?

Would you agree that the Apostles and the elders there are the ones who gave that church its authority in Jerusalem?

Yeah.

Good.

Where are the Apostles today?

Apostles have died passed away.

So then that authority doesn't exist anymore well.

Well, what why did Paul have people like Timothy then if that authority was about to be seized?

What was the point of instructing him?

How do I point out?

Wait, wait a Apostolic authority is gone.

Okay, but the elders are still there, right?

Well, hold on.

Would you agree apostolic authority is gone?

Well in that sense, yeah that that the Apostles are good.

So they don't that's that means the authority of the Apostles is not for today.

Is it?

Yeah, it's not like it's not what Mormons teach that Apostles are still here.

I understand.

We're talking Catholicism.

So the apostolic authority is not not here today.

It's not but then I wouldn't want to equivocate on the word because apostolic authority can refer to for example.

They're apostles the Apostles.

We know who the Apostles were they've died.

Because when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the Apostles and the elders.

That's where the Apostles were were in Jerusalem.

Apostles passed away.

Elders are still here, right?

Yes.

So, where is it?

Where is that church the Apostles and the elders so that church is gone, isn't it?

Well, not if the elders are still here.

No that church in Jerusalem is gone.

Sure that particular those particular people are gone.

But not that the whole church right because the whole church has like for example.

You don't you agree with their judgment right what they made in Acts 15.

Sorry setting up a debate someone just talked about somebody else.

Okay.

Well, I'm sorry I I don't want to occupy the time if you no, no, it's nobody else is here.

It's just that.

Someone trying to sit and go debate with somebody else something else.

Okay, it's fine I mean, I I don't mean to take up with the whole time of the Q &A was easy.

I just typed it in good.

Okay debating Romans 9 with a heretic.

All right.

So look you're not gonna win this one because what you want to say what you want you're doing is equivocated you and equivocated

Equivocation.

Okay, then I'll just move on to the next topic that I do.

You know what equivocation is I do.

What is it.

Well, it's using one term in one sense and then using it in another sense and pretending they are used in the same sense.

Right.

Okay, where a word changes meaning in different usages.

Yeah.

All right, and so you transfer the usages in places.

Yes you have to define what you mean by church and you have to show me from the scriptures that your Definition applies to any

particular situation that you use it because this is critical.

This isn't just me being difficult.

It's critical because the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the true church.

Which I think is a demonic piece of crap heresy.

I hate the Roman Catholic Church's false doctrines that leads people to eternal damnation.

I do and So that you had to prove to me from Scripture

That this is the case when the Jerusalem local body Ceased to exist.

It doesn't mean that the body of Christ ceased to exist because the body of Christ is called the church.

But that's what the church is that so would you say the church at large well.

Then you would mean the Christian corpus all over the place.

I don't have any problem if you say the church at large the whole church everywhere no problem, which is the

body of Christ and it's consisting of Elders and it was a consisting of Apostles then

the Apostles died then it's just elders and pastors and teachers.

And so Here is you asked me to justify it from scriptures Romans 16 16 greet one

another with a holy kiss all the churches of Christ send greetings all the

individual churches the local bodies send greetings great.

So where are they are all of them gone?

Well, I've been to the church in Smyrna in Ephesus.

I've been to Laodicea.

I've been to the seven churches all of them and they're not there.

I've been to the locations Colossae have been there not there.

So you are arguing that the whole Christian Church that was supposed to greet each other is not referring to

people who?

Who would continue in the faith, but just refers to local people alive at the time.

What context you're talking about?

I said, I've been to those local those locations.

I've been to them I've stood on the very hill that the tell of The Colossian Church.

I've been to Smyrna.

Okay, I've been to Laodicea.

I walked among the ruins.

I've been to Ephesus.

I walked the same road Paul the Apostle walked.

So there so if you don't equate for example, the Church of Rome or the Church of Colossa to

today's church.

How do you know that the teachings directed at them apply to you?

I'm going to direct the teaching so for example if you're going to say that the Church of Rome or the Church of

Jerusalem was a local church and They cease to exist because they're no longer here.

Huh?

It was a local church.

They were in Jerusalem.

I got it I got it.

But if you're saying that we aren't to be equated with them as the church and it's no you're not the Roman Catholic Church

is An apostate sure fine.

I'm fine with that.

But how do you know that?

Sorry Sorry, you're still fine with that.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

It's fine.

It's fine.

I I I know I'm Actually, I've been actually thinking about maybe

Just I can you I can show you I can show you why the Roman Catholic Church is not true I can do it all kinds of different ways.

I Actually, I actually I I'm not like I'm not closed -minded.

I'm open to changing it.

I wasn't I for example, I've recently started exploring Annihilationist, but I'm very very

Like your other hand to put in front of you.

Look, let me show you why let me ask you a question here I'm gonna show you whether on the Catholic Church one of the many ways to do this.

It's not true.

Okay.

Does the is the God of Islam and the God of Christianity the same God?

No.

Absolutely, not if someone said the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are the same God They wouldn't know

they're talking about would they they're wrong, right?

Yeah.

So if some pastor, let's say some really, you know high degree pastor on TV nice hairs got a

couple of Jets whatever.

You know.

See.

So you're just gonna bring the part of the catechism that says it's the same Creator God hold on doing a

live discussion.

Let's talk later.

No, no, no, you don't have you don't have to do so.

Okay.

No, it's fine.

You don't have to Good all right.

No, I don't want to take up the whole Q &A.

There's nobody else here.

There was somebody messaging you and you put but yeah, okay.

No, no.

No, it's on my phone.

Oh Yeah, so, um.

He doesn't know I'm doing this.

So if anyone were to say some big slick TV preacher

All this TV stuff, you know, he said the God of Islam and the God of Christianity, you know.

We both served and served at the same the same God.

All right, you go that guy's full of cry.

You know what?

He's talking about.

You can't trust him, right?

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah, I would say that This is paragraph 841 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.

These profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with us.

They adore the one merciful God mankind's judge in the last day.

Really.

Wow.

Catholic Church says that the Muslims worship the same God they do.

The one merciful God.

Okay, but just a quick.

Do you believe that the plan of salvation includes Muslims?

What's the point I'm making?

Okay, they adore the one merciful God.

Do Muslims worship the one?

True only merciful God.

No, no, then why does a catechism say this?

Because they recognize the same qualities we do in certain sense because they're wrong.

They're wrong.

It's wrong.

You The Catholic Church got it wrong.

It's just wrong.

I mean, I actually was an atheist before becoming Catholic.

So I I.

It's all this isn't actually helped me See the truth.

Here's another thing.

Here's another thing that that's that's bad.

Okay in paragraph 972 of the Catholic Church speaking of the church.

Her origin the origin of the Christian Church.

Okay, speaking of the church her origin her mission her destiny.

There's no better way to conclude to conclude than by looking to Mary.

Is that true?

Well, I think you've mentioned this before.

I I think that as you said equivocation is is an important one that part of

It says.

After speaking of the church, that's the church that Jesus bought her origin is bought with the blood of

Christ indwelt by God.

That's the origin the mission of the church is to hopefully convert the world and the destiny is to be in heaven

with God.

We can find no better way to conclude that by looking to Mary.

No better way that means looking to Jesus is not as good as looking to Mary.

Go ahead and tell me why that Catholic Church is true.

It's just one of many things I got okay, but.

So, yeah, we're just addressing random things, but I'll be happy to go and say that that um, I

Think the context is important.

Like if the first 2 ,000 paragraphs of the Catechism Spend

their time or whatever it is spend their time explaining that Jesus is the one true God and after that they make it

clear.

