Matt Slick Q&A 3-29-17

We're on? All right. So if any of you got questions, let me know. Kyle, you got any questions? No questions, huh? All right. Now you had some questions because your folks were gonna...

All right, let's see. Put a little light on him, too, because he looks pretty bad. What? You look good. He does not look good. Look at him.

He's not good, but he looks good. I don't know. He looks pretty bad. Kind of like a ghoul. Kind of ghoulish. Yeah. I gotta find it. See, that's what happens with ghouls, is their brains aren't working right.

In the darkness, they're... Oh, you did. Okay.

Okay, so the question is... So Hezekiah pleaded with God to extend his life after Isaiah told him he would die, and God then told Isaiah to go back and tell him he would not die. Yeah. What about it? Well, there...

I think the question is that God... Sorry. God was responding... To them. Yeah, to them, and not the other way around. In light of what I said earlier.

Yeah, what I was talking about earlier was eternal decrees, choosing, and salvation, and things like that. On the human level, of course, God interacts with us, and we perceive that interaction, and things like that.

Did God know that Hezekiah was going to pray and ask for 15 years, or for a longer life? Of course. Did God decree that that would happen? Of course He did. He ordained that it would happen. So He ordained that Hezekiah pray so that God would give it to him.

It was all planned. No problem at all. So we don't say that God doesn't interact. The issue of God's eternal decrees and Him being reactionary in the eternal decrees sense, that's different. That's a different topic.

That's what I'm having a problem with. With some of the people who say that God looks into the future, so to speak. To see what people will do in different circumstances. Then react before the foundation of the universe.

In order to make the universe in such a way that it will do what He wants to be done. That's the problem. But when God interacts with us, and He does. You know, Adam and Eve were in the garden, and the pre-incarnate Jesus came walking with them.

And if they were to say something to Him, God would react and answer them. That's not to say that it's not decreed. Or it's not within God's sovereign will. Or that people don't react to God on a human level like that.

Not at all. No problem. It happened in the gospels. Just read Jesus talking to people. But God's the one who's ultimately in control. People don't like that. Because they want their own control. But we are responsible at the same time.

Next question. Whatever. Rob's got one. Man, we need a light on them. You look ghoulish too. Alright.

So, on the topic of will. Could you explain? Because I know people are thinking it. Total depravity. And man's will within. Okay.

So how does it work? Man's freedom within his confines of sinfulness. This is where I appeal to scripture. Above philosophy. The Bible says that the unbeliever is a slave of sin. Romans 6, 14 -20. Who can do no good.

Romans 3, 10 -11 -12. Does not seek for God. Is at enmity with God. That's Ephesians 2 -15. Is harsh, desperately wicked, deceitful, cannot be trusted. Jeremiah 17 -9. He's dead in his trespasses and sins.

Ephesians 2 -1. He is by nature a child of wrath. Ephesians 2 -3. He cannot receive or understand the things of God. 1 Corinthians 2 -14. Out of his heart goes murder, adultery, rapes, pillaging. Things like that.

Mark 7 -22 -23. Is harsh, desperately wicked, deceitful, cannot be trusted. Jeremiah 17 -9. Since the Bible says these things about people. What I conclude. Is that if you're a slave of sin. A hater of God.

Who can do no good. And cannot receive spiritual things. And you're full of evil. And you're dead in your sins. And by nature a child of damnation. Then your free will. Is only capable of operating. Within what the scripture says about you.

Which is. Hater of God. Can do no good. Does not seek for God. Doesn't want to do this. Cannot that. Cannot this. So therefore we conclude. They can't. So I would say that total depravity. Biblically this is a reformed position.

That people are free. Free will is simply the ability to make uncoerced choices. But. They have to be consistent with their nature. And so as the revelation of God. In scripture says. The unbeliever is a slave of sin.

