Church of Christ: Answering Objections w/ @carmvideos @TheApologeticDog

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and I am happy to be with you guys, and thank you for joining me on the channel.

I have two guests with me, two good friends of mine, they've been on the show before, and we're gonna be talking about the ever -important topic of total depravity.

And, of course, if you guys follow the work of Jeremiah over there at The Apologetic Dog, you do quickly recognize he does a lot of videos on the topic of the

Church of Christ, and baptism, and these sorts of things, and he's got some really great content there.

So if this is your first time tuning into this channel, I highly recommend you kind of put this on pause, go over to The Apologetic Dog channel, and subscribe.

He's got some excellent resources there on his channel. And, of course, I have my good friend

Matt Slick, who is the president of CARM, that is the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, CARM .org.

It is a huge resource, there's countless articles and a bunch of things that he's done over the centuries, okay?

He's one of the first... when the internet was invented, okay, he was one of the first to have apologetic resources there, so I'll give them a few moments to kind of talk a little bit about their channels and their websites, if they have...

Matt, of course, has a website there, I'm not sure if Jeremiah does. And then we'll kind of jump into our topic for today.

So first, Jeremiah, why don't you say hi to everyone and tell folks a little bit more about you and where they can find your material?

What's up everybody? So my name is Jeremiah Nortier. Firstly, I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, and He is my

Lord and Savior and saved me from my sin, so my apologetics ministry is all to the glory of God.

My heart is to just grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior. I also serve as a pastor and elder at 12 .5

Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. That's northeast Arkansas, so if you're anywhere in the area, we'd love for you to come visit our fellowship.

And so my apologetics ministry, the apologetic dog, it's kind of anchored in 1 Timothy 6 .20

that Paul tells Timothy, oh Timothy, guard the deposit, the gospel of grace that's been entrusted to you.

So that's my aim, is to guard the gospel of grace, and also contend for the truth.

And so I just want to tell people a couple resources that I've been engaging, evangelizing the

Church of Christ. This is Christ Rescued Me from the Church of Christ, a wonderful author, Miss Leanne Ferguson.

We also, she wrote another book, and she had me write the forward to this, and so this is the thief's testimony, and it's the thief on the cross that is essentially the

Achilles heel to the Church of Christ theology. He was saved by grace through faith, and not by baptism while dying in the new covenant.

Now Jeremiah, I understand that you've done a lot of debates, too. Why don't you tell folks a little bit about that? Yes, so in apologetics,

Eli, as we've talked about, it's offense and defense, and so the debate dojo gives you the opportunity to do both of those.

And so as we're gonna get into debating the Church of Christ, everything for them kind of revolves around baptism.

Baptism, in their mind, washes away past sins. It's not a representation that signifies a relationship with God or the forgiveness of sins.

They believe that you contact the blood of Jesus in the watery graves of baptism, and so they're confusing the representation with the reality.

And so my debates have been primarily around the doctrine of baptism, how it's a part of a believer's discipleship, sanctification that signifies the work that Christ has already done in our heart and in our life.

But I've also debated Church of Christ on total depravity. I even hit up Matt Slick to kind of get in the ring together in a spar, and so they have a different view of God altogether, and they have a different view of man.

And so for them, they believe that we were born perfect and without a corrupt nature, pure, and so they believe by your own obedience that you can earn favor with God.

They just would take the word earn out and just say, well, you can obey, you can achieve an everlasting reward with God, and they will say that.

So I've done a lot of debates now. I've honestly, I've not done nearly as many as The Slickest Man Alive over there, but probably around 13 or 14, and probably a good half of them have been with the

Church of Christ. Now I've listened to so many debates, I've lost count, participated in a few.

Matt is the only one who I've ever seen debate from the bathroom.

Maybe he remembers. This is amazing. Why don't you tell folks a little bit about that?

I think that's awesome. And wasn't it with the Church of Christ? I think it was with the Church of Christ.

There's nothing to be embarrassed about, Matt. I actually, my view of you was heightened, not because,

I mean, I was laughing, but it showed that you were so well -versed in the issues that even as you walked away from the camera and you had to do a you know, that happens, right?

You were still commenting from the bathroom about the text, and it was just, it just goes to show how much apologetics and Scripture is integrated into your every day.

It was pretty cool. So why don't you tell folks a little bit about that? Yes, I've been going to the bathroom ever since I was a child, and it's been one of those things

I've had to go through. So anyway, I don't know what else you want to talk about, but yeah,

I have these headsets that are wireless. I can go anywhere, and sometimes during discussions,

I'll walk around the house, do stuff. But that time, I only would have gone because I really had to, you know, that kind of thing.

And so yeah, I've forgotten about that. But I've done it a lot more than people realize.

I remember it in great detail, because it wasn't just you, Matt. I mean, it was a funny moment because, you know, you were commenting, but when you had to use the restroom, you left the guy with a

Scripture that you can see him, like, physically grappling with. Like, he's reading through it, and he can't get around it.

And he was reading it, I think he was sub -vocalizing, and you were like, read the rest of the text from the bathroom.

But it was cool, because he was grappling with the text. He couldn't deal with it, but you weren't even there on the screen.

It was just, you know, you were just debating the guy from a different room. I thought that was pretty cool. It's not that big a deal.

You could do the same thing, and you know, you guys could do the same thing. You just have a portable mic. I mean, you're sitting here, you don't look at your notes all the time.

You know, you've got a lot in your head, and it's not that big a deal. It's like talking on the phone while you're driving. Yeah, you can do that.

It's not a big deal. Yeah. Well, all joking aside, Matt Slick has a first -degree black belt in apologitsu, and he's been doing apologetics for a really long time.

I'll be here all week, thank you. But Matt's got some great experience in apologetics.

Why don't you tell folks a little bit about karm .org and a little bit about your experience in apologetics, and then we'll dive right into the topic that we're going to discuss.

A little bit? Yeah, karm's old. I've done a lot. Okay, that's a good summary. Oh, there you go.

You've got great articles. I started karm 29 years ago, and it's had 165 million visitors at the last count.

Wow. And the reason I know is because I just checked it today for,

I think it was for a radio or something, and we've had 92 or 93 million returning visitors.

Wow. And so it's not bad. But I've written around, we did a more accurate count recently, written about 4 ,600 articles, 4 ,600.

And people think that I know all this stuff, and I don't. You research, you write, you move on, you forget, you go in, and it's like,

I didn't know I wrote an article on that. What's that about? And I learned, oh, that's right. Okay. So that happens. But doing 20 years of radio, written several books, and do debates.

I think I calculated recently over 100. So I don't know. Over 100 debates?

That sounds like a small number. I think you've debated more. I've listened to informal, depends how you're counting them, formal or informal.

I've listened to, I lost track how many debates I've heard you throughout the years. Formal ones, about 100,

I'd say, whether it's a range or something like that. But informal, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. Oh, yeah.

Because I go into discord, I go into things, and I'll actually have these, and people don't know I do this.

I'm going to just let them know. You know, I am autistic, and I say that because I do have hearing problems, and I do have a few issues there.

And that's for real. It's legit. I've been diagnosed. And so if I'm discussing something with someone, and they talk too much over, they over talk me, it messes me up.

And I can't focus. And so I just say, would you please just let me finish my sentences? It's not rude.

Well, in that is a formal kind of an arrangement to have discussions. And that has, to my surprise, really aided in just discussions and clarity.

And so in that sense, I've had hundreds, hundreds of them. And so I'm doing it all the time.

Still, even after we're done here, I'll probably go on discord, and look for some unbelievers and some stuff to talk to and stuff like that, because I can't help it.

As my wife said, we're in bed one time, back 30 years ago, we married 38 years and, and 35 years ago, whatever it was,

I said, Look, I'm done with apologetics. I've just had an I'm done, you know, you're in bed, just going to sleep, talking. And, and she goes,

Uh huh. I said, No, you understand. I just, you know, blah, blah, blah, this and that is too tough.

And all this. And she goes, Oh, yeah. I said, You don't believe me, do you? And she looked at me, and she said,

You've got it bad. You got apologitis, apologitis, apologitis, apologitis.

Man, you are just, I'm on fire right now. Good. I'm going to have to add those to the slictionary.

Apologitis and apologitsu. One's good, one you don't want. Apologitis. You don't want the I got it bad. Yeah, you don't want inflammation of your apolo, apologi,

I don't know. You, you're the cure for apologitis is, is when everyone believes the truth.

That's right. There we go. Well, then I guess we're never going to be cured until Jesus That's right.

Okay, so if you don't know about karm .org, highly recommend.

I'm a middle school teacher, and I use karm articles to incorporate into my logic class and my

Bible class and stuff like that. It is a huge resource. One of the things that I appreciate about Matt Slick is that he covers such a wide variety of topics.

You know, you can go to a website over here where it specializes in one little area, or you go to a website over there and it has one specific topic.