Right.

I mean the context they are obviously is.

Mmm that after Jesus, but before you interrupt me I would like to point out right that the

logic that's used to attack Catholicism in that case for me is the same logic.

That's for example used to attack Christianity by Muslims.

So, for example, Jesus says that of that hour.

No one knows but the father and then they go no one means not even the Holy Spirit.

Well, Jesus isn't talking about the Holy Spirit there, right?

Jesus is take by no one.

That's not the Holy Spirit.

It specifies that it's the angels the son and the Holy Spirit isn't talked about.

So, I don't know why you would employ the same logic obviously in that through the context 9th

paragraph 971 all generations will call me blessed the church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin

is Intrinsic to Christian worship show me that in the New Testament.

It's not there.

The church rightly honors a Blessed Virgin with special devotion Revelation chapter 12 that shows

the most special devotion to Mary than anyone where Mary is enthroned upon the skies and

Literally crowned by the stars and such devotion is isn't obviously

played there.

So what once again, I've shown a question for you then that's that's Revelation 12 1.

Yes, so did Mary have childbirth pains, which is a part of the curse?

Sorry did Mary suffer childbirth pains because that was the curse was to have childbirth pains.

Did she have cry childbirth pains?

Did she have labor pains, well, presumably not

and a great sign appeared in heaven a woman clothed with a son and the moon under her feet and the credit and Her head a crown

of 12 stars and she was with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain to give birth.

Okay, so First of all a woman clothed with the Sun.

That's Mary.

The moon under her feet that's Mary who gave birth her head a crown of 12 stars, that's Mary where'd you get this

stuff.

Childbirth, so who gave birth to Christ?

Is Mary clothed with the Sun the Sun and the moon she's clothed with the Sun.

Well, that's what's being debated.

That that's kind of the moon under Mary's feet well

You asked for an example of exaltation of Mary and I gave you one.

You just assume that that's about Mary who gave birth to Christ who gave him wife.

Why would she be in childbirth pains?

Which is part of the curse that she was a born immaculately without any any sin attached to her.

So she shouldn't have childbirth pain why she have childbirth pain here.

Well, presumably from physiology, but I don't know birth pain is

part of the curse.

The woman will have pain in delivery.

That's the curse.

Was Mary under the curse.

She was under the curse.

She was she shouldn't then she should not have labor pain.

This is not about Mary.

I Don't know why that argument resonates with you because it seems to be pretty straight for whether it is about Mary

but but I.

You just said Mary wouldn't have childbirth pains and it says this one that you say is Mary had childbirth pains.

Well, it could be an analogy.

I mean III don't know of every situation in which it can be.

I don't know why such a minute detail would Somehow you know make you

ignore the key point, which is that she gave birth to Christ and.

No, I think it's Israel that's being spoken of.

Well, it can be both.

I also think it's Israel.

I think it's both Israel that it makes sense.

But if it's Mary, it doesn't because it's both it's both we agree that it's Israel.

It's not that it's not Israel, of course, not we're not married because she had childbirth pains.

Okay, see, you know, the issue was 971 and 72 and we keep reading the

church were all the honors of Blessed Virgin with special devotion.

Show me that in the Bible.

It's not there in the Bible for the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title mother of God.

That is not true.

Oh, you don't believe Mary's mother.

Did you read what it said?

Did you listen with the title mother of God the title?

The early church is in the book of Acts Ephesians Galatians Corinthians never is the

title attributed to her.

Never for the most from the most ancient times really?

Now we know that can't be Old Testament, you know Moses and Elijah.

I'll grant that.

So it has to be from the Christian context and that's recorded in the book of Acts.

For example, not the mother of God never occurs there.

It does not occur there in the early church from the most ancient of times that this is wrong

again to those whose Protection the faithfully fly.

Oh my goodness.

Listen to this from the most ancient times a Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title mother of God to whose

protection the faithful Fly and all their dangers and needs.

I don't go to Mary for my protection.

Give me a break.

Idolatry it goes on this very special devotion differs essentially from the adoration.

Which is given to the Incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit and greatly fosters this adoration.

No.

It doesn't the literate the liturgical feast dedicated to the mother of God and Mary in prayer such as the

rosary or An epitome of the whole gospel express this devotion of the Virgin Mary 72

972 after speaking of the church her origin mission and destiny we can find no better way to conclude that by looking to Mary

in her we contemplate what the church already is in her mystery on her own pilgrimage of faith and what she will be

in the homeland at the end of Her journey there in the glory the most high and undivided

Trinity in the communion of all the Saints the church is awaited By the one she venerates as mother of our Lord

and as their own mother now what it says.

That's the context after speaking of the church her origin mission and destiny we can find No

better way to conclude that by looking to Mary, okay, we have a word for that in theology is called

Heresy, there's another word we call idolatry.

It's just it's just horrible.

Are you there?

Yeah.

Yeah, I was listening.

This is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

I Mean, that's just two of the multitudinous things.

I can offer to show that Roman Catholic Church is it's just apostate.

It and I got I got another idea, but we'll be working on pretty soon to demonstrate its idolatry.

What idea?

No, I'll talk about it later.

But I just need a bunch of documentation from Catholic resources and then I'll say here if they say this this this this is

idolatry.

It'll be fun.

I don't know the hostility towards Catholicism, but I grew up in a family that was Kind of

hostile to Catholicism it was like I grew up non -denominational so so I I was you know for me

Catholicism was the farthest thing right and I Became a

dancing with the devil.

Right and the first person who actually really gave me an insight into Catholicism was Tim Staples

and You know, I really respect the person he first

Showed me but as I said, I'm open -minded like I am willing to.

As I said, there are a couple of things that Catholic Church rejects that I have been open -minded like annihilation is I have

come to greatly respect annihilation is because I think annihilation is

Biblical now again, do I think that it's hundred percent?

So no, but I lead that way nowadays, right because I think that they have demonstrated I I just don't see

the demonstrations of your arguments from the Bible.

Why what happens so much heresy so little time.

I Don't know why you object to annihilation is I I read your articles.

I read all hundred and eighty articles.

No, I read your articles about annihilation.

That was the context.

We have a great on annihilation is I Have 180 articles.

Oh, then the main ones.

Which ones are the main?

Well, you wrote up Annihilation, I don't remember the exact name.

It was the one that you wrote about but what I was saying is that if you show me from the Bible, right?

Supporting the view that for example, there is no such thing as a unified church

that.

You know the other thing actually that convinced me of Catholicism was how Much of it

for example Collapses right because all it becomes is well, this is isn't necessarily the alternative to Catholicism.

But at least from the point of view if a flat earth are worth to argue for example that references to the

dome.

Mean that the earth is flat because the Bible says so what way do you have?

To say that that's wrong other than just to say that it's wrong because I don't interpret it that way.

I have an article on flat earth.

You can go through some of the stuff in there.

Yeah, of course but I'm just saying I don't see what I see a lot of people do when they attack Catholicism is

just you know, quote these random things from a catechism and I haven't ever seen them lay out their

system of showing.

Okay, we don't accept this.

Well, except the Orthodox and Orientals that do that, but I haven't seen anyone say that, you know, here is the continuity of the church.

We don't who said we need the continuity of the church.

What you keep making these assumptions?

Where does it say we need to have that show me where in the Bible where we need to have that.

Well, you read it, right?

We didn't read it.

Show me where it says we have to have the continuity of the church.

What you mean is historical continuity from then to now, that's what you mean.

But you read these words you read these words and I quote them.

Please let me finish you read these words when you for example have a dispute with somebody and cannot

Resolve it take it to the church.

