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.

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 sins, 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 620, 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 foreword 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 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 was 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 it, 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 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 can 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. So it's not a big deal.

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. That's awesome! Apologitsu! 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. I started karm 29 years ago, and it's had 165 million visitors at the last count.

Wow. And I just, 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 figure, we did a more accurate count recently, written about 4 ,600 articles, 4 ,600.

And, you know, 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 a hundred, so I don't know.

Over a hundred debates? Yeah. 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 a hundred, 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 thinking, and I'll actually have these, and people don't know I do this.

I'm gonna 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, it overtalked me.

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

As my wife said, we were in bed one time, back 30 years ago. We married 38 years and 35 years ago, whatever it was. I said, look, I'm done with apologetics. I've just had it. I'm done. You know, you're in bed, just going to sleep, talking, and then she goes, uh-huh.

I said, no, you don't understand. I've just, you know, blah, blah, blah, this and that is too tough, and all this. And she goes, uh-huh, 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. Apologitsu. Apologitis.

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

Slictionary. That's right. Apologitis and apologitsu. One's good, one you don't want. Apologitis. You don't want the inflammation. I got it bad. Yeah, you don't want inflammation of.

Your apologi I don't know. You know, the cure for apologitis 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 comes back. That's right. Okay, so if you don't know about Karm .org, I highly recommend it.

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 doctrines.

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

Alright? 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. 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 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. And you can also go to Hebrews 7, 7 through 10, talks about Levi paying tithes to Melchizedek 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, or all men were made, actually Romans 5, 18, Romans 5, 19 says, through his transgression, that many were made sinners, aorist passive indicative, which means it happened to them in the past, 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 go to Romans 6, 6, Romans 6, 8, Colossians 3, 3, and 4, where 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 even 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? 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, 2nd Corinthians 517, 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've spoken about total depravity, federal headship, if someone says, hey, well I don't, you know, that 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 512 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 512, 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 experience 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, right? 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 innocent, 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 man 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. And 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 says, 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 gonna 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.

They can lose their 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 or 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 him godly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 5, 1, to therefore having, 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, 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 and 8 and 9, if we are an angel from heaven, should preach to a gospel contrary to what we preach to you, 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 I I into.

Here... 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 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 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'll do the discussion. I'd 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 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 gonna 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.