Karm covers, you know, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, some cults that you've never even heard of before, and just some solid, basic biblical doctrine.

So if you don't know karm .org, you know, get out from under the rock that you've been hiding under and go over to karm .org

and check out the articles there. All right, well, thank you so much, Jeremiah. Thank you, Matt. Let's jump right into the topic today.

We're going to be talking about total depravity. What is it? Is it grounded in Scripture?

And then we'll interact with some objections to the doctrine of total depravity from proponents of the

Church of Christ. And I'm going to be working from this book here. I was telling my guests about this book.

This was actually given to me to borrow, so if my co -worker is watching this, like, I'm not keeping it, relax.

But he let me borrow this because he used to, I think he came from the Church of Christ, and this is a book written by a proponent of their theology, and there's a section in here on arguments against total depravity.

So we're going to be talking a little bit about those straight from the book, and Jeremiah and Matt are going to offer some of their insights and response, and hopefully that's beneficial for folks who are listening in.

All right? So without further ado, let's dive right in. So let's start with definitions, guys, okay? What is total depravity?

And another concept that is typically kind of thrown into that concept is total inability.

Are they the same? Is it something that logically extends from that concept? And how does that work with original sin and things like that?

Jeremiah, why don't you share your thoughts, and then Matt, maybe you can give your perspective as well. Absolutely.

Total depravity is essentially the first point of the five points of Calvinism, and a lot of times we rightly say you have to start with the

T so we can see the logical consistency of what follows. But I will say, Calvinism, those five points presuppose an absolute sovereign

God who sustains all things and has purpose in all things, but so when you start with the sovereignty of God, and that's biblical, that He works all things together according to the counsel of His will, then

T, total depravity, is the state, the nature of man in which He comes into the world.

And so I like to kind of point, total depravity is the state of man after the fall of Adam.

So we exist in a state different than how Adam was created. And so like you said, this directly relates to original sin, and we are under the federal headship of Adam, and so Matt can definitely speak a lot more to that.

So total depravity, though, as we're talking about the anthropology, or essentially what is man, we are totally corrupt.

So the extent of our corruption touches all of our faculties, and that's why, Eli, like you said, man is unable to seek out after God.

And if I could point to one scripture that really gets the ball rolling and trying to ground, there's so many scriptures,

Old and New Testament, that speak to the state of man, his being, after the fall. And I also like to say that when children are born, they have the power of sin reigning in their members.

That's why we don't seek out after God. But Romans 8 says that, for the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile, so hates

God, is at war with God, for it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot, and then

Romans 8 verse 8, those who are in the flesh cannot please

God. So our natural state, we do not seek out after God, we love our sin, and we suppress the truth that we know about God with our lives.

Yeah. So you say original sin would be the sin that we inherit from Adam, total depravity is the idea that we are touched by sin and all that we are, including the mind, so the noetic effects of sin, and then total inability is a logical outflow from that concept, and that because of original sin and total depravity, we are unable to do that which is pleasing to God.

Would that be a good kind of way to logically connect the concepts? Absolutely. Okay, so you mentioned also the concept of federal headship, and that's where I want

Matt to come in, because I know from debates and teachings that he's given, he's gone into great depth in explaining this concept of federal headship.

Matt, why don't you explain for us what federal headship is, a definition, and then maybe kind of root that definition in the teaching of Scripture.

Sure, federal headship, believe it or not, is one of the more important doctrines in Christian thought, along with the Trinity, hypostatic union, communicatio ideomantum, justification, imputation, propitiation, federal headship.

I think it's a necessary part of theology in order to properly understand God's work.

Federal headship is a teaching, just basically, that the male, not the female, represents a descendant.

So if you think of it in those terms, it's rather short, but let me expand on it a little bit.

So Adam and Eve were in the garden, and she, Eve, sinned first. She gave the fruit to Adam, and then he sinned.

But sin entered the world through Adam, Romans 5, 12. Sin entered the world through one man.

And furthermore, when they were in the garden, and they were both hiding, the pre -incarnate Christ came to them and said, to the man, where are you?

He didn't say Eve. He didn't say Adam and Eve. He said to the man, where are you? So he addressed the man. You can also go to Hebrews 7, 7 -10.

It talks about Levi paying tithes to Melchizedek while on the loins of his father. You go to 1 Corinthians 15, 22.

In Adam, all die. In Christ, all should be made alive. In Adam is a term of federal headship.

In Christ is a term of federal headship. Federal headship, again, is the teaching that the male represents a descendant.

So Adam represented all people except Christ, because we get into the issue of federal headship and sin passing through the father and other stuff.

We won't get into that. And so it passed down through us. Original sin is the sin that Adam did, and we were in him.

And so when he sinned, we fell in him. And as it says in Romans 5, 19, through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men.

Actually, Romans 5, 18. Romans 5, 19 says, through his transgression, the many were made sinners.

Aor is passive indicative, which means it happened to them in the past. They were made sinners by Adam's sin.

The phrase, in Christ, is really important because those who are in Christ are the ones who are the elect and only the elect.

And we can go to Romans 6, 6, Romans 6, 8, Colossians 3, 3, and 4. It talks about the issue of dying with Christ, dying in Christ.

I won't get into it too deep now, but that's what it means. So without federal headship, we can't be saved.

Basic. And federal headship exists in the mind of God, out of Ephesians 1, 4, that he chose us in him, federal headship, before the foundation of the world.

There's a lot to teach on about it, but there you go. Would you say, Matt, I'm thinking of the story of Achan, who was really,

I guess, executed because of his sin. He took some of the booty of war when

God forbade anyone from taking that, and it says that him and his household, right, were stoned?

Is that an example of federal headship, that he represented his family? Yeah. Okay. So you have this all throughout, not just in the

Genesis example you gave, but all throughout Scripture, this concept of federal headship. Why don't you go into,

Matt, the results of denying federal headship? I mean, in terms of, if we don't want

Adam to represent us in the Garden, what implications would that have in terms of our understanding of Christ in the

New Testament? Well, Jesus is called the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15, 45,

I believe it is. So the reason Adam had federal headship representation is because of Christ.

We don't want to make the mistake of thinking that Christ is reactionary, so to speak, theologically, based on what

Adam did. Adam's representative head is because, from the foundation of the world, the inter -Trinitarian communion, the

Father elected in Christ. He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, so federal headship is right there in the foundation of the world before the universe was created in the issue of election, which necessitates the atoning sacrifice and Christ representing his people and only his people on the cross.

Hence, we died with Christ, Romans 6, 6, Romans 6, 6, crucified with him. So without that, we can't have any consistent theological package.

Formed theology, in my opinion, cohesively and comprehensively ties basically all of theology together.

I can see how it, I don't want to say all, interacts, but I really see how it works.

I really see its interrelationship. And when I talk to people who deny one of the five points or God's sovereignty or federal headship, their theology just becomes a smattering of hopscotch.

They skip this, they skip that, and they make the mosaic of their own theological perspective based on what they see and what they desire.

And so this is a problem, and it proves total depravity is true, because they don't want to submit to the scriptures. And a lot of people don't know this, but we're still totally depraved, even as Christians.

We still are affected by sin and all that we are, however made the creature second, Corinthians 5, 17, we get into all that stuff.

I know there's a lot, we're not trying to go too much, too deep, too fast, but there's a lot. That's good stuff. Now a lot of this flows from the doctrine of original sin, too, and I know that there are some people who reject original sin.

What biblical warrant do we have for the doctrine of original sin? Now that we're talking about, we've spoken about total depravity, federal headship, if someone says, hey, well

I don't, you know, that is predicated upon a particular understanding of original sin and how that impacts, you know, man and so forth.

How would we biblically defend, and Jeremiah, this is for you, how do we biblically defend the doctrine of original sin?

Dr. Greg Bonson was a renowned Christian apologist, philosopher, and seminary professor, and his life's work is now at your fingertips with Bonson U.

Bonson U aims to bring seminary -level education to every Christian anytime, anywhere, absolutely free.

Gain access to over 140 courses covering theology, apologetics, eschatology, and law, featuring sermons, seminary lectures, and more from the legendary

Dr. Greg Bonson. Now if you sign up today at apologiestudios .com and join over 13 ,000 users already benefiting from this incredible resource, you will not regret it.

And soon, they're expanding with Bonson U Plus and Bonson U Live, bringing fresh supplemental learning and real -time engagement.

Again, go to apologiestudios .com and start your journey today. There's probably a number of ways to do that.

Matt referenced Romans 5 .12 a moment ago, and that maybe is a good place to start.

And so we are represented in Adam from his sin. By one man's sin essentially brought death and condemnation on all people.

So Romans 5 .12, there's two verses I want us to point out, point to Eli. So that verse again, therefore just as sin came into the world, through Adam, and death through sin.

So death spread to all men because all sinned. How do we know that we have inherited something from Adam?