Yeah, that's not the same thing as continuity of the church from then to now.

Well, it assumes that the church is still there if you could take matters to it to what church you take it to.

The one that you're supposed to which one is that the only Christian Church?

There's just one right the one in Antioch the one in Jerusalem the one in Silesia.

All of them teach the same doctrine, right?

No, wait, wait, wait, take it to the church.

Which church you take it to.

The one that's in the tradition of the Apostles.

Which church do you take it to if you're in Jerusalem you take it to Jerusalem

Church.

If you're in Antioch you take it to the Antioch Church.

Where do you what if you're in Phoenicia you take it to the Phoenician Church if you're in Laodicea.

Do you take it to Laodicea?

You're confusing the local body with the church.

Oh No, I'm not actually I'm testing you.

You want to say take it to the church is?

The local body the whole church if the local body is within the same tradition.

So if they take it to.

Sorry, I heard a noise.

No, that's fine.

So I gotta go check.

I have this my portable thing that's why my wife's not home.

That's why I hear a noise because I've been swatted because people.

You know.

So I'm just gonna walk around a little bit.

Sorry, I'm not paranoid.

It's just you know, what?

Oh crap.

I didn't know you were home, hon.

I heard a noise.

I thought you were gone.

Okay.

All right.

Sorry scared me.

Okay, but I thought you just had a Marian apparition and was it we're about to come.

Well, she's better looking in.

No, I Know she's gonna be gone longer.

All right, so I did hear a noise.

Okay now.

So you said you were swatted before?

Yes.

So what does that mean?

They actually sent police to your home?

Oh, no, someone called up and said my name's Matt slip of dish shot and killed my wife.

So I had to walk backwards my hands up with all kinds of ak -47s Glocks Weapons pointed at me.

I've got handcuffed in the back of a car, etc.

Really.

Wow.

Yep.

So let me let me offer this to people if anyone else wants to join

in in this discussion.

You're welcome to it's just I was hoping that the anti -calvinist would show up at the I'm gonna have to say this

publicly if they listen.

They're just basically cowards.

They talk a lot and they never show up to a real live discussion like this

ridiculous.

Well, I Actually would like to offer up some counterpoints that I think many anti -calvinist.

Oh because these are the things I also I don't like the thing is I agree with Calvinism in some points because I'm a

determinist.

So I think Calvinists have that right the fact that God determines all things and then God.

And the fact that free will is not incompatible with the idea of you know, God determining stuff.

I agree with that.

But here are some points with the Bible.

No, not with the Bible but with the.

I think the problem is with the limited atonement.

So I don't think that limited atonement is the same as Calvinist because there's a bunch of four -point Calvinists

that are very good Christians, and I respect them.

They're called Emerald Ian's.

But you're called Emerald Ian's.

Emerald Ian ism.

The limited atonement was one that they deny and they're hence called Emerald Ian's.

So here are the verses that I think are the hardest to deal with.

The hardest to deal with are first of all, we have to go to first John which this is just

to warm up.

Okay, and I again I'm not offering arguments against Calvin if I'm offering Arguments against raise your best stuff.

We'll see what we got.

Five point Calvinism.

So this is a big difference.

I think four -point Calvinism is acceptable, right?

Because I think four -point Calvinism is amazing.

I just have okay.

So first John for example says that Christ came to his own but his own did not

recognize him.

Mm -hmm.

What does that mean for before you continue before you continue, please?

What this seems to mean is that Christ went to those?

Who God set him out to as in the whole world and the world did not recognize

now according to your interpretation.

This must mean that the saved did not recognize card Christ.

Which would be an oxymoron right because the saved are saved because they recognize Christ.

So what's your response to that?

What verse are you talking about?

Okay, so that's

so it's John 1 11.

But you'd have to read there is no first John 1 11 John 1 11.

Oh, you mean John for John one.

Okay, not for sure John one.

Okay.

Yeah, he he was in he came to zone that's the Jews.

Exactly, right, but his own did not receive him, right?

Why did he come to his own to save them right?

To give them eternal life.

He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15 24.

He said the disciples out.

He said don't go by the way of the Gentiles.

Matthew chapter 10.

I think it's verse 7 or 9.

He said don't go to anyone else.

Go to the Gentiles because covenantally Jesus was sent or into the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

That's why he was sent to Israel the nation of Israel and he died for

them to write.

He died for his elect.

What does it mean to die for someone?

What does it mean?

To to make them savable as in before that they had no chance of to be saved.

Whereas now.

Where's?

Where'd you get that?

That makes them savable.

Can you show me that in Scripture?

Well, I think that's John 3 16 that whoever believes in have eternal life.

So before then there was no such option that if you believed you would have eternal life now there is the option.

Look, I'll give you a better option to go if you want to argue.

Okay, what you sort of arguing that go to Romans 5 6.

For while we're still helpless at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

That might be better for you.

Yeah, I guess I guess I would have done that.

Eventually, I think I had it on my.

Christ died for us.

Romans 5 8.

Yes Christ died for the.

Yeah, exactly.

So thank you for supplying with a better verse.

So yeah, so Christ died for the ungodly as well.

But you're probably gonna say that they were ungodly before Christ and then became godly, right?

Everybody's ungodly.

So you're ungodly.

Yeah.

Some areas of God.

You said though.

Yeah, then what's the point of car?

To bring to help glorify God and to Be used by him to glorify his

himself and expand his kingdom.

How can you be ungodly then?

It's a generic term.

I'm ungodly and then I'm still a sinner.

I'll say it.

I'm just if I justified.

Okay, so what does it mean to die for someone?

What does that mean?

Well in the Christian context to die in order to.

In order to give them the grace.

Is that a book of 2nd Moronicles?

Show me the scripture.

The scripture for why Christ died.

No that you said what you just said.

Sure, here it can they can let's try it again.

Let's try to look here.

It is if you're gonna say something show me scripture to back it up.

Okay, fine.

I'll do that.

No verse.

I can maybe find it for you trying to help you out.

Okay, here it is 1st Corinthians 15 3 for I deliver to you as a first.

It's important when I also read that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

Who is our here just the elect.

1st Peter 3 18 for Christ also died for sins once and for all the just for the unjust.

So that he might bring us to God having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit.

That's 1st Peter 3 18 now.

I'm asking you who are the unjust?

Here for whom he died it could be generically just anybody who's the elect as well

as it could be anybody's ever lived and It's certainly the elect were ungodly

weren't they?

So he died for the ungodly.

You still there?

Yeah, I'm here.

What is the point?

Here's what I don't understand right if the scriptures say that Christ

Death was necessary to bring unto God those and by the way I don't disagree with the idea of

the elect as long as the elect are defined as those who will ultimately come to Christ.

So we for example agree with that.

But and that's why I have a problem with five -point Calvinism.

If you were to define the elect as those who will come to Christ even if you agree that they come to

Christ because of God's sovereign will which I accept because I believe in determinism then We would agree, but you don't define it that way

you believe that those that were chosen.

Those people were elected and Christ died only for them.

No one else.

So Christ didn't die for everybody, right?

No, he didn't.

1st Samuel 3 14 For example says it.

I'll read it to you fit for Samuel 3 13 and 14.

Okay, and I'll just prove to you just go straight to the scriptures.

Okay, 3 13 and 14.

God talking.

God talking for I have told him that I'm about to judge his house forever for the iniquity.

Which he knew because his sons brought a curse on themselves.

It did not rebuke them.

Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli.

That the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.

So did Jesus bear their sin.

Yes.

But he's God said that he would never atone for their sins by offering her sacrifice forever.