A hater of God. Doesn't seek for God. Then he's free to choose those sinful things. And if that's the case. That what I'm saying is correct. Then it would not. If I'm wrong. We would not need to have verses like God.

Predestining people to salvation. Ephesians 1, 4, and 5. Causing them to be born again. 1 Peter 1, 3. Being born again not of their own will. John 1, 13. Being chosen for salvation. 2 Thessalonians 2, 13.

Appointed to eternal life. Acts 13, 48. I don't know which ones I've gone over already. And verses like that. If it's up to the person's free will choice. Then why does God say. You have to be granted the act of believing.

Philippians 1, 29. Granted repentance 2 Timothy 2, 25. Our belief is the work of God. John 6, 28, 29. So you see. If it's true that sin has incapacitated. The fallen nature. Excuse me. The fallen nature has incapacitated.

The unbelievers ability. To freely choose Christ. In a good work of redemption. And choosing him. Then if that's the case. Then we would expect to find those verses. Where God opens the heart. God grants.

God this, God that. That's exactly the case. That's why Jesus says you cannot come to me. Unless it's been granted to you from the Father. John 6, 65. And he grants what he believes. Philippians 1, 29.

And it's not the case. That God grants us believe. Means that he grants us. Circumstances and opportunities. To exercise our free will. If prevenient grace is put upon us. That enables us in a libertarian free will sense.

To then freely choose God on our own. Not what it says. It says he grants that we believe. So that's how it is in scripture. And that's what I believe. That's what free will is.

Defining what free will. That's another thing. There's debates on it. You going to ask a question? Josiah? Alright. So just on a very surface reading. It seems like Cornelius. Would be kind of an exception.

Cornelius? In Acts. Doing what? Because he was seeking God. Before encountering the gospel.

God certainly draws people. And they're covenantally affected. God can work covenantally with Israel. See, God can work with a group of people. He can covenant with them. The nation of Israel. Jesus was sent only to the nation of Israel.

Not to everybody. Matthew 15, 24. And people were, by circumcision, entered into the covenant of Israel. God works covenantally with them. People within that realm can certainly desire God. And want God.

Because they're covenantally made aware of these things. And they're under the covenant faithfulness of God. And they can talk to that people. And they can want and they can desire him. But they're only doing that because God.

John 6, 44. You cannot come to me unless the Father draws you. So they have to be drawn. And it has to be the work of God. So when we get to the point of regeneration. And this is one of the things that a lot of people don't understand.

What irresistible grace is. Irresistible grace is not the position that you cannot ever resist God's grace. That's not what that is. It means at the point of regeneration. That you cannot successfully resist the will of God and the grace of God.

You will be regenerated. So Cornelius is a man who God was working on. Preparing. And at the point of God's calling. Regenerated him. He believes. That kind of a thing. And this is one of the things. I'm going to say this right now really fast.

Calvinism doesn't have all the answers. Arminianism does not have all the answers. No theological system has all the answers. The one thing that I've been most stopped by is this kind of a thing. Molinists don't have they say they have an answer.

They don't have an answer. Why does one person behave a certain way in a certain circumstance and the other one does not? People say it's their free will. Why does one person's free will enable them to do this and enable them to do that and the other one does not?

And this is the question that we can go round and round about. And what I see in scripture is this. Is that the more we preach the more people get saved. So we get God for ordained that we preach and predestinated get saved but we keep doing that by our free decision to go preach the gospel.

Now how does that all work? I don't know. I just know that's what happens. And so I believe in God's predestination. I believe in God's election. And yet I preach and teach as much as I possibly can in order to get people to know who Jesus Christ is.

And that's just it. It's one of those things that's just beyond us to understand. Beyond anybody to understand. That's why they gave the gospel today to that Roman Catholic guy over the radio today. In a more advanced way because I want him to understand what's going on.

Yep.

Is this kind of the practical application of John 10. Sheep hear my voice. They come to me. John 10 27 28. My sheep hear my voice I know them.