It's because we all experienced death. All will sin, and so the power of sin reigns in humanity.

So a lot of people try to say, well, you know, especially as we get with the church of Christ, well, we are born the same way that Adam was created.

So their idea is that it's a true Pelagian mindset, untouched by any type of sin nature.

It's the world outside that corrupts us, which goes against what Jesus said, because it's not what goes into a man, but it's what flows out of a man's heart.

But from that verse, that's where we would start, and like Matt talked about federal headship.

I think another important place is Ephesians chapter 2, because Ephesians 2 talks about how we are dead in our sins and our trespasses, whether internal or our mind or the things we do.

It's all corrupted by sin, and then verse 3 talks about how we were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind.

And so this fusi, this nature, is not something that you develop over time.

Now it's true that there's different depths of depravity. You got total depravity, and you have utter depravity, meaning we're not all as sinful as we could be, right, because of God's restraining grace.

But the idea is that this is fundamental to those children, meaning born of two parents, because there are three exceptions to this rule.

Adam and Eve were created, and Jesus added humanity to his divine personhood.

So we'll get into the virgin birth and how he was essentially born pure and holy, set apart. So we all share something from birth since Adam fell.

From the moment that he disobeyed God, his eyes were opened. His ontology changed.

Now the power of sin reigns in his members. And 1 Corinthians 15 talks about how we bear the image of the mane of dust, and so it's not just a mere reflection of Adam.

We are derived out of his very essence. Would you mention 1 Corinthians what?

What did you say? What was that reference? 1 Corinthians 15. Okay, let's read that there.

1 Corinthians, what was it? 15 what? What is it, Matt? 45, 46 in there?

I'm sorry to put you on the spot there. No, no, 40, let's see. Let's begin in 46 to get a little context.

Okay, so 46 it says, but it is not the spiritual that is first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.

The first man was from the earth, a man of dust. The second man is from heaven, as was the man of dust.

So also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Why don't you unpack that a little bit more for us, Jeremiah? Yes, so this is in the context of the resurrection.

This is fundamental to the gospel, and if we are in Christ by faith alone apart from our works, then we have been promised that even though we die, this sin -cursed body must be sown into the ground, but we have been promised to be raised one day like the man of heaven.

But until then, we still bear the image of the man of dust, and we must die physically.

So the point is wherever you see physical death, you better believe the second coming has not happened, and this means that we bear the penalty, we bear the nature of the first man that sinned against God.

He represented us. That's good stuff. Well, thank you for that, guys. Original sin, total depravity, total inability, all super important concepts in Christian theology that you guys who are listening, you want to be able to master those concepts, know how to define them, know where they are in Scripture, and defend them with Scripture.

Now what I want to move on to now that we've kind of laid that groundwork, is I want to take a look at this book here.

It's called Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ.

Now, I typically would ask Jeremiah, but since you kind of shared your thoughts, I'm going to ask Matt, can you, to the best of your ability, define what is the

Church of Christ, and what are some of their basic tenets? If you don't know, we can punt to Jeremiah, but I figured,

Matt, you've interacted with so many different people, and I thought about mixing it up there for a little bit, so I apologize for putting you on the spot.

Sure. The Church of Christ is a non -Christian cult that teaches the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ.

However, it denies the true gospel because it requires baptism by immersion in their Church in order to be truly saved of their sins.

So what they're essentially doing is requiring a ceremony officiated by their members and their officials for the validation of your relationship with God and the cleansing of your sin.

As simple as that is, and there's variations, you can lose your salvation if they're not legalistically consistent with God's and the rules and regulations in that Church and stuff.

So it's a non -Christian cult, and that's the short version, slick and quick.

All right. Now I do have a question, Matt, so I know there are, because I've had Jeremiah on in the past, and we've talked about the

Church of Christ as a cult, and I've received a lot of comments saying, hey, I don't agree with the Church of Christ, but I wouldn't call it a cult.

If you could break down for us why it is a cult, like why do you use that language?

Because when people hear the word cult, they think like something like the Jehovah's Witness, or the Mormons, or something like that.

Why would you put the Church of Christ in that category and not simply as a group that has some false teaching in it?

Because the false teaching that they have deviates one of the essentials of the faith.

Now, believe it or not, there are essentials. It'd be worth having a discussion. What the Bible says are essentials. It's worth a discussion.

I've written on it, taught on it, did some studies out of the Scriptures. What it says are the essentials. All right, not just my opinion, but what the

Bible says. Now, they mess up with the gospel, and we know that the gospel incorporates the issue of justification.

Now, if you were to go to Romans 4, 1 through 5, and I can quote it to you, but it basically, the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to righteousness.

Now, that's Romans 4, 5. You can go to Galatians 5, 1 through 5, and it talks about if you receive circumcision,

Christ is of no benefit, you would sever from the law. And the issue in the context there is not adding any ceremony or any behavior, anything you do in order to obtain the righteousness of God in any way.

And we can go to Romans, I can quote you the verses, Romans 5, 1, Galatians 2, 16, 2, 21, and these verses teach that we're justified by faith.

Romans 5, 1 says, having therefore been justified by faith. Okay, now, what I'll do is

I'll ask the Church of Christ people and others, does the Bible teach that we're justified by faith?

And I go through what justification is, the legal declaration of righteousness from God that's by faith. And incidentally, you want to look at Philippians 3, 9, which says that we have a righteousness that's not our own, a righteousness derived from God that we receive by faith.

Okay, so I ask them, are we justified by faith? And even the Church of Christ will say yes, because I'll read them the scriptures where it says that.

For example, Romans 3, 28, we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 4, 5, to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Romans 5, 1, having therefore been justified by faith. And I say, are we justified by faith?

There's no way to get her out of this. And I say, do you have to be baptized to be saved? They'll say yes.

Then the question is, I ask them, are we justified by faith? Yes. Are we justified by faith when we have faith?

If they say yes, baptism is excluded. If they say no, they're denying scripture. And what they'll invariably do when we get to this point, this is where you see the true colors of a member of a cult, is the rationalization and the denial of the

Word of God. And what they'll do, because they're more loyal to their church than they are to the person and work of Christ, that in their loyalty to their church and their organization, they're going to submit all things that you say and all things that might be understood in scripture to that church.

And so what they've done is said that baptism is a necessary requirement, that the ceremony of baptism is where you then are justified by faith.

So the point I'm bringing all this up is, real simply, are you justified by faith when you have faith?

Because if the answer is yes, you don't need baptism. But they say you're justified by faith when you have baptism.

But that means you're not justified by faith when you have faith, but when you do a ceremony. And I continually say the word ceremony to them, so you're saved by faith in a ceremony.

And they don't like that, but that's what it is. And I show that to them over and over. And so what they're doing is denying the gospel.

And of course, Galatians 1, 8, and 9, if we are an angel from heaven, should preach to a gospel contrary to what you preach to, let it be accursed.

They're accursed. Now, Matt, you debated, I think a gentleman by the name of, let me get this up here.

I wonder if, I never really thought about this, because I haven't heard of the

Church of Christ until I saw Jeremiah, it's just not the people that I run into. If I type in here,

Tim Kernan, remember? Yeah. Is he a Church of Christ guy? Is he a

Church of Christ guy? He is? Yeah, I was down in Bellflower, where I used to live when I was a kid, and I was visiting

Living Waters, you know, with Ray Comfort and them. And so I'm there, and they said, hey,

Matt, you want to do a little discussion with a guy at the Church of Christ? I said, sure. I'm in this t -shirt thing and jeans.

I go, sure. I show this debate every year for my logic class, and the kids are always like, why is that guy just wearing a t -shirt, and the other guy's dressed as...

Which one's the Christian? The one who's not well dressed. But I always explain that,

I always explain the... And they, the students, absolutely love it. I think they're, out of all the debates that I've seen you in, this one, you have, it comes across very strongly, you are just filled with Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, and it's an excellent example of pointing out fallacies and things like that.

This is why I use it for my debate class. The kids even laugh, and they shouldn't, but they laugh because when you refute something, his face, he, like, the way he looks, and his face is turning red, and they're like, they forget his name.

They'll be like, who's the guy with the red face again? Like, it just becomes he's the red -faced guy, and then the guy with the t -shirt. Just a little more context of that, because I said, yeah,

I'll do it, and when you want to do it, they said, in a couple hours. Okay, we did a discussion.

I get to this house, and these cameras are there, and all this stuff, and their crew there, and I'm like, oh.

Yeah. So that's why I'm dressed like that, that's why. It was an excellent debate. I listen to it every now and then.

I revisit that debate all the time, so. All right. Okay, well thank you for that.

Now what I want to do now is kind of shift gears and interact a little bit with their objections to the doctrine of total depravity, and so I, as I told folks here,

I have this book here, Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ, and I'm going to turn to chapter, or, oh, okay.