Okay, and We obviously don't believe that that means that he would never actually offer a singular sacrifice

right because he offered right there.

I Have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by

sacrifice or offering forever.

Well, that's referring to the lamb offering.

So it's only referring to a lamb offering.

So when it says For I have told him in verse 13. I'm up by the judge's house forever.

It just means a limited time.

Well, it refers to that the ordinary atonement that they had in mind like or offering up a lamb.

It didn't refer to and here are other risks.

I found forever.

Does forever mean only the the time of the lambs and the sacrifice of the animals?

No, it means that forever under ordinary means of atonement.

Under ordinary means of atonement.

Why do you keep adding to the word?

Well, it seems to be what's presumed but I wanted to run by you these passages that seem to be Running against

running against your theory.

John 1 29 the next day He said Jesus coming toward him and said behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Not just take away the son of the world, of course because.

Does does anybody go to hell.

Yes, and how do you take away their sin by dying for them?

Because that's the Christian doctor.

How can they go to hell if they don't have any sin?

It's been taken care of it's been removed.

It's been taken away doesn't exist anymore.

So why would they go to help or is no sin for them as they continue to sin after they it's been forgiven.

Where's the say that?

But that's why they go to hell people go to hell for their sin, right.

Don't we agree?

It says he took away the sins of the world.

Yes, that does that mean every individual who ever lived?

Well, presumably because that's what the world means.

Did he take away Judas Iscariot sin?

Didn't he?

I'm asking you.

Did he my answer is no.

He didn't did he take away the sin of Judas Iscariot?

Yes, he did because why is Judas Iscariot damned.

Because he chose to betray Christ that was a sin it's removed it can't be held

against him.

Because he chose to persist in that sin.

That persistent sin is is sin.

It was taken away.

So are you saying the visual that means him?

I mean all of his sins, but I think it is only part of their sins.

Are you saying that you are sinless right now?

Why don't you stick with the topic at hand about Judas you said That Jesus

took away the sin of the world and that means every individual.

This is the world every individual means of future people.

That means all of their sins in the future.

Yes, as well as all the past at least all of Judas's sins were taken Away,

so how can God condemn Judas to hell to hell if Judas doesn't have any sin?

Because he persisted in the sins he doesn't have any sin.

I Don't understand why you believe that taking away sin means being completely cleansed of all

sins.

What it means is it takes away the origin, right?

Where's it say take away the origin of original sin sorry.

Well Paul says that as through one man came in the sin.

So did for through on making come the redemption of Christ, right?

So what that means is as Adam brought the chain, but that's okay.

Sorry.

You keep changing the word to make it fit your theology.

But then can you explain and say that you believe according to your theology that you're sinless right now?

I Didn't say that.

So if you're not sinless you believe that you could still commit sin, right?

Yeah, I do.

Yeah, so so then this whole exchange was pointless if you believe that someone who sin has been taken

away can sin.

What.

No you don't understand day of judgment if all a person's sin is removed.

Can he go to hell if all of his sin is gone?

Okay.

Do you believe all your sins are gone?

Yes, all of them are taken care of.

You're not a sinner.

No, I didn't say that all of them have been taken care of by God on the cross all my future sins to him.

We're taken care of by the cross all of it now doesn't mean I'm not a sinner today.

I mean by Senate commit tomorrow the next day the next day.

We're nailed to Christ on the cross.

They're imputed to him now.

If Judas had all his sins Nailed to the cross and canceled removed wiped away.

How can he go to hell?

Because he still persisted in the sin.

He didn't make the choice and is included in all of his sins.

Anything you say is included in the couplet all sin.

Okay, but I I don't accept that removing all sins means removing the choice to continue in that sin.

Continuing in his sin is a sin.

He removed all the sin.

Yes, but you have to believe for that to be credited to you right not living as a sin he took away all sin.

Yeah, I don't see what the point of this is because I think that I made a clear point.

That Christ took the sins of the world on him now.

That doesn't mean that the individual.

Except not in first Samuel 3 13 and 14 the iniquities of Eli's house will not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering

forever.

Okay, fine.

Even if we exclude them if you were to say that's a special case that even if I were to go along with it.

But let's just stick with us.

Why don't you accept that?

The whole world was made savable rather than the whole world was saved.

Why can't you accept that taking away sins means that they became Savable what this

means is previously they were unsavable and by taking away their sins.

They became savable is that's what most Christians accept now most Christians don't know their way out of

a wet paper bag.

Look, let me let me introduce a concept to you here.

This is Ephesians 1 4 just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.

I accept that God chose us in Christ.

I accept for the world.

That means we're elected before the foundation of the world exactly as in God knew who would come to him and he wouldn't.

Oh.

So now God is shows favoritism.

No, he doesn't.

Yes.

He no, no, no, see.

How he knows he's gonna come to him.

So he picks him.

No, he doesn't In them.

No the elect are the ones that God knows will come to him.

Oh, why are they gonna come to him because of their free will choice?

Well, I don't believe in libertarian free.

Well, I believe in compatibilism.

Yeah, I do too.

So why are they gonna come to him because of their choice?

Yes, but it's not a libertarian choice.

It's a choice that I got that so the Bible.

The Bible says the unbelievers a slave of sin a hater of God can do no good doesn't seek for God.

Cannot receive the things of God.

So how does he just simply choose God?

Because God gave him the gift of faith the gift of faith.

Yeah, so God gives him the gift of faith to believe in him and he doesn't believe in him.

Well, he does unless he falls away.

He were six.

Let's he falls away.

That's not.

That's not about losing your salvation because it says in verse 5 there.

It says that it's impossible again to renew them to repentance.

Which means if you teach you can lose your salvation if you've lost at once and you can never get back.

Which I know you don't teach that in the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach that either.

So that would be so that versus a prickly doesn't talk about that.

It says here he chose us in him and you're saying that God knows in the future who will pick him and that's why he's

there elect.

Yes, that's the definition because you know, then we both accepted Compatibilist, right?

There's no conflict.

I don't see.

Yes.

All right so what you're saying is that God knows what good thing people are gonna do and he Makes his choice of

salvation based on the good in somebody else.

No, it says nature to know the future and he calls those who he knows will

choose the.

They will choose their own free will they're gonna choose right.

Well if they are deterministic free will not a libertarian one.

I Understand I'm a compatibilist.

Yeah me too.

I know you are too.

Okay.

I'm working with a compatibilist issue.

Now and you see your determinants what you're misusing, but that's okay.

You chose us in him you say he looks in the future that's a loose phrase.

He died he did he did he learned who was gonna pick him.

No.

Okay, so did he decree who's gonna pick him?

Yes.

So did he bring people in who's gonna pick him?

Yes, why do they pick him.

Well, that's the whole issue of compatibilism.

Why do they pick him?

Did they pick him on their own free will?

No, they picked him because they didn't they didn't use their own free will then how are they responsible for

their own?

For choice and belief.

But I thought you were a compatibilist.

Why are you?

So then so then what's the problem if you already accept that free will is it if they didn't use their own

free will?

How are they even responsible for even believing if it's not by their own free will.

They did use their free will.

Libertarian free will it was.

I understand that I understand that so then what's the problem if You agree with me on this right?

You agree that they use their free.

Will it just was predetermined?

I'm asking you a Question you're actually affirming Libertarianism,

I'm not.

I believe you are.

No, I'm a compatibilist.

I'm a deterrent.

You are not a compatibilist.

You're libertarian.

Let me explain.

You saying that God looks in the future so he was gonna pick him and that they become the elect.

You're saying that they become elect based on what God sees in them in the future.

Right.

No.