And they come to me and I will cast them out and give them eternal life. It's my sheep. Now who are the sheep? And Jesus says in John 10 15 I think or earlier I forgot where. You are not of my sheep. And that's why you don't understand.

So then we get into the group. Who's the sheep? Who's the goats? Are they goats and sheep by election from eternity? It's another complicated topic.

So a second ago you said that it depends on how you define free will. Can you elaborate on that?

Yeah if you define something one way better than another way it has different reactions. Even more? Even more. Okay. So what is free will? The ability to make choices. Or the ability to make choices that are not forced on you.

Or how about this? Because in those two my cats have free will. Right? So is that descriptive enough to say it that way? To be able to choose X or not choose X. Well then my cat has free will. Alright.

The uncoerced ability to freely exercise a choice. No problem. But that's not really descriptive of anything. It describes unbelievers. It describes believers. It describes angels. It describes God. There's no real differentiation here what free will is.

Because I like to know what is it? Let me take a step here. See people say to me prevenient grace. God gives prevenient grace to people. Okay what is prevenient grace? Is it a cup of prevenient grace on that person?

Is it a spray? Is it a substance like the Catholic system and sacerdotalism? What is it? Is it a movement of God upon them? What is it? Because I want to know what it is to know its effect. But they don't know what it is.

Grace is unmerited favor. So what does that mean? These kind of questions. I literally ponder these kind of questions about that and the issue of free will. Because people have been telling me let's say free will is the ability to be able to do something right or do something wrong without being coerced.

See that's what free will is? Yeah. Well then that excludes God. Because God can't choose to do anything bad. So now what you're doing is defining free will in a way that excludes the creator who should be the standard of what it is we define things by.

Not sin of course. But certainly if we're made in his image and we have freedom which is a communicable attribute of God. He communicated that ability to us in being made in his image. Genesis 1 .26. Then shouldn't we at least include God in the definition of free will?

Yeah. But I rarely ever find anybody who likes the free will issue and I ask them what it is. They rarely ever define it that encompasses God. Because they're starting with man. That to me is humanism.

They're using man as a standard. Man has to be able to choose or not choose. He has to be able to accomplish bad or not accomplish bad. Otherwise he's not really free. Oh. Does that apply to God? No. Because he can't choose to do bad.

Then how are you going to redefine free will? Once I was in a discussion with somebody recently defining free will on the Christian. First thing he did was he went to an atheist definition. Why are you doing that?

So we can have common grounds of neutral thing. So in order for us to discuss what free will is from a biblical perspective the revelation of God to really understand the issues of what God is saying we need to appeal to an atheist definition.

And you can see why I would have a problem with that. And he defended that position. Well just try to be neutral. Nobody's neutral and I don't want neutrality. I want biblical revelation as a source of my understanding.

So. Can God choose to do evil? No. Is God free? Yes. Then how do we define free will? The ability to make unforced, uncoerced choices that are self-generated and that are also consistent with what you are.

Now the second part consistent with what you are, of course that makes sense. Why would you say that? Because then that includes God. He's holy. He can only choose holy things. A sinner is a slave of sin.

He can only choose sinful things. And definition works for both. So if we're going to have a definition that excludes God that's not acceptable to me. Because we are made in the image of God and free will is such a critical issue and free will comes from God because he has it that we better be able to define it in a means that is consistent with his nature in essence as well.

He says be holy for I am holy. He doesn't say be holy if you can try and really do a lot of push-ups you'll be okay. He says be holy because I am holy. So we need to define free will because it's the standard of God.

See ya. That's what has to happen. Got a question? You can hold her up. People would love to see her. Unless it's on camera. It's up to you. Right there. Right there. Does it have to be on topic? What?

Any question. How do you know, as a new believer and your knowledge is very limited on all this stuff, how do you know when you can start preaching to people and people in cults?