You're gonna make me read Roman numerals? It's been a while. Anyway, there's a section, okay, called Passages Which Refute This Fallacious Doctrine, and the fallacious doctrine in this context is the doctrine of total depravity, and so I'm going to read to you each of the points, and so Jeremiah, I'd like you to answer the first one, and then we'll kind of alternate between you guys, but feel free if you want to add comments to, you know,

Jeremiah's answer and vice versa. How does that sound? Perfect. Yeah, whatever. Whatever. All right, we're just we're just winging it anyway, so it's all right.

Okay. Okay, so I'm reading it straight from the book here, and folks can check this out.

Again, here's the title of the book if you're interested. I don't know if they sell this on Amazon. I mean, it doesn't look like, it looks like it's privately published, or yeah.

Okay, nevertheless, let's jump right in. Okay, so Passages Which Refute The Fallacious Doctrine.

Let's see, here's point one, Jeremiah. This is for you, okay? I feel like I'm a host of a game show. Okay, what?

Jeremiah, for $500, what heresy? No, I'm just kidding. Okay, point one.

Man became a sinner in youth rather than at birth, and then here they quote a scripture.

Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground anymore for man's sake, for that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.

Genesis 821. If man's heart became evil in youth, then it must have been pure before youth.

That's the main response there. How would you respond to that, Jeremiah?

So, number one, context is king, and so something I've noticed. No, no, no. Jesus is king.

Heretic. Jesus is king. I'm just kidding. Therefore, context, context is everything.

That's right. Because with church Christ, you have a handful of proof text. And so defining terms and examining context, that's what's going to help you dismantle the church

Christ from the core. And so with this verse, this is being quoted after the flood has essentially subsided.

So when this verse talks about how God will never curse the ground again, he's never going to flood the earth again.

And we know God will judge the earth again by fire, right, at the great Parisian. And so where the dispute is coming at is with the word youth.

Number one, I would say this is at the end of flood. There's a bookend. There's actually another verse I want us to consider in Genesis 6 right before the flood, but this is just a general reference to a person's early stages of life.

I would say it's ambiguous at best, and actually I think it proves our case. From the very early stages of our existence since we came in this world, our heart has been bent on evil.

So that bookend verse is Genesis 6 verse 5. The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that, and this is key, so whatever youth meant earlier, here we get it more explicitly.

That every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

So wherever there's thoughts, wherever there's intentions, oh, they're bent on evil. So I would just try to explain how there's more context here.

There's bookend verses, and this is just, this is in the early chapters of Genesis because the rest of Scripture is going to show us that we have the right understanding of what

Genesis 8 verse 21 is talking about. Okay, thank you for that. Matt, do you have anything to add to that?

Yeah, it's a logical fallacy. I don't know exactly what it's called, but it's a fallacy to assume that it's negating of sinfulness prior to youth.

It simply says the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth. It doesn't mean that it's not evil before it.

It's a sighting from his youth on. And then we can ask this question, what is the youth? It's a babe, a youth, yes.

So it really is not a good proof text for them. Yeah, okay. All right, Matt, this one's for you for 600 points.

No, I'm just kidding. Point two here. Man's spirit has been given to him by his maker, and the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto

God who gave it, Ecclesiastes 12 .7. If God has given man a corrupted spirit, then is it not unfair and unjust for God to uphold,

I'm sorry, unjust for God to hold man responsible for his corruption? Yeah, there's a lot of mistakes there.

One of the things I've noticed with the cults is they go to the Old Testament, and that becomes the final authority, not the

New Testament. That's not to say we ignore the Old Testament, but there's a general principle of interpretation. The New Testament interprets the old, not the old interpreting the new.

And so, furthermore, in Ecclesiastes, one of the things that has to be understood in the context of Ecclesiastes is simply that it says in chapter one, verse three, what advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun?

Now, this occurs a lot in the book of Ecclesiastes. In other words, he's writing from the human perspective.

It's not a theological perspective on the nature of the Trinity or soul sleep or whatever it is in the heresy of conditionalism, but that's it.

So, the spirit is given by the maker, returns it. He's just simply saying, look, this is how we see things.

That's all that's really going on there. So, also to say that God makes a spirit, now we get into what's called traducianism or creationism.

We get into the different views of how that works. And I'm just going to say, and I tell this to people when I'm talking about it,

I said, the Bible doesn't tell us exactly how this works. How is the formation of the soul occurring?

Does God create it, creationism, in the womb?

Or is it propagated through the union of the sperm and the egg and it comes down? And there's some variations.

So, we just don't know. And because we don't know for sure, you can't make a doctrine on something you don't know for sure.

And what they're doing is saying, it implies they're saying, God has made our spirit. So, it's a sense of creationism.

Well, if that's the case, then he made them depraved, not necessarily. So, they're assuming a creationism position, which does not necessitate that it's the correct position in scripture.

So, when I write articles and I try and use logic, I try and point these things out. Here's a view, here's a view.

We can't say it's conclusive this way or that way, but this is the implications of these views. There's arguments, so we can't say, build a doctrine on this one view, because that's how the correct view, when it's not stated by scripture as being the correct view.

There's a lot of other ways we could talk about this, but that's just a logic issue, the fundamental issue dealing with this kind of error of judgment, logic, and exegesis that they commit.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any thoughts there, Jeremiah, before we move on to the next one? Yes. So, this is poetic literature.

You definitely don't want to start there in building a doctrine. And so, that one verse, taken out of context, all it says is that the spirit, at some point, when he passes on the futility of man's existence, if it's not in reverence and obedience to God, the spirit returns unto

God who gave it. Does it get into how God created this, like he's saying, or how

God uses secondary means to bring about his end purposes? The second part of the question there, if God has given man a corrupt spirit, is

God unjust? Is God unfair? Well, is God not free to create a world to the praise of his glorious grace?

I would say this is a Romans 9 objection, and Matt Slick and I, we would talk about compatibilism, how both are true.

God can create a world for his glory and have a redeeming, sanctifying purpose in his world, and yet man is totally culpable for his actions.

So, I'm just saying there's so much presupposed in this objection that it's kind of laughable, because when you just talk about what

Ecclesiastes is even getting at, it's not trying to get into the application that the Church of Christ are saying, for one,

God would be unjust, and how is it that God has created man and how man's spirit returns back to God?

Would you say, too, that it's problematic to...because I know this happens a lot in debates between, like, Calvinism and Arminianism and all that kind of stuff, that people will tend to go to portions of Scripture that are not directly didactic, they're not giving the divine commentary on a particular situation, they're taking, say,

Ecclesiastes, which is written from the perspective of, like, man, okay, like, under the heaven, as opposed to saying, going to the teachings of Paul, where he's giving divine commentary as to how this spiritually, theologically, and metaphysically works.

Do you see that the Church of Christ tends to...well, not just the Church of Christ, but you see how people tend to do that, as opposed to going to those more didactic passages?

Absolutely, and I was going to say, you notice we didn't even quote a really important verse out of Psalm 51, where David said, basically, in sin did my mother conceive me.

Well, what is the Church of Christ going to do when we appeal to that? Oh, it's poetic, just keep reading. Well, don't go there yet, that's one of the things in the list, we can't jump out of order.

I got the book, I got the book. But to your point, you want a holistic worldview, you want to have the whole counsel of God in mind, because to your point, that's why we went to Romans 5, that's why

I went to Ephesians 2, absolutely clear, inescapable meaning of what Paul is trying to communicate.

So, number three, an infant is not depraved because God is not depraved. Paul said in that famous speech at Mars Hill, for we are also his offspring,

Acts 17 28. Being the offspring of God, a child is not depraved unless God is depraved.

No one could accuse God of being depraved, then why make the accusation against his offspring?

How would you respond to that? This is so bad. Paul is literally quoting a Greek philosopher, and as you study the

Areopagus there, he's making the point that we're made in God's image, and that's true. But there are so many other scriptures, we talk about didactic texts,

I believe it's 1 John 3 10, that says it is evident those who are the children of God and those who are the children of the devil, those who are not born again.

To me, this is probably one of the worst arguments of proof -texting, and I would kind of reductio, ask them, are you saying everyone is born a child of God?

You know what I mean? They know that flies in the clear, flies in the face of like when Jesus tells the

Pharisees that they are of their father, the devil. Now, one of their problems in the Church of Christ mindset is, you're born perfect, pure, like Adam was created, and you go astray.

You become a sinner by the things you do. It's nothing inherent with who you are. So they really want to...

So Jeremiah, real quick, I apologize. They would disagree with a common phrase that you tend to hear from like our circles, is that we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.

They would disagree with that. Yes, okay, all right. Does that make sense, Eli? The context of Acts 17 is talking about how we're image bearers of God.