God also predetermined that future.

Both he knows the future because it's his future.

So are you saying then that what God did was?

Ordain and cause them to believe.

Yes.

I agree with that.

The thing we disagree on is whether those are the only ones he died for that's the only difference we have.

Good now we're on language is important.

All right, so let's get back to the issue.

So you say he canceled the sin debt for everybody who ever lived?

Yes.

Well, and why does anybody go to hell?

Because they don't persist in his law.

That's a sin debt for everybody.

That's that's us.

That's all no sin could be held against him.

None.

It's all canceled none a Person who's had a sin debt canceled all of it is canceled gone.

Nothing wrong.

No sin, it could be held against him.

None.

Nothing zip nada.

No.

How does God send him to hell?

Because of their Persistence in not believing in him because they don't have the gift of it.

So what doesn't matter if they don't believe they don't have any sin any sin.

Yeah.

We don't agree on the definition of what it means to forgive also because for me once again

forgiving all sin implies that God Removed the stain of the sins that they had

right not that they won't choose to sin.

We're talking about the actual sin.

You're saying if their sins are taken care of we're removed to cancel.

They don't exist anymore all of their sins.

I'm just simply asking from your perspective.

How do they go to hell then?

There's no sin to be held to their account.

God judges them right for salvation, right?

Yeah, based on what.

Because they don't have any sin so he can't send him to hell there is no sin.

Yeah, I don't know how to respond to that.

Yeah, because your position is incorrect.

Well, they don't become.

They do not become chosen.

Because of some event that they're going to go through.

What you're saying without realizing it is that you're accusing God of partiality.

What you're doing is you're saying God knows who'll pick him and That he'll grant them the

status of being the elect based upon their choice.

Now what we went through just to clarify I think you got to the point finally where you had you got it, right?

That in a compatibilist freewill view God granted it believed because he ordained that they believe.

Yeah, then that would not be election based on what he saw.

They would believe it'd be election based upon his choice that they would believe.

Yeah.

Yeah, we agree on that.

What we disagree on is whether he died also for them that he knew wouldn't pick him.

That's the only difference.

Was it me to die for?

Does he remove this in debt?

Well, I I read the.

But God demonstrates his own love to where doesn't that while we were yet sinners Christ died for it.

Yes.

Yes, so he canceled the sinfulness the sinfulness.

Sorry sin.

Okay.

Sinfulness, I mean, yeah, yeah, and I'm in trouble.

He canceled the sin debt.

Jesus said, you know, our Father heart in heaven.

Hallowed be thy name forgive us our debts in Matthew 6 12 forgive us our sins in

Luke 11 4 so Jesus equated sin with legal debt.

Paul says Canceling the certificate of debt consisting of decrees which was hostile to us.

You took it out of the way having knelt to the cross.

Colossians 2 14.

So Jesus canceled the sin that if your sin debts canceled, you can't go to hell.

So who do you cancel it for?

Okay.

I mean this is where I said, I don't know how to respond because it seems like we are working on different definitions of.

After I spent so much time with definitions.

I asked what these things mean.

If G look it's simple if Jesus canceled the sin debt for everybody then everybody has to go to heaven

and people say well.

No, they have to believe.

No, they don't because disbelief is a sin.

If they want to say well, that's the one it's not taken care of.

Where'd you get that in the Bible, you know.

That's why I ask him where to say that All of our sin was future to Christ.

So it's all of our sin.

If he actually removes a sin of somebody actually does it really does it?

They can't go to hell because their sin debt is removed.

It's gone.

And if if an atheist goes before God, he's not an atheist anymore.

There's God and if he's never received Christ during his lifetime

on earth, and he's standing before God and Someone informs this atheist who's now

a true believer.

Go a little late says look.

All your sin is removed all of it.

He'd be like, yeah I'm going to heaven then and If someone said no, you're not

you're going to hell.

Whoa.

Whoa on What basis.

Well, you didn't believe but that's a sin.

Yeah, but that's the one that we don't count really when it told me what?

It makes no sense.

All you have to do is acknowledge that Jesus Came to save the ones given to him by the Father all that

the Father gives me will come to me and the ones who Come to me I certainly will not cast out.

But this is the will of my father who sent me that all he's given me I lose none, but raise it up on the last day the will of the

father that Jesus lose none.

Because Jesus is the one who received the ones from the father for safekeeping.

All the father gives me will come to me.

They're given by the father to the son.

They're gonna come to him the ones who come to him.

I will certainly not cast out.

He says this is the will of the father.

That he who believes in the son will have eternal life and myself will raise him up in the last day.

John 640.

He will not lose any the will of the father that Jesus not lose any.

Jesus can't lose any.

And you see Hebrew 6 4 2 6 talks about losing salvation.

No, it doesn't.

Jesus said you can't.

I'm just looking at these verses and I was as I said I try to be as open -minded as possible.

Like the thing is I don't want to be stuck and saying I don't want to change My mind.

I'm open to becoming Calvinist.

I'm sorry five -point Calvinist today.

But I'm just looking at a whole plethora of verses here, and I'm just trying to imagine

That if I let I mean, I think you believe that the scripture should be let to speak, right?

You don't think that we should impose our meaning.

So I'm just reading the verses like Okay, so

I'm just looking for Verses here that are completely, you know

drawn.

And I'm just trying to see how limited atonement would fit into these verses, right for the

Son of Man came to seek and save the lost as in sinners, right and

Lost and I I'm just trying to imagine that when Luke was writing this in 1910 He had in mind that

the lost are only those who are saved right only those who are elected and then John Okay

that we already read but here are other John 6 33 for the bread of God is that which comes down from and

gives life to the world.

So the world just means those people who only receive the light, you know, the nations all the groups of people.

But as long as I'm in the world, I'm the light of the world not just yes.

So that the world may believe that thou has sent me who is the world just it.

I Don't know how these verses can be reconciled with limited atonement without again imposing

Something and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages.

Ephesians 3 8 9 Reconcile to himself all the things whether on earth or in

heaven now.

How how can how can this all things refer to I?

Mean you'd have to really practice some sort of mental gymnastic to fit this one in which

Colossians 1 19 20 for in him all of the fullness Pleased to dwell and through him

to reconcile to himself all things whether on earth or in heaven making peace by the blood of his Cross, what does

reconcile mean?

Well what we just went through right.

Christ died to reconcile sinners, but good what does it mean to reconcile to bring them back to God.

So he reconciled all things brought me to God.

So did he reconcile the people who are in hell?

No, this obviously refers to people who are alive or at least not in.

Well, so you said all things right?

Yeah.

Okay.

So all things does not mean The damned doesn't mean the demonic Hordes either does

it?

No.

No, of course.

I mean all things as in as it's understood.

Also Matthew 12 22 32 blasphemy.

The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or an age to come.

So he did not reconcile those who committed blasphemy the Holy Spirit.

Did he know?

Okay, so all so all things means what well

all things just not not those exceptional cases which we all agree on.

Okay, so that verse does not refute limit atonement at all.

Well, if it's all things.

Well, you just you just agreed.

It's not all not all things as every individual and every what does it mean to reconcile all things?

That's the questions or legitimate question.

It says having made peace through his blood or through the blood of his cross made peace with all things.

That does not include Satan the demonic horde does not mean Judas Iscariot.

It does not mean those who are in hell does not mean those who committed blasphemy the Holy Spirit.

So you have a limited view of all things.

You're a you're an all things limited person.

You believe in limited all things.

Yeah, I Think that I am beginning to see your logic here now that I'm

Good Applying it and um, it's it's gonna be something hard to accept because I

think it is hard to accept.