Preaching as in a sermon or just defending the faith? Well, in any aspect. Teaching somebody. Whenever the Holy Spirit gives the opportunity.

So without any being able to quote verses like you and you can still it's appropriate to still teach even though.

You may be erring in some errors or in some ways. Chuck Smith founded Calvary Chapel. I used to go to Chuck Smith's church. And he told a story that I never forgot. He said that there was this new convert of a young girl.

Early 20's, late teens range. And she's a new convert. She was excited about Jesus. And what she decided to do was go out to the park and just witness. And she would go out there I think on a weekly basis, he told the story.

Go out there on a weekly basis and she would just preach the gospel. Just to people who would listen. And this one atheist guy came up and asked her all kinds of stuff that she did not have an answer to.

Technical stuff. And she just said, I don't have an answer. But all I know is Jesus died for her sins. That's what she said, for your sins. And if you trust in him you can be saved from damnation. Just trust in him.

And he got mad and he left. So this incidence between he and she he and her occurred for several weeks. Each week she'd go out there and he would show up. And she said, oh no, here he comes again. Another difficult question.

Another difficult question. And she didn't have the answers. Me? Oh, here's an explanation. I get all the answers. Okay. She didn't have all the answers. She just preached the gospel. Weeks later he comes back and she said, oh no, here he comes again.

And he walks up and he says what do I do to get saved? And became a Christian. So, do you have to have all this knowledge? No. You need this kind of thing if you're a teacher of stuff like this. And you do apologetics on a broad scope, then you gotta have answers.

To preach the gospel? You just need to know what the gospel is. That's all. Online questions?

Now, we have an ODS listener. Okay. And I asked him to move on from the very first segment to ask his question in this segment, but we have questions that are older than that. Whatever you want to do.

The Jewish... Matt Slick once said, I don't see the point of the distinction of natural and free knowledge. My question is would he recognize the distinction of knowing something is possible and something is actual?

Of course there's a distinction between.

A distinction between knowing what is actual and possible because one is actual and one is possible. When I talk about God's natural knowledge, where I understand it is probably a mundanely simplistic view.

It just simply means God knows all things that are possible. That's what I've understood natural knowledge to be. All things that are actual and possible. Okay, well then that means he knows everything.

And so I just don't see a distinction of necessity with middle knowledge and free knowledge at that point. So what I suspect will happen is that people are going to start saying well here's the nuances that you would have to understand.

And that's fine. So I'll admit I've not studied those three issues as much as I'd like to to get into those nuances. But I don't see much difference or necessity of differentiation yet. So there you go.

Next. Are you going to read questions? Yeah, sure. Jackson is our OBS listener. Okay. So, Jackson,.

How does the Reformed view of the total sovereignty of God square with the conditional covenants or promises by God made towards humans throughout the Bible? I'm referring to if-then statements in which it appears that God is giving man a choice between two options which will in turn predict set consequences to come to pass.

Example, Exodus 19 .5 or Deuteronomy 7 .12. I don't see any problem at all. I've already answered the question.

And dealt with that earlier. God's sovereign decrees and sovereign ordination is perfectly consistent with if-then statements. If you do this, then this will happen. That's exactly correct. Is he saying, though, if you do this is based upon your libertarian free will, which I don't know what you're going to choose, but if you do this and this and that, that's not what's happening.

In what sense does the if-then statement occur? If-then is an actual possibility or potential possibility, and either one is known by God, and only the actual possibility can be foreordained by God.

So, he does condescend to our levels to speak to us in anthropomorphisms. He comes to Adam after the sin in the garden and says to the man, where are you? Did he know where he was? Of course he knew where he was.

What's he saying? Well, he's saying more than just a question, where are you? He's dealing with the issue of an anthropomorphic kind of a relationship, in that God has reduced himself so that we can understand certain things, and there are certain moral responsibilities that we have if-then statements are true.