Absolutely. And Paul in the Areopagus is he, presuppositionally, is taking something from pagans, saying, hey, this is right, but let me give you the

Christian worldview that contextualizes that, and you know that because you're made in that God's image. Right, kind of what

John does in John 1, well, chapter 1, right, in Archeanologos, he's using a concept that was very well known in the philosophy of Stoicism, but he's filling it with Christian meaning.

Same thing, Paul is kind of using the philosophers, but he's filling it with Christian meaning within the context of a

Christian worldview. Matt, did we get all that right, man? He's grading us. I see he's like nodding his head.

He goes, bunch of heretics. It's all right. Well, actually, this is a brag, about,

I don't know, six weeks ago, I was standing on Mars Hill. Oh, yeah, that's right.

Wow, that is a massive flex. See, I can't flex. You've got cool flexes. I used to have,

Matt, I had a real, I have a, in my back shelf, I have a signed copy of Defense of the Faith from Bantill, but that's it.

I mean, you stood where Paul was. That's pretty, that's pretty cool, so. That's right. Yeah, and I've been to Corinth and all that stuff.

I've been to, I've been inside the Qumran Cave 1. It's all shameless boasting, but you mentioned

Mars Hill, and it's not what I thought it would be, actually. It was something different, but nevertheless. So, being the offspring of God, the child is not depraved unless God is depraved.

That's a false logical necessity. Just because God is perfect does not mean that everything he creates is equal to him in his nature and is perfect in perfections and attributes.

So, it's just a faulty understanding. One of the things, and you mentioned it, the noetic effect of sin from the

Greek naos mind, there is a profound effect of sin upon the ability to think. That's the total depravity is, is that it touches all parts of what we are, heart, soul, mind, body, emotions, everything.

And so, we're all affected by sin. We're not as bad as we can be, but everything is touched by sin.

And so, the logic that they use is often very fallacious, and I'm known as a, some kind of known as someone who uses a lot of logic in debates and stuff like that, and I think it's really necessary for us to do that, but their conclusion is unwarranted.

It's not proper from what they're stating in the premises, so it's just invalid. I just show them it's not valid, and we can go on to, that's not going to work.

And then I say to them, sometimes they'll say, so you made a mistake, so that's the effect of sin on the mind.

Welcome to Calvinism. You proved our case. All right, here's the next point, point four.

The Holy Spirit declares that the child shall not bear the iniquity of the parent. The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 18 20. Look what we have in this verse. First, both righteousness and iniquity rest upon its doer, and not upon another.

Justice demands this. Second, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Those who insist that the child must bear the iniquity of the father,

Adam, flatly contradict this statement. I think that is for Jeremiah, I believe, if I've got the order correct.

Okay, so me and Matt talked about this a handful of weeks ago, because this is not only,

Ezekiel 18 20, the go -to verse for the Church Christ, but this will be also for the Eastern Orthodox to try to disprove original sin that the

Eastern Orthodox hold to ancestral sin. Very similar mindset. Very, very interesting. And Eli, context is killer here.

Me and Matt, like I said, talked about this. He adjusted himself. Context isn't king anymore, because we know Jesus is king.

Thanks, Eli. Iron sharpens iron, but go ahead. Yes, so I want to back up to opening verses of Ezekiel, because there is something—we've been calling it a number of different ways—but there are covenantal curses.

There can be the sin of the forefathers, the representative of the Israel nation, and that can have effects and consequences on many generations to come.

There can be blessings based on obedience. This is all found in the Torah. Obey, you'll flourish in the land, you'll be blessed for many generations.

But if you sin, then you will be removed from the land. And that could happen 20 years prior, and you're feeling the effects of something that you weren't even around to begin with.

So when you go back to the opening verses of Ezekiel 18, the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel. What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel?

It's important. The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

So this ancient proverb is we are suffering because of the sins of our forefathers who represented us.

And this is a scathing rebuke towards God of saying, you are unjust. So I want to time out and say what the

Church of Christ objection here, they are complaining that it would be unjust if we had a curse of sin and death from birth to death because of Adam.

So I'm already saying they're on the wrong side of the fence here. They are actually the ones like Israel complaining against God.

So when we get into Ezekiel 18, God is just equal measures.

So the soul that sins shall die. You will bear personal responsibility for your life before God.

Now, here's a key principle. Not all sin results in covenantal curses or brings about consequences on other people.

That's just true. And so they are misapplying this. I'm sure Matt knows the logical fallacy name here.

But a lot of times we're talking about the soul who does not sin still dies. Okay, it's a different context.

We have to go back to the early chapters of Genesis and the noetic effects on all of mankind that stem from Adam and so forth.

And so all Ezekiel 18 is saying that curses can begin with one person or group of people that affects a multitude to come.

That's the whole point of total depravity. We are suffering the consequences. Now, not just general consequences, but the direct punishment that Adam earned for his sin.

That is a one -to -one thing with infants that died. They experienced physical death, and yet they don't necessarily have personal sin.

But that is a direct consequence from Adam, which is the punishment that he earned that also just takes place on all of mankind.

So my whole big thing here, Matt, I want to toss it over to you, is this is actually affirming our case that curses can be true and we bear personal responsibility.

Okay, great stuff. Yeah. Matt, you have anything to add to that? That was pretty good. I don't know if you could... That was pretty good.

That was pretty good. I was impressed. I didn't think he had it in him, but I was wrong. I'm sweating a little bit.

So good job. Good job. There's only one thought I had, which really wasn't much of anything.

Nah, it was nothing. But no, it was great. Great, good stuff. Okay. All right. Great. Excellent. Thank you for that. Eastern Orthodox, be ready for the

Jay Dyers of the world that do this same thing. Ancestral versus original. Consequence versus representation.

Yeah. All right. Okay. Point five, Matt, this is for you. A little child is not depraved because man must become as a little child to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said, except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18 3. Yet many religionists teach that a child is hereditarily totally depraved.

We'll say that five times fast. Was Jesus teaching that a man must become wicked and corrupted to enter into the kingdom of heaven?

Of course not. Wow. How would you respond to that? Well, they couldn't think the way out of a wet paper bag. If it was on a

NASA centrifuge, the opening was out and it was spinning around a lot and it was greased. They still couldn't find a way out.

That logic there is so bad. So yeah, a little child's not depraved because he must become as a little child.

They're just completely different categories. The inheritance of original sin, which we can get out of Romans 5 .18, Romans 5 .19,

two critical verses we need to look at, we could look at about original sin. And I think what

Jeremiah said about the other stuff was very, very good. Very good consequence of other sins.

I've written an article on it too, but whatever. So it says must become as a little child. The context of that is just trusting of faith and justification.

That's all it is. So that they mix the category. I think it's a category error they're doing or mixing. There's a word for,

I think it's category error. Nevertheless. So what they're doing is saying faith of a child is one category and they're mixing it with inherited sin or the total depravity.

They're different categories, different topics. And so what they're doing is mixing the terms and they're equivocating, which results in the fallacy of category error.

So that's what they're doing. They're making these mistakes. That's why I said they couldn't argue their way to a wet paper bag on a NASA centrifuge.

I don't even know what a centrifuge is. All right. Thank you for that. It goes around really fast.

A tributal force forces it outward. Oh my goodness. Okay. Go ahead,

Jeremiah. So Eli, this is actually self -defeating logic because they're saying we're supposed to become wicked like these little children in order to obey

Christ. Well, this logic works against them because they believe babies do not need

Jesus. And so we could turn around. Are we supposed to be like these little ones who don't need Jesus? Is that the application that you're going for?

So it's self -defeating. Matt, Riley is saying... So you're saying babies don't need Jesus because they think that babies are pure.

Right. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry about that. I've interrupted you there. Okay. No, no, you're fine. I'm actually quoting Church of Christ advocates that just said babies don't need

Jesus, categorically. So that automatically contradicts Jesus being... An abortion would be good.

Right. And they don't like us bringing that up as well. So that's number one, self -defeating logic.

So on their own terms, we got to be like somebody who doesn't need Jesus, and you scratch your head.

But the context is really talking about becoming like a child who doesn't have any accomplishments and trust in other people.

And so when you keep reading, this goes against the entire theology of the Church of Christ. Become like these little children, and you will now enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives such a child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, these little ones who believe in me, cause them to stumble and be sent.

So the point is they're believing, they're trusting in Christ, not looking to their own accomplishments. And obviously for the

Church of Christ, it's all about their obedience. Matt mentioned here in the comment section here, he said, if babies are not sin -touched, why do they die?

That's a great point. Right. Well, now I just touched on this a little bit, but in Romans, death is redefined to be a mere spiritual death only, and they need that.

And then they'll abuse verses like Romans 7, 9, where Paul says, I was once alive, and then the law came and I died.

And they'd say, see, Paul's still alive physically, so he must've died spiritually. But all you got to do is keep reading, usually, because context is killer,

Eli, over there. And he talks about how sin was already present in his members. It just became consciously awake to it because the law pricked him, opened his eyes in a sense.