You better believe it is.

I resisted it and most everybody I know also resisted not everybody.

It's hard to accept and the reason is because we have these with man -centered ideas about how god's supposed to be.

He's a blonde haired blue -eyed caucasian surfer.

Jesus dressed in a woman's nightgown.

Yeah, I don't know.

It takes an opportunity here.

Sorry.

You're such a polite guy.

I know.

Uh, let me address something as someone raised in here which kind of Falls into this about not winning

for anyone wanting for anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance, right?

That that's also a good verse to use.

Yeah, it is.

It's a great verse now.

There's different ways to look at this.

And or to examine it to consider some stuff by it.

Now I'm going to put this word this word the text in the chat so people can see it.

All right.

And then what i'm going to do is quote something else and i'm not setting scripture against scripture.

I'm making a point.

All right.

Because the point is we have to harmonize the word of god.

Because the scripture says what it says.

Now people will say to me that God wants everyone to be saved.

Okay, let's just go with that if that's the case.

That he wants everyone to be saved.

Then.

Why do we have mark 4 10 through 12?

And as soon as he was alone his followers along with the 12 began asking him about the parables and he was saying to them.

To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of god, but those who are outside get everything in parables.

So that while seeing they may see and not perceive and while hearing they may hear and not

understand.

Otherwise, they might return and be forgiven.

Okay, so Matt, you know, one of the things that actually confused me about this conversation is if we

agree on compatibilism.

What why is it so hard to accept?

That the idea that god set certain things to be one way Is not contrary to the idea that

people choose it that way and that doesn't mean that there is.

No, that doesn't mean that there is conflict between free will.

In choice, right?

So the fact is that I believe that god determined everything I would do as in god doesn't

learn what I choose, right?

I I agree with that and I I agree with that as well.

So why is it wrong for god to know that pharisees would misunderstand this these

parables?

Right.

He he says he spoke some spoken parables.

He will not be forgiven.

Oh, I I guess we have another person.

I'm willing to give up my time for them because I think that's okay.

It's david neff.

I know dave.

Here's the thing.

It says it says, you know that I'm trying to get people to think.

They'll jump on he wants all men to be saved second peter 3 9.

You can also go to first, uh, timothy 2 4, you know.

Yeah, it's basically the same thing.

Well, i'm just asking a question.

Okay, let's say that's the case.

So he wants all men to be saved then why does jesus speak in parables?

And he says so people so they won't get saved.

Oh, wait a minute.

If he wants all people to be saved yet He speaks in parables.

So people will not be saved.

Is that a contradiction?

No, because of compatibilism.

Right compatibilism isn't the issue here issue is is If he wants

all to be saved, why does he speak in a way so they won't be saved?

That's the question.

If he wants all to be saved, why does he speak in a way so they won't all be saved?

And here's something else second thessalonians.

I believe it's two.

I think you said I don't want to set scripture against scripture.

But what is this other than setting scripture against scripture?

It's an opportunity.

Whenever you have something like this.

Where you're not sure what it means and it sounds contradictory what you do is.

You go explore.

And you learn so if god says that he wills everyone to be saved.

How can he will?

Sorry not will for everyone to be saved.

I don't understand how you can hold both and just saying that there are some verses where he speaks in

parables don't seem to.

And again, i'm willing to give up my time because I think we've been talking in this and other person.

It's important to talk.

Let's finish this out because people are asking it in their the chat room and then we'll talk to dave.

Here's the thing I'm willing to give my time to dave.

Okay when I was younger Quite a while ago

I was reading through the nasb.

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men.

So also through one act of righteousness There resulted justification of life to all men.

Who's the all men?

I remember going a minute justification means you're saved the result of justification of life to all men.

I'm gonna give this short version of stuff.

So I started studying.

Because it can't be that everyone's saved but that's what the text said.

I went and looked at the greek.

That is what it says.

In other words there resulted is not there in the greek in either place.

What it literally says is through one transgression condemnation to all men.

So also Through one act of righteousness justification of life to all men.

That's what it literally says.

So it's the so also is sentence b which means it's like sentence a.

Okay, so one transgression condemnation to all men.

So also like that Through an act of righteousness justification of life to all men it caused me to

stumble.

I've learned since then what the answer is.

And i've learned since then whenever I find something like this and it seems like it's an apparent contradiction.

It's because I don't understand I go.

Oh good and I get to learn.

So I did a study.

This is the first time this happened to me was with his verse.

I checked the niv the king james.

I discovered the niv and the king james translated them wrong and I can get into that.

So I started looking and I found something out.

I'll just cut to the chase.

God uses the word all differently than we do.

I did a study in the word all i've got another case a study on that but When it says he to

all men.

I started looking and I found out some stuff.

You know, one of the things I did was I went to first corinthians 15 22, which says in adam all die in christ.

All shall be made alive.

Wait a minute in adam all die in christ all shall be made alive.

Well the in christ means that those who are christians.

That's all it can mean.

In adam means everybody.

In christ only means the christians only means the elect.

So what one of the things I don't understand what this logic is, you know, the thing is I mean i'm not

advocating this view because obviously I don't need to but wouldn't it be easier to say from that

perspective?

That there are contradictions in the bible.

No, then let me Let me finish let me finish then to say that when god says that all he

wills.

And i'm not advocating that there are contradictions.

Because I I don't hold to inerrancy, but I hold to infallibility.

So that that means that the message cannot contradict itself but.

But do you understand what i'm saying?

I mean Sorry, go ahead.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

There's an answer.

You hold to infallibility or inerrance fallibility, but not inerrancy because you don't know what.

You you don't know that the word of god teaches.

No, I know what it teaches.

That's why i'm a christian.

Oh, you don't know about this.

I'm teaching you this you're bringing this up in light of this in light of the idea of a possible contradiction.

I'm, no, I don't accept contradictions in doctrine.

No, okay.

Good.

Okay.

I misunderstood you.

Inerrancy means something like for example, every single word is.

Like what king james only is that's what I don't believe.

I believe I don't correct here.

Let me answer the question here.

Okay.

Go ahead in that it means everybody ever lived in christ does not mean everybody ever lived because because.

When you go to verses like romans, uh, romans 6 6 Knowing this that our old

self was crucified with him.

In verse 8 Roman 6 8 we have died with christ.

We died with christ not in our baptism, but when he was crucified.

Our old self was crucified with christ with him.

In order that our body of sin might be done away with.

So that's that can only be understood in federal headship that the male represents his descendants.

The male represents those who are in him.

In him literally in his body in his seed.

Adam represented all those in him in his seed all the descendancy.

Likewise but in a spiritual sense we are in christ.

Because he had no children physically he has children by adoption

by election so when it says In adam all I mean in christ all shall be

made alive.

The all can only be the elect.

It can only be the elect.

It can only be those who are christians.

It can only be those who who are believers.

It can't be everybody else because it wouldn't make any sense then when you go to first corinthians 5

5 14 I said corinthians 5 14 for the love of christ controls us.

Have you concluded this that one died for all?

Therefore all died.

This is a critical verse right here.

He died for all.

Therefore all died.

Who's the all who died?

What does it mean?

You know says all died.

Well notice what it says in romans, uh, excuse me in romans, uh, six eight.

Mm.

It says we have died with christ and if you go to colossians three.

It says, uh verse three for you have died and your life is hidden with christ in god.

So he's talking about us dying when he died on the cross.

We were represented by christ on the cross.

He said it says in second corinthians 5 14 one died for all therefore all died.

Who's the all who died?

It cannot be everybody who ever lived.

Okay, but are you saying that the elect died?