If this happens, then that is a consequence, of course. God tells us that. We have the ability to operate freely, and we do operate freely, and God knows the conditions that will happen under different circumstances.

I have no problem with that at all, because he says, what are you, Chorazin? What are you, Tyre? If these things hadn't happened, you would have repented. But then we get into this issue right here. Necessary congruence.

That's a phrase I coined to explain something. But we may get into that a little bit if I have time. But the issue here is that if certain things happen, I think I will get into it right now, the reason things will happen is because that's the necessity of things happening.

Let me explain. So, we have, for example, the cross, and we have, this is eternity here. And here we have election and predestination. But these can't occur without the reality of this. So they're necessary to that congruent.

Necessary congruence. Election and predestination cannot occur without the cross. Without the cross there can be no election and predestination. And so, when we are walking around here, and we get redeemed here, by our faith in here, that can only happen, okay, this election and predestination can only happen because of this.

A necessary set of conditions that are congruent. They necessarily must be in relationship with one another. So the same thing with what are you causing? If you had, if you had done these things, there'd be necessary congruence.

Not only would you have repented, but the reason you would have repented, because the other conditions necessary would have also been in place for that to occur as well. So an if-then statement has a necessary congruence to it.

If this, then that. Because if God has the cross, He can elect. He can predestine because of this. If this then that. But if this, then that. And so there's this necessary congruence that kind of works, both in the if-then statements, is how I see it.

That God can call certain things to occur and say, if this happens, then that will happen because He knows. That's how He would have ordained it in that circumstance. And if He did, then those other things would have happened because God would not just say, this one thing will happen and maybe, oh, it's a bad one, maybe that'll happen with it.

Nope. There's a necessity of what God ordains will occur with other things that occur. So if this happens, it's because God ordains it, then that will happen because that's what God ordains. He knows and He's telling them what the conditions are.

At the same time, we have the ability of human responsibility. And the reason we have human responsibility is because we're free will creatures. Made in the image of God, we have the ability to make those choices.

Yet God does not force us to make those choices. He allows us, but yet at the same time they're ordained. And they are arranged by God to occur, yet we're free at the same time. Right? Right. He didn't catch it.

I thought it was good. It was good right in there. He just went like this. It was a smooth dodge. He went... It was kind of a smooth dodge. It wasn't like... It was like... Yeah. That's not what John 3 .16 says.

It doesn't say whosoever. It says pasapustun. It says the believing ones, all believing ones. It says this. Here, let me do this. Actually, John 3 .16 actually says in Greek not whosoever. Whosoever is this.

Okay. That's whosoever. Alright. What it actually says is pasapustun. Whoops. Alright. All the believing ones. That's what it says in the Greek. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that all the believing ones would have everlasting life.

It doesn't say hos in the Greek, which is whoever. Okay. Oh, you got it. There you go.

Now he's ready. What? Next one. By the way, Jackson said... Do you remember Jackson from the Parliament of the World Religions? Is he.

The Mormon dude? Dude, how are you man? Hey, yeah, I remember. Yeah. He's the guy who recommended my site to me, not knowing it was me. For real. I didn't read all the literature about you can't witness and proselytize.

I was so doing that. And I saw this guy coming up. I go, man, he looks like a Mormon. He walks like a Mormon, looks like a Mormon. Really nice guy. And we got talking. About this, about that. And I'm asking him questions.

And he said, you know what? After about five or ten minutes, he goes, you know what? There's a site you ought to check out. And I go, really? What's that? He said, CARM. And I said, really? He goes, yeah.

He said, you're... He was actually seriously very polite. He goes, you're the kind of guy that would like that kind of site. Or something like that. And I was chuckling. And I said, oh, I agree with you.

I would. And I said, yeah, because I'm the guy who wrote it. He goes, what? And so, it was kind of a nice coincidence there. No, but he was a nice guy. Yeah, he was. I remember him. He wrote me later, too.

On. You want me in? You want me in? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Let me in. Come on. Here.