So it's not talking about he was a baby spiritually alive, and then he died the moment he sinned.

Sin already reigned in his members. Death, and Matt, I think, would like me saying this, death, there's two sides to this coin.

There's spiritual death, which is the power of sin that reigns in our members, and it guarantees us to return to the dust of the ground.

We are made as spiritual and physical beings. So when you go back to Genesis 3, death touches all of what man is, both spiritual and physical.

That is the definition of thanatos that Paul would have had being a Hebrew of Hebrews, saying the termination of physical life, and it has spiritual aspects.

Yeah, thank you for that. All right, next question is, question six,

David was not of the belief that his child died with a corrupted nature and guilty of sin.

Contrawise, he said, I shall go to him, but he will not return to me, 2 Samuel 12, verse 23.

I forgot whose turn it is. I think it might be Matt's, or your turn. Okay, all right. Go ahead.

So this is one of those verses that it's not super clear. Now, do I believe that babies that die in infancy go to heaven?

I believe that, and I don't think there's super clear verses that spell that out, but we trust in the just judge of all the earth to do right.

We trust the character of God in these situations. So I'm okay with saying scripture is not super clear, but convictionally,

I land that he saves the least of these, not because they deserve it, that they were born pure and innocent, and they somehow deserve it.

No, it'd be they would go to heaven based on God's mercy and grace, and so this verse just does not talk about it anywhere.

They are simply begging the question. They're reading their own theology into this verse, and so that's what

I would say is we all have to account for this verse, but when you really start getting into Sheol and the departed, this is not as clear as what people make it to be.

However, when you press into the story, what I think is interesting, David did find comfort in his child parting, like he got himself ready and he ate, but he wept bitterly over Absalom's death, and so I do think that that is weight of him finding comfort of returning to his child one day, but we believe in the reformed.

Whether we believe that all infants that die in infancy go to heaven or just the elect ones, it would be because of God's mercy and grace of regenerating them sovereignly is why they get to go to heaven.

Yeah, that'd be a great topic for an episode, you know, where do babies go when they die, and kind of talk a little bit about speculation that is protected by the boundaries of Scripture.

What are we allowed to say that are still in bounds with principles of Scripture? That'd be an interesting topic in and of itself, but Matt, did you have anything you wanted to say to what

Jeremiah just said there? I second that. Psalm 1223 is a verse I go to sometimes when

I want to discuss covenant theology, because we could make the case, I say it's not absolute, but there's a covenant aspect of faithfulness that his son was in under the federal headship covenant relationship of David.

Uh -oh, that Presbyterian coming out a little bit there. Absolutely. You keep your Presbyterianism to yourself,

Matt. We didn't invite you here to spread your baby sprinkling lies. No, I'm just kidding. Jesus was sprinkled.

We can talk about that. Let me tell you, the first time I ever met Matt physically, like personally, part of it was really cool, because I'd never met him before, and the first time

I saw him, he was trying to convince a group of people at a breakout session of infant baptism in New Jersey, New Jersey Fire.

Yeah, you were. That was the first time. And then the second time I saw you was, we were, I'll leave this. You know what?

I've embarrassed you at the beginning. That's all right. Okay. Well, I had to use the restroom and I'm using the urinal and there he is.

He just pops in the first time. I've never physically like met him face to face. And he's like, Hey, I'm like, Hey.

And then the friendship, it just, that's how it started. So our friendship started in the bathroom. That's right. I could only go up from there.

That's right. Only improve from there. That's right. It's a good thing. There's a divider within the urinal.

I'm glad you didn't say, Hey, are you Matt Slick? The church had dividers.

I have not met Jeremiah physically before.

I've only known him virtually there. So maybe one day I'll be able to see you face to face before the

Lord comes. Absolutely. All right. Let's go to our second to last question here.

You guys are doing a great job. I hope this is helpful for folks. What I want you to pay attention to is if you're kind of grappling with these questions or you're interacting with people who bring these things up, as you listen to their answers, don't just look for quote unquote, the answer, but pay attention to how they use scripture and weave scripture into their answer.

That's a really, really powerful way to respond to people, especially when we're talking about biblical issues.

It's very easy that we can kind of have a pat explanation for something, but we want to make sure that our answers are rooted and grounded in the word of God.

So pay attention to that. They're doing a great job in doing that. All right. Number seven, this question is for Jeremiah.

There we go. Okay, good. You guys are doing good. I'm like losing it. I'm like, well, who's next? Cause you guys, you guys pick up on what the other person said.

So I lose the order, but let's, let's, let's go with it here. It's Matt's turn. It's Matt's turn. Okay. All right.

All right. Matthew, Matthew, this is for you. It is, it is impossible for sin to be inherited.

Sin is a violation of God's law by either commission or omission. Concerning commission, whosoever committeth sin transgresseth, transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.

First John three, four relative to omission to him, therefore, that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him, it is sin.

James four, 17 sin is either a transgression or omission of law.

This being true. It is absolutely impossible for man to inherit it, inherit it because it is not an inherent quality.

How would you respond to that? Well, there's different directions to go. One is I'll go to Romans 5, 18, Romans 5, 19, and discuss the issue of original sin.

And those are critical verses that need to be discussed. And then the issue of inherent, inherent, we inherit the kingdom of God.

So that's, you know, first Corinthians six, nine. So if we can do that, and that means the righteousness that needs to be there.

So are you denying that we inherit anything from Christ? Because we're adopted and that has to do with legal work.

That's Romans of eight. So I think that they just don't understand the theological depth of the issues that they are going to.

And we can really get into these discussion quite a bit. But I see a lot with cults is that they generally do this, they have a verse, it's clear to them, all other verses of the contrary have to be interpreted in light of an inconsistency with the verse that they think is preeminent and the final authority on any particular topic.

It's a cult mind. I probably read a book or something on the cult mind. It's one of the things that they do.

And that's, and then what you're reading reminded me of that. So they don't have the theological depth necessary to understand these kinds of concepts.

And sometimes when I'm discussing things, I have to ask them, it's okay if I go over this with you biblically with a concept.

And I don't want to sound condescending. I don't, but a lot of times they just don't know. They don't know federal headship.

They don't know what it means to be inherent, to inherit the righteousness of God, what that means and the legal legality of it and how we're all under the law and adoption and all this stuff that just seem to be unaware of, which is why they say these things.

So to get through to them, I sometimes will go back to their foundations and uproot their foundations and then try and relay that in a biblical sense.

But yeah, we can inherit original sin of Adam because the Bible says so.

By the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners. That's Romans 5 .19. And it's the aorist passive indicative.

Aorist, past tense, passive means they received the action. Indicative means it's a fact. They were made sinners.

Now, I think the EO, Eastern Orthodox might want to use that for ancestral stuff. They can probably twist it a little bit, but we're talking about the issue of being made sinners.

They are sinners by nature because of what Adam did. And we get into the issue of the condemnation that goes to, because we can also see and necessitate the conclusion that children, babies have sinful fallen natures because they die.

If they are not fallen, they're not going to die because that's what the scriptures teach. Sin brings death.

Death, separation from God, Isaiah 59 .2, Romans 6 .23. So without that, they shouldn't die, but they die.

So therefore it must be that they have sin and we can get it from different stuff and move in particulars and go.

Okay. Jeremiah, you have any thoughts on that? Yeah. So Church of Christ always quote 1

John 3, 4 about sin is transgression of the law, and it misses what we're arguing for.

We're arguing for by nature we are sinners, meaning that from our very conception, we go out of the way not seeking out after God.

So for one, it's two ships passing in the night. We have to explain total depravity, original sin, total inability.

This is talking about our nature that affects what we do. That's why we're sinners by nature, not sinners the moment that we sin.

And it's interesting because I've never heard good answers from the Church of Christ this, but when you press James 4 .17

and also I believe it's... Well can I, I apologize. I'm sorry for interrupting you because I know you're in a flow of thought there.

But Matt posted in, pasted in Ephesians 2 .3, and I have a question about that because I was reading through this here.

I'm not sure if it was here. Ephesians 2 .3, among, let me see here, among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging in the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest.

I've heard some people use the term nature there as referring to habit. We are by habit children of wrath.

So they kind of try to understand the concept of nature differently so that it doesn't seem to be like that's something that we are just in virtue of the fact that we are in Adam or something like that.

Have you heard that before? Oh absolutely. So it's going to the Greek word fusi. Okay. And all the different lexicons are saying the same thing, and they're all excellent definitions.

It's a mode of action or habit. And so we have to ask the question, what is that mode set on?

Well, from birth we are set in opposition to God, and there is depths of depravity.

So yes, we can learn wicked things because we're not born as wicked as we could be.

So there is a depth that's going on there. But I always ask, what's the mode? What is the trajectory from birth?

And so that's the fusi there. When you compare how Paul uses this word all over the

New Testament, what's almost always the case, there's some metaphors that you can see, nature or natural, but it's talking about birth.