Yes, how can the elect die in christ?

Because of federal headship.

Because We were given by the father to the son John 6 37 we

were chosen in christ in him before the foundation of the world ephesians

1 4 our redemptive work cannot be.

The work of god in a temporal priority in that god looked in the future then

decided to save.

It cannot be that it has to be that we were chosen before the foundation of the world in christ at the

same time.

Logical necessity and I would say even We get into this.

Logical priority of having to be in christ before you can be saved with that that has some weaknesses to it.

But that's another advanced topic.

What it's saying in ephesians 1 4 is the issue of we were chosen in christ the choosing has to

be in christ.

It choosing can't be of all that's there.

That only some are going to come in if they believe that doesn't that that violates ephesians 1 4.

The idea of being in christ is something that we are given to christ.

We are in him.

That's what it says.

We're chosen in him.

And it says in in romans 6 6.

Let me get to it.

There's a romans 6 6 Knowing this that our old self was crucified with him.

Wait, well, when was jesus crucified?

He's crucified 2 000 years ago.

Our old self was crucified with him.

What does that mean?

What does it mean it says our old self was crucified with him.

We had to be represented by christ on the cross then it makes sense.

In order that our body of sin might be done away with so that we would no longer be slaves of sin for he who has died

Is freed from sin.

Now notice this he who died for freed from sin, which is romans 6 1.

What shall we say then are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase may never be for?

How shall we who have died to sin still live in it?

Wait a minute.

So i'll ask somebody when did we die?

And they'll say baptism or did you not know that all of us who've been baptized into christ jesus have been baptized into his

death.

Is that when we died with christ?

People say well, yeah, we died with christ.

We were baptized.

Therefore.

We have been buried with him through baptism into death.

Now being baptized into death is not the same thing as dying with christ

because faith.

Excuse me circumcision according to paul in romans 4 11 is a sign in the seal of

the faith that he had while uncircumcised.

In colossians 2 11 and 12 paul relates baptism and circumcision together.

He relates them so baptism has at least to some effect the sign of the seal of the faith that you already

have.

Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death.

Not that we died with him.

So that christ was raised from the dead to the glory of the father we too might we too Might walk in newness of life.

It doesn't say we were raised here in baptism.

It doesn't say that baptism out of the water is what did it?

For if we become united with him in a likeness of his death.

Certainly, we shall also be in a likeness of his resurrection.

I I have no problem.

I believe that if a baptism not for salvation I have no problem with sprinkling and pouring but I have no problem here of this being

referring to an immersion.

I think it works better.

If people are immersed in water that makes sense likeness of his death likeness of his resurrection.

I like that.

Knowing this that our old self was crucified with him.

Now.

That's what it says.

When was our old self crucified with him?

Back 2 000 years ago.

Okay in order that this body of sin might be done away with so that we would no longer be slaves of sin.

For he was died from sin.

Died is freed from sin.

That's what it says in verse 7.

He was died from sin.

Die.

Who has died is freed from sin, but it says in romans 6 2.

How shall we have died to sin still live in it?

We have died with christ romans 6 8.

That's how we've died to sin.

We died with christ.

The manifestation of that death Is is typified by the sign and the seal of

baptism.

That's what's going on.

It's a sign and a seal the thing we already have we are already in christ because ephesians 1 4 says we're

In him from the foundation of the world.

He died.

We died.

He represented us just as in adam all die.

He represented us.

There's this in him federal heads of representation.

Adam represented everybody but christ only represented his people.

That's what's going on there.

So when it says in 2nd corinthians 5 14 It says the love of christ controls us having concluded this that one died

for all therefore all died.

The all who died can only be the elect.

You see make perfect sense then when we go to romans 5 18 we go.

Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men.

That's adam's word.

So also through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men you go.

Ah I get it.

The all men he's talking about are the elect.

And i'm not just reading into the text.

I'm going all over the scriptures and showing how god uses this pattern of words.

Just so you know this took me like three weeks to figure out.

And i've been perfecting it honing it ever since.

See, it makes sense.

The armenian position does not.

The roman catholic position does not.

He died.

We died with him.

He canceled our sin dead at the cross colossians 2 14.

We were crucified with christ romans 6 6.

He only did that to the.

For the elect.

And when you go to romans 7 4 something very important is there.

Therefore my brethren you were also made to die to the law through the body of christ.

So that you might be joined to another to him who's raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit of god.

So we're made to die to the law right.

Yeah.

Romans 7 1 or do you not know brethren that the law has jurisdiction over

a person as long as he lives.

For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he's still living.

But if her husband dies, she's released from the law concerning the husband.

So then if while her husband is living she's joined to another man.

She shall be called an adulteress.

But if her husband dies, she's free from the law.

So that she's not an adulteress though.

She's joined to another man.

Therefore my brethren you were also made to die to the law through the body of christ.

Doesn't say through baptism.

The body of christ when he died on the cross when he was crucified romans 6 6 so that you might be

joined uh to another.

So we have died in christ so we could even make the case.

We don't sin anymore.

Now, let me go a little step out on the limb a little bit.

Okay.

If we confess our sins he's faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Now if we say we have not sinned we make him a liar his word is not with us.

All right.

So here's the thing.

Can we as christians ask jesus to forgive us of our sins if we've already had all our sins forgiven.

That's just a thought -provoking question that we could discuss.

Because it has different ramifications different directions.

Okay, it says in first john 3 6 no one who abides in him sins.

No one who sins has seen him or knows him.

How is it possible that way if we abide in christ, we don't sin.

Now that's a there's some ambiguity here and I could take these into different dendritical, uh different branches.

But it says the one who abides in him.

In him abides that means remaining and doing things you don't send and we can get us some ideas, but there seems to

be Uh this idea that when we're in christ, we died.

We died of the law.

We really sin doesn't apply to us anymore.

And that's called a now than not yet, which is another um thought.

All this is inter interconnected.

All of it's interconnected.

Let's get when I get to dave neff now.

Sure, I I thank you for your time.

Sure.

Dr. Slick and uh, you know, I'm Just an obnoxious twit.

Um, yeah obnoxious twits.

So obnoxious slick.

Uh, so yeah, I want to thank you for your time and engaging and you know, I keep searching

i'm a christian.

Well, you don't consider me christian, but I am but you know, i'm a christian and uh

I want to think well, I mean it's at least useful to see.

A deconstruction because so many calvinists I talk to have no idea what five point calvinism is.

But you you seem to know your stuff right about five point calvinism, which is one I'm looking at

my calvinism outline notes outlines on calvinism.

It's with index and table of contents.

It's 89 pages.

Yeah, I I have karma on my like uh desk, sorry.

The bookmarks now like I I seem to just it seems to be very useful.

It is useful.

Not just scenes.

Is.

Yeah, it's amazing, thank you so much mr slick and let's talk some other time about other topics.

Yeah, we should also get to the annihilationism at some point because I want to hear your Arguments against it now that

i've not that I accept it.

But i've been strongly drawn to it because it seems to be supported by scripture.

And you know the scripture that god destroys the soul and those who don't don't have eternal life and those kind of things.

So It will get that later because I can respond to that but then we'll get another tangent let's talk to dave.

All right.

Thanks so much.

Mr. Flickin.

All right.

Okay, dave neff.

How you doing, buddy?

Hey, i'm doing all right.

Thank you.

How are you?

Good.

Thanks.

See you.

Uh, so I don't have a whole lot of time, but the verse that you guys were talking about.

Um.

Has always been a verse that really bothers me about uh the one um where jesus talks in parables

to prevent um.

So the question I guess the first question that I have is how did jesus speak in the parables prevent them from being coming.