Chip. Alright, there's another question. Man, you look more ghoulish with that one. Oh, I know. As bad as it gets. So, this next one's from Michael. Michael A. Williams. How do you respond to an Armenian who asks, if men are totally depraved and can't respond to God on their own...

Can't positively.

Respond to receive Christ on their own. Okay.

Then why would God have to send a strong delusion on them and speak in parables.

So that they would not believe? Okay. Strong delusions out of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and speak in parables that he won't believe is out of Mark 4, 10 -12. So, here's my response to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2.

The reason he would send a strong delusion is further judgment. God gives judgment not only in the day of judgment, but also in this life as an exercise of his sovereign right. That is shown to be the truth in Romans chapter 1, verses 18 -32.

Where it says there, he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and their minds. He's giving them over to. He's allowing them to believe the lie and increase them in their unbelief and being given over to.

Why do that if they're totally depraved? Totally depravity means they cannot freely choose God of their own free will. It doesn't mean they can't act bad. It does mean they act bad. And being given over as a judgment means they're going to act even worse because that's what they desire.

They're getting a judgment upon them. 2 Thessalonians 2 sent a strong deluding influence on the belief of the lie. For one thing, God does that because that's what he decrees will happen. And second, that is his desire that they believe the lie in that sense.

In the permissive will, however you want to call it, he desires that they believe that lie to accomplish his will. Now, King Sihon in Deuteronomy was delivered over because God desired to put him to death.

I forgot the exact references. I want to say 243. I don't know if that's right or not. It just came in my head. I don't think that's right. 2443? Whatever. I can see, almost see it. It's kind of weird.

So when he says that he sent a strong deluding influence, it's not because they're going to believe the gospel. That's not what the implication is there, but because it's even more of the deception upon them for the purposes of allowing other things to come into fruition that God has ordained.

As far as Mark 4, 10 -12, why would Jesus need to speak in parables? This is my answer. Jesus is God in flesh. If he commands it, it's going to occur because that's the nature of God. If he were to speak a command to people for them to repent, they've got to repent.

So if the non-elect are there, he speaks in parables so that they will not come to that place of repentance because he says he speaks in parables so they will not be forgiven. That's what he says in Mark 4, 10 -12.

That means it's God's choice that they not be forgiven. So why would he do that? This is my explanation. Because his word is so powerful and so strong and so sure that if he were to command that they believe, they're going to.

But they're not elect, which is why they don't. He speaks in parables so they won't. Like it or not, that's my position. Next. What's that? I'm preaching. When? Sunday. Want me to mention it? No, don't mention it.

Okay. So I'm preaching at Calvary Chapel Eagle, 10 o 'clock. The service starts in which is April 2nd I think it is. 2017 here for later, whatever. So I'll be preaching on. Get this. I'm not going to give the whole message, but the basic thing is the inter-trinitarian communion with the eternal decree and the eternal sonship.

I'm going to start off with that and I'm going to bring it down to the communion you hold in your hand. Because we're having communion that day and I have to give communion. And I'm intimidated by giving communion every single time.

Because I am not worthy. So anybody who wants to go, you're invited. I'll have slides. I'm going to go click next slide. Now look at this. And now see this. And I'm going to show something out of the encampment of Israel.

And some stuff. Anyway. Is that where you attend? Yeah. I go to Calvary Chapel. Even though I'm a five pointer and they're not. I'm all mill. They're not. If at baptism, they're not. Post-trib rapture, they're not.

But I go to that church and he let me preach. I've preached five or six times now. Because I don't preach or push Calvinism. I don't care. And just a good example of what it means to have people who can fellowship with differences of opinion.

And then a week after that, I'll be preaching here. Literally upstairs at four o 'clock on Sunday. This church right here. Oh. At 1400 North Cole Road in Boise, Idaho. Next to the Albertsons. So Pastor Chad asked me if I'd preach on the resurrection.