I mean, it literally could be translated birth. That's how synonymous nature and birth are, is the condition that all descendants of Adam exist in.

And there's a possession. We are born in a state possessing the wrath of God.

And so that is the trick, Eli, is they try to redefine nature as something you do.

And so I've asked, well, if I bark like a dog enough, does that make me become a dog? And they'd say, oh, that's absurd.

I'm like, yeah, because you are what you are by nature, by birth. But you are the apologetic dog.

So I mean, sorry, I had to break it up. So is he a chihuahua or a pit bull?

I think it's a pit bull with the beard. It was hard finding a dog that a beard looked decent.

A bearded pit bull. That would be scary if I saw a bearded pit bull, but go ahead. I shouldn't make light of the moment.

I mean, you are explaining something important, so I don't want to be that guy. You're good. Does that make sense, though? That is what they try to do is redefine nature in something that you do.

And I always say, OK, so if I do something enough, that changes my ontology.

Well, that's absurd. And so in the broader context, he's appealing universally. And I would add all of those born of two parents, because that does exclude

Adam and Eve and Jesus in a particular way, the virgin birth, so on and so forth.

And that's important for the doctrine of total privacy, because Jesus was born untouched, unscathed by the stain of original sin.

And Adam and Eve were created differently than how all of mankind are born by nature, children of wrath.

Excellent. Very good. Matt, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? Just real basic properties and characteristics and behavior emanate out of the essence of something that chooses.

So it's not a logical issue. And so what they're doing is confusing, equivocating, just like Jeremiah said, they're trying to change the meaning of the words so that it adapts to their theological perspective.

And so we need to address that. And the word only occurs 15 times in the New Testament. And so what

I'll do with people is I'll say, let's take a look at them. Let's see the context. And you can see the context. It's the essence of something.

That's what it is. And I say, you need to adjust your theology accordingly, etc. Right. And that's so important,

Matt, because some people might do like a word study and say, see, the word can mean that. And the issue is not that a word can mean something.

The issue is, what does it mean in the particular context in which it's being used? Not just the context of the passage itself, but just the conceptual context.

Like, what did people mean when they use that term in the specific linguistic context that it's being used? So there are different kinds of contexts that we want to pay attention to as well.

I think that's helpful. All right, here's the last question. Real quick, Eli, can I add one more? Absolutely. In the contrast, there's a chiasm.

So there's a massive contrast when you get into verse four right after, by nature, we're all born children of wrath.

But God, being rich in mercy because of the great love in which he loved us, he made us alive together with Christ.

By grace, you have been saved. So this is something miraculous that the great, powerful working of God accomplishes.

And I want to say, the Church of Christ, they do not see conversion as miraculous at all, because it's simply your complying, your obedience.

And I've often point out, so he made us alive together with Christ. That is a metaphor, and they want to take the miraculous out of it.

So I really think their theology contradicts clear teachings that this is something that God does.

He truly saves by his grace, not by your obedience. Excellent, very good. All right, this is the last point.

It's a short one, but I think it is your turn.

Okay, very good. All right, last question. The fact that God has not given a plan for saving infants is certain proof that they are not lost, that they are not sinners.

That's very...actually, that's interesting, because this is kind of an example of kind of overreaching the thing, the point that you're trying to...I

mean, obviously we're going to disagree with this, but just in terms of trying to present an argument, I mean, certain proof? That is a highly debatable proposition that they're making there, so I wouldn't call it certain proof.

But how would you respond to that assertion there, Jeremiah? Yeah, and this kind of relates to what

I was going to say earlier, too, when it says to the one that does not do good, to him is sin, so omission.

Children don't have faith. Romans 14, whatever is not of faith is sin, and so they don't positively obey

God. So I'm just saying, number one, there's a lack of righteousness with infants, so that's interesting.

Okay, so yes, the plan of salvation is consistent for humanity, those who have been born as the posterity of fallen atoms.

So here's how this goes, Eli. When you look at something as universal in condemning all of man, obviously

Romans 1, ungodliness pervades the world. We suppress the truth and unrighteousness. Romans 3, verse 9, talks about, for we have already charged that all, both

Jews and Greeks, are under sin. So I want to make a few points here. This is universal. All kinds of men are under, meaning that sin is a power.

It's more powerful than we are, and we are under it. We are a slave to it, okay?

So Romans continues to make this case that the power of sin reigns in our members. The church of Christ will say, well, this is just a conversation.

I can't wait to hear Matt's thoughts on this, if he has any. This is just a conversation between Jews and Greeks. It doesn't say anything about babies.

I literally am like, okay, well, none is righteous, no, not one. Oh, that's not talking about babies.

So I'm just saying the exception card gets placed, and you got some verses in it. It's kind of like Mormonism, where you will take that passage that there are no gods before me, nor will there be one formed after me of this world.

Look at a lot of that qualifier, of here. It doesn't say in any world, right? I mean, well, I mean, if you're going to be using that kind of argumentation,

I mean, that's problematic in and of itself. But it seems to, I seem to recognize kind of a similar tactic there.

Yeah. Well, and what I'm saying is, Paul is including infants, because he's talking about all of man that are represented in Adam are under sin, under its power.

We are slaves to it, none righteous, no, not one. No one understands, no one seeks for God.

And what's the result? All have turned aside. And so that's what they say. This is only talking about those that do certain things.

And so they've totally missed the flow of Paul's thought that's quoting an Old Testament truth. So this has been true,

Old and New Testament, since the fall of Adam. But no one seeks after God, so that when they do things, it's in opposition to God.

And one last thing, Romans just being very thorough, the universality of sin and its power, touching all of man, is when we get to the famous passage in Romans nine, we read about how, you know, you have

Rebecca, she conceived children, they were not yet born, and they haven't done anything good or bad.

But God, in order that his purpose of election might stand, we see his purposes.

So they just give a get out jail free card with infants.

And the question that you read shows that there's not great thought here. They view infants as those that don't need

Jesus at all. You want to be careful also to an appeal to emotion, which is a form of a logical fallacy too, because, you know, what about the children, right?

It's all about the babies, right? All about them babies. But again, even though that's a fallacy in terms of appealing to emotion in that sense, in like using an argumentation,

I do think it's a fair point in that if we do have all this theology that's laid out for us in Scripture, it is a fair question to address the fate of babies.

I mean, even if the Bible is not conclusive as to how that all works out, I do think it's a relevant question, and so I think it's fair to ask, although obviously we don't agree with their line of reasoning.

It's fair to ask, and the fact that there are infants that die proves original sin and proves child depravity.

Yeah, yeah. Matt, you have anything to add to that? Well, he just said exactly what I was thinking, that the fact that infants die proves total depravity is true, and unfortunately

I've had experience with this. I've literally had my son die in my arms, and so I can use that.

I don't want to use it as an unfair emotional ploy, but you know, I've been there, and I've experienced it.

Our son did nothing wrong, and he had a birth defect, the effect of sin upon him, and he perished.

If he's so innocent, I'm not mocking all that, but I'm just saying that's just a theological concept, then how do we deal with that?

And the effect of sin in the world, sin brings death, it brings destruction, and also something that's not taught, we're going to talk about,

I'd like to see what the Church of Christ's relationship with this particular topic is, because I don't know, is the

Adamic representation of nature, because sin entered the world through Adam, and so we have famine, plagues, disease, storms, you have tornadoes, you have earthquakes.

This is the effect of sin in the physical world, which necessitates the recreation and the destruction of the universe, and God's going to make all the elements melt, etc.

So I would be interested to know, because I just don't know, what the Church of Christ people would say about that issue of Adamic representation of nature, of the nature itself, not nature as in human nature, but how it works, because the effect, the deleterious effect of sin upon the world is there as well, and we're part of the world.

How could it be separate from us if he was not the representative? So my interaction on this very point is,

Eli, get ready for this. They see death as a good thing. They see death as a mercy.

So when we appeal to the last enemy to be destroyed as death, they see that as spiritual death, and it's

Church of Christ that births hyper -preterism, which is their whole song and dance that everything is merely spiritual, swallowed up in 70

AD, 70 AD, Flavius Josephus, 70 AD. So what they've done is separated the physical from the spiritual, and I've talked to A .K.

Richardson about this. I've tried to really reason with him. He sees physical death as a mercy, and I served as a hospice chaplain for three years or so, and I've preached at funerals.

Death is an intrusion to God's good design. It's an intrusion. It's an enemy,

Scripture calls, and we know it's both physical and spiritual, and so they look at even if Adam had obeyed man, then he still would have died 930 years later because it was kind of in the cards.

It was going to happen anyway. So my thought to your question there is everything, and it's similar to Old Earth Creationism, how you have certain kinds of animal death, disease happening before the fall, but I'm with you.

When Adam sinned, that brought a curse on the ground. Therefore, you have thistles. You have all of creation now groaning as a result of that, and so death is not good.