Quote -unquote.

Saved.

What what.

How is that?

Because I believe the answer to that which is concomitant.

Well, it's asked by people who say if you believe in total depravity that they can't come to christ on their own.

Then why would he have to speak in parables.

Because they wouldn't come to christ.

Let's god grants that they believe levin's 129 and grants that they come to christ.

John 640, uh, john 665.

And that was a good question.

I just think about it and I came up with a response.

When jesus commands things it occurs because he's god.

If he commands that they believe they gotta believe.

He speaks in parables because they were not elect.

He's hiding his words from the non -elect.

Okay, that still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And the Gospel of matthew jesus comes into the world for the purpose of saving the world saving the lost seed of the

house of israel.

But then he deliberately speaks in parables so that they won't be saved.

This seems to be a contradiction perspective.

Who's the they though?

What do you mean, um, I don't understand what you mean by the day.

Well, uh.

He was teaching to a large crowd now.

So he speaks in parables and he's saying and they say well, why do you speak in parables?

That because the 12 asked him that and he told them so they won't be saved.

That's why I said right.

So you agree with that, right?

Of course, that's what the text says.

You can't disagree with what it's plainly written.

Okay, so you would also agree then that god doesn't want every individual to be saved.

Well, obviously that seems to be a contradiction because then You actually think that god would

purposely create people to send them to hell.

That doesn't seem like an action of a morally just god.

So these are the contradictions.

Which target do I aim at?

What was that?

He said several things.

Oh, yeah.

He came to save the world as all the nations.

He was sent covenantally only to the lost sheep of the house of israel.

Matthew 15 24 the word world in john 3 16 God told the world to give his only begotten son does not mean every

individual.

It means all the people groups and things like that.

The word whosoever there is not there in the greek.

Is doing all the believing one the word for Whosoever or whoever is the greek word

host?

It's not there in that that particular text.

It says god's love the world that all the believing one will not perish all the ones believing.

It doesn't say whoever as if they have some, um, you know natural innate ability to choose.

That's not what the implication is there.

So he's anyway back to mark 4 10 to 12.

He's speaking in parables.

And uh, so the people will not be saved because there's certain people in the jewish nation that he doesn't want saved

so.

This god, um.

Do you believe I guess in double predestination where god elects people to go to heaven and elects people to go to hell?

Because obviously it seems to be logically if you're not elected to go to heaven then you're pretty much Elected to go to

hell.

That that seems to be logical, correct?

Logical, but I don't see any scripture that says they're elected to hell.

I only see election being referenced to the believers.

Okay, and in romans chapter 1 god says that he gives up people to a reprobate mind.

So the question is what exactly is this reprobate mind if they were never going to become a christian or become saved to begin with?

What's the point of giving them to a reprobate mind because they were already in a default state of reprobate?

That seems to be no reprobate.

Mind means truly evil because it's a there's a judgment upon their sin.

Just because someone's not going to be saved doesn't mean they can't have more judgment upon them for their increased sinfulness.

Okay, so that makes sense.

Let me ask you a question.

Yeah, sure that god makes it.

You know, I believe makes bad people and stuff like that.

Do you believe he makes bad people just you know, even for the like the day of evil?

Do you believe that?

Well, of course not.

I just quoted proverb 16 for the lord has made everything for its own purpose.

Even the wicked for the day of evil.

Interesting.

And that is interesting.

So that's what it says.

So he does do that, doesn't he?

Well, I guess that's what the text says.

So I guess that's what he does.

I mean, you can't disagree with what's plainly written.

That's right.

So what I do is I try and set people up I quote scripture without them knowing i'm quoting scripture and I disagree with What i'm saying because they disagree because

they have an idea of how god's supposed to be.

And i'm trying to get people to say no read what the word of god says.

In fact someone they're trying to set me up with a debate in december 28th.

I don't know if i'm gonna go that late um.

They want me to debate romans 9 with somebody um but uh.

Anyway, I guess that's yeah, i'm just anyway, uh, sorry distracted myself so.

This is what the bible teaches.

I'm just quoting scripture, you know.

We can go through romans 9 if you want we go through some various things, but that's that's it.

You know, I mean That's it.

Yes.

Jimmy's right night romans 9 9 21 through 24.

Um.

Okay, um one last thing before I have to go because i'm getting ready to go to another stream

um.

Were you going back to discord?

Yeah, i'm going.

I'm going to talk to one of my friends about a debate that I had which was kind of dissecting it.

Dissecting it and talking about it.

Um, but um.

Real quick there was an interesting comment that we were kind of going back and forth on another stream a few months ago.

I guess it was.

About the topic of eternal security and my friend, um said something very interesting.

He said that it should be it's impossible to go from a state of being unregenerate to the state of being regenerate

to back to Being unregenerate and back and forth and back and forth so largely.

It must be that once you are quote unquote saved then it has to be you're always saved because it's impossible to go back

and forth back and forth.

You know, I apologize.

I didn't hear what you said the last 15 seconds.

I'm, not trying to be rude.

My wife texted me about something.

I was responding to her text and uh.

So I apologize for that.

So I should have liked doing that.

Could you repeat that please?

Sorry about that.

Okay.

Yeah, sure.

So about a month or so ago I was with a I was on a stream with one of my friends.

And he said something interesting about internal security and I kind of want your take on it um.

He said that it is impossible to go from a state of being regenerate back to being a state of

Unregenerate and then back to a state of regenerate and back and forth back and forth.

Right.

It seems logical that internal security is a logical necessity.

Yes, because you're talking about as a feijo as a hebrews 6 5.

It's impossible again to renew them to repentance.

A lot of people think that that pericope means that they lose their salvation if that's the case.

They can't go in and out in and out in and out.

This is making any sense, right?

Jesus says in john 6 37 through 40.

He says that the will of the father is that jesus lose none.

Okay.

And.

And so if he loses none if he doesn't lose if he loses anyone then that obviously means then.

His will was not done and then then jesus failed to do the will of the father.

Common response then is well, they can lose themselves.

But that doesn't make any sense.

God damn, right.

And um also if if that was also possible that would make jesus a liar, correct.

Right.

It would also make him a sinner that he failed to do the will of the father.

Right and lost right.

So that that just doesn't make much sense.

So so eternal security is pretty much a logical necessity for christianity.

Yes, I believe it is.

Yes.

It is.

I hold on.

I gotta call my wife.

Okay I gotta see because.

She hold on a sec, let me put you guys on mute for a minute.

It's still ringing.

She's not picking up.

Okay.

Um.

She's gonna go do it run an errand at night and I just want enough.

She wanted me to go with her.

Because I drive better at night.

I have very good night vision.

She doesn't but she'll be fine.

So anyway, um, sorry about that.

Dave, I really appreciate your patience with me.

I really do.

You know, i've known you for a long time.

You're a nice guy.

I just kind of feel bad there.

But uh, thanks for being patient about that.

No, not a problem.

I wish I had more time because a lot of things we can I can pick your brain out and we can Talk around rabbit holes, but I got to get

going to another stream.

I really enjoyed the chat and hope to see you soon.

Okay.

Talk to you later.

Okay.

All right.

Hey, I hope you guys enjoyed all of that.

It's been almost two hours, but uh, i'll stand a little bit longer.

Um, if you guys have any comments or questions, you can add them you can type them in and um.

We can so I can answer them or if not, you know, I can bail.

Any videos any catholic debated you yet?

I don't know marvin.

I've debated so many people catholics have but like the guy earlier today Was catholic or in this show?

I wish you had more more lds mormon videos.

There's your favorite particularly the ones in manti.