So I'll be preaching on that. And that'll be a covenant issue.

Too. A little bit of the resurrection. What? Alright. The next question is from Tammy Blue. She says Tammy Blue? Yeah, Blue. I don't have any disagreement with what you have said, Matt. My question is that when God creates people who have a purpose to glorify him, Pharaoh, Adolf Hitler, etc. Is it difficult to reconcile or it is difficult to reconcile that they are created and destined for damnation because of their hearts?

He does not create evil. Yes. Why is this so?

He creates all things according to his will. He does all things according to his will. Ephesians 1 .11. He makes all things even the wicked for the day of destruction. Proverbs 16 .4. In Isaiah 43 .7, it says that we're created for his glory.

Those who are damned can glorify him as well as those who are saved can glorify him. There is an interaction of some sort that God does not reveal on how we are with him throughout history and his eternal decrees.

I believe this is way beyond us and I don't believe anybody should even venture into trying to solve these issues because the scriptures simply don't declare them. We know, for example, and I think it's 2 Samuel 24 .1 that the anger of God incited David to number Israel but in 2 Samuel 24 .10 David said he's the one who sinned by doing that.

So God is in control. God influences but people are culpable. People are responsible. So Hitler, for example, no one forced him to be evil. No one forced him to do that. A lot of people don't know this, incidentally, but he was a low-level corporal in World War I who got involved in the occult and very few people know about this.

And when he got involved in the occult and astrology and if you know anything about Hitler and you've done any research and documentaries on him, you'll know that at the end of the war he was appealing to astrologers constantly.

And they had some hunts for Longinus' spear which is the spear that pierced Jesus' side and some other things and some spiritual artifacts. He was involved in the occult. Some Christians think that that's what fueled his rise to power.

And then the spiritual connection with the hatred of the Jews in Germany. I personally believe that if Christians had been in place of the Jews then the Christians would have been the ones who have been assaulted.

And no, Hitler wasn't a Christian even though he said he was a Christian. He said it for political reasons. He could lie and do what he wanted. So he was involved in the occult. No one forced him to get involved with the occult.

No one forced him to do these things. Yet in God's sovereign plan, he's like Pontius Pilate, he's like Herod. Predestined for these things to occur in God's sovereignty. We don't know why God would allow it.

I have a theory though. Let me just jump into the theory. Sheesh. Genesis 2 .17, God says to Adam, the day that you eat of this fruit you're going to die. I believe he was talking not only to Adam but to everybody who ever lived.

And Jesus says, I think it's Matthew 24 .22 He says, if those days be not cut short or not be cut short there'd be no flesh, no life left. I believe that the prophecy of Genesis 2 .17 the day that you eat of the fruit you're going to die is referring to all who are in Adam, 1 Corinthians 15 .22 and Romans 5 .12 that in sin and the world and all sin and that it's going to bring us to the place of damnation, excuse me, of bring earth to the place of self-destruction.

I'm a pessimist when it comes to our future. I believe that things are going to get so bad as there'll be apostasy, wars, rumors of wars, pestilence, famine, there's going to be the rise of the Antichrist, there's going to be the killing of Christians, there's going to be blasphemies of all sorts, people's hearts will go cold, there's going to be hatred, people are going to turn each other in, it's going to be bad.

And then Jesus says, if those days be not cut short, no flesh will be left. So that's what I believe. I believe it's a gigantic I told you so when he's going to come back and stop the destruction of the world.

That's my view. I know it's not very optimistic, that's just my view because I see scripture and that's what I interpret scripture to teach, ultimately. So, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong are all those who are in God's sovereign plan to help bring them bring the world to its fruition and to allow the world to come to its fruition of death.

Whenever anybody rises in power who's not a Christian death, not whenever, but a lot of times death is the result. If you were to look at atheistic regimes and those who openly were against Christianity, in the 1900s over 100 million people were killed by non-Christians.