That's not part of Genesis 1 and 2 when you saw that God was making everything good, and when he made man, it was very good.

Thank you for that. Yeah, excellent. Guys, this has been super helpful for folks who forgot we are responding to objections against total depravity from this book,

Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ, and this is good stuff. I mean, the beauty of this topic is that it not only equips you with apologetic materials when interacting with folks who come from this perspective, it's giving you good, solid, basic Christian doctrine, right?

Matt can attest to this, I know Jeremiah could attest to this, the majority of attacks upon the

Christian faith is predicated upon misunderstandings of what the

Bible actually teaches. It's often a misrepresentation of total depravity entails, and you fill in the blank, and you have to correct this and things like this, and this is why it's so important.

I think it was Dr. Walter Martin, the original Bible Answer Man, who said something, I don't know if it originated with him, he said that in order to identify error, in order to identify counterfeit, we need to be familiar with the original, right?

People who kind of study counterfeit money. You familiarize yourself with the original article, and then you're able to identify falsity, because these false doctrines, these false teachings, often come with great subtlety, and so it can actually be difficult to identify if you're not well -versed in what the

Bible actually teaches. And I'm listening to folks like Matt Slick and Jeremiah and others, it's a great way to train your mind to learn how to identify false doctrine.

Now I want to conclude with this, Jeremiah and Matt. What I want

Jeremiah to do for me is give us the Church of Christ gospel, and then

Matt, I want you to give us the biblical gospel, and then we'll end there.

I think that's an important point we want to pivot. We're not just doing—I don't want to get on a soapbox here, but you need to understand,

I'm talking to my listeners, you need to understand the necessary relationship between apologetics and evangelism.

They're not separate, and so when we're doing apologetics, the heart of our apologetic is the proclamation and defense of the gospel, and so it is not enough to simply offer refutations and responses.

We need to be able to do that in such a way where we keep Christ and the gospel center, and so I want to kind of do this towards the end here.

Give us the Church of Christ gospel, Jeremiah, and then Matt, in your well -versed and experienced way filled with Scripture, give us the biblical gospel.

Go ahead, Jeremiah, you go first. All right, fellas, you must obey the gospel, you must hear, you must believe, you must repent, you must confess, and you must be baptized, as I've heard many people say, and that's the five -step formula of what you must do to obey the gospel, and you have to remain obedient and remain faithful, and did

I mention it has to be at the Church of Christ? If you find another church with another sign that says

Baptist or these denominations, they're sectarians, you've got to do it in the Church of Christ.

You got to do it in the Lord's Church. All right, thank you for that. Obey. Obey, Matt.

You got to obey. Trust and obey. There is no other way, isn't that the... They changed the lyrics, by the way, to Amazing Grace instead of When I First Believed.

They changed it to When I First Obeyed. What? Are you serious? For real? I'm... Yes, I'm dead serious.

Oh, wow. Matt's like, those are fun words. That angers me because,

I mean, obviously it's bad, but to change such a thing to the false doctrine, you know,

I've offered challenges over the radio to the top Church of Christ people to debate these issues, not heard anybody accepting, but I would be glad to debate them.

I know Jeremiah would be more than willing to do that, and quite capable. I'm sure Jeremiah's better at it than I am. He came out of it, he knows the nuances.

Theologically, I would love to tackle them on just occasion. We need to do a two -on -two, Matt, me and you teaming up. Absolutely.

I would do something like that, absolutely. I'd moderate it, that'd be great, that'd be an excellent debate.

Yeah. You got to get away from the heresy of Jesus and...

and that's always the false gospels come down to Jesus and something. Jesus and your obedience,

Jesus and your faithfulness, Jesus and your sincerity, Jesus and your sacraments, Jesus and the confessional,

Jesus and your baptism, Jesus and not going to see R -rated movies, or whatever it might be. But the true gospel is that Jesus Christ died on the cross, rose from the dead three days later, and he bore our sins in his body on the cross, 1

Peter 2 .24, and he rose from the dead. He did everything that was necessary to complete everything.

He finished it on the cross, John 19 .30, to tell us that it is finished. He did everything. And so we are justified, we're made legally right before the

Lord by faith alone in Christ alone. We can go to Galatians 2 .16, 2 .21,

we can go to Romans 3 .28, Romans 4 .5, there's so many verses to go through that teach.

And the reason is, is by him alone, is because he's God. He did everything perfectly, and we cannot.

And everything that we touch is affected by our sin, even our sincerity before God. And in fact,

I get to the point where I don't even want to ask anything of God anymore, because I'll ask wrong, because I can't even trust the wickedness of my own heart.

And so the true gospel is to ask Jesus, and trust in what Jesus did, alone and completely by faith, to humble yourself, bow your knees, your heart, your mind, and say, only in you, only what you've done.

I'm not even good enough to remain faithful for a second. I'm not good enough to remain faithful at all.

I just need what you have. I go to you, Matthew 11 .28, and rest in you, and receive you by faith alone,

Romans 4 .5. That's it, that's the gospel. And it's free, and it's easy. And Satan is the one who works through the

Church of Christ, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, to say that you and the goodness of your own heart, your sincerity, along with the work that you can do, and what

Jesus can do on the cross, is sufficient. The illustration I give, I know I'm going on a little bit, the illustration

I give is there's a cross, and there's the hill upon which Christ has died, and he's up there on the cross, and the blood is dripping down onto the dirt, and you're crawling up to that cross, and you only go so far because you can't go any further.

You are simply not worthy to even raise your eyes to look above the blood on the ground, and the filth and the mixture of what he has done there on the dirty earth, you're not even worthy to look to that, and you're sitting there, and you hear the sound of someone approaching, and they're on all fours, and they approach, and they pass you up, their heads are down low, and they approach all the way to the cross, and at the cross, they reach into their vest, or whatever it is, and they pull out a list of what they've done.

My baptism, my being good, my being sincere, they tap it onto that cross, and they humbly back away, because what they say is what

Jesus did, the blood of Christ, and what I do, and hopefully God will accept both of those for my salvation.

And that's what it comes down to with all the cults. It's what Jesus did, and what we did. Both bring you salvation.

With true Christianity, the true gospel, only one does. That's faith in what Jesus did completely and totally, and even that faith is granted to us by God, Philippians 1 .29,

and our believing is the work of God, John 6 .29, so he gets all the glory. Amen, amen.

Thank you for that. I mean, I felt like I just became a Christian just now. Hi, Eli.

Something that may be helpful to listeners is the church of Christ, they don't have the proper distinctions of justification and sanctification, and when you fuse those together, you've now committed the

Roman heresy, right? You don't have a proper law gospel distinction. There's no meaningful distinction between faith and works, because they look at faith and the system of faith.

You gotta believe in the right system of faith. You have to be faithful, so faith gets redefined into faithfulness, or faith is a synecdoche for the five -step formula, because when you contact the waters, the watery graves of baptism, that's what washes away your past sin in their mind, but here's the problem.

You need a positive righteousness imputed on your account. It's not just enough to have your sins washed away, right?

Because somehow, I guess, God doesn't see your future sins in their mind, but you need a positive, perfect righteousness that's not your own, that's untainted by sin, and so they fundamentally deny penal substitutionary atonement and the great exchange of the gospel like Matt was talking about.

This is excellent. This is great stuff, guys. I really appreciate that. I really hope that people are benefiting from what they're, when you watch this, you're benefiting from this.

I mean, just hearing the simple gospel after explaining these other things, it's so important to understand how these all interrelate, and this is what

I love about theology and Scripture, is that everything is connected, right? One of my favorite definitions of apologetics was given by Cornelius Van Til on the first page of his

Christian Apologetics. He says that apologetics is the vindication of the

Christian philosophy of life over against the non -Christian philosophy of life, and basically what he means there is apologetics is the vindication of the

Christian worldview, and that emphasis on worldview really helps highlight the interconnectedness of the gospel, the person and work of Jesus, the biblical anthropology, and these sorts of things, because our apologetic flows out of the soil of our theology, which is rooted and grounded in Scripture, and so listening to you guys talk and seeing how these are all connected,

I hope people really appreciate the interconnectedness of God's truth, the system of truth that we're given in Scripture.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, this, I've been talking with Jeremiah Nortier and Matt Slick. If you have not subscribed to their channel or availed yourself of their content, please, please, please,

I know YouTubers say this all the time, you know, click the notification, press the like button, whatever, but seriously, you need to go over and support

CARM, the Apologetic Dog, and even, as you guys have known by the time this video comes out, you guys know that I've linked up with Apologia Studios, and they're doing great work as well.

Go over to that YouTube channel and check out the website, there's so much resources available out there for you guys to help equip you to proclaim the gospel and to defend the gospel.

Well guys, that's it for this episode, I'd like to thank both of you. Until next time, take care, God bless, bye -bye.