Apologetics Live 0001 | CARM | Matt Slick | Andrew Rappaport | Striving for Eternity HD 720p

You may have yourself selected.

But that's what that means, but it started to be looking good in the morning started.

This is what happens when it's live.

Okay, so here's the beginning of what we should have played in the beginning of the show.

Ready.

Matt go for it.

Statements either true or false.

I gave you a statement and you said it doesn't apply.

It's not only to that statement would be either true or false.

So is it true that I'm talking to you?

Is it true?

That is true statement.

I'm talking to you.

Is that true?

Yes, okay.

Is it true that babies exist?

Well, I mean Babies exist babies exist.

Is that true?

Or is it not the case?

That is true.

Okay, we're done.

With Matt slick and Andrew Rappaport part of the Christian

podcast.

All right, Matt.

From calm org.

Yes, that is the intro we have for now.

But we don't know if that's going to be the intro for we're gonna be looking for I think a contest for intros.

Cuz I know that's not a bad idea.

You didn't like the first thing that John came up with but.

Now we just need something simple.

We don't need to get all this fancy stuff.

We just say, you know, hey welcome to match look live blah blah blah blah blah or whatever.

Apologetics live and we just start talking because I find that just because you can do something doesn't mean you ought to do something.

All right, so Matt before I know.

Folks if you're watching this on YouTube if you go to apologetics live comm from there

you'll see the links where you can join in ask questions of Matt and and.

So that will be something you could do now.

We do have at least one person in here now and I think I think this is the Scott who contacted me on Twitter.

So we're gonna get to him in a bit.

He wants to talk about social justice stuff with us, but Matt first before we go.

I there's one thing I just before we get started, you know, I had something I wanted to play.

It's it's a little bit longer.

It's it's like 10 minutes, but I think this it's a good start for us.

It'll get you in a good mood or not.

You ready for this?

All right.

So let's play this.

So John what exactly happened this weekend?

And how is it that you came up with this idea and plan?

I knew that you were gonna be coming.

I don't know like six months or so or whatever it was and so I was a little looking forward to having you here and It struck

me like, you know Really funny if I got like Matt's like to do something for Andrew

as far as the whole buying you a meal and because I know about

that struggle that he has and.

So, um, so what I wanted to do I contacted Matt slick and I and I gave

him the idea.

I just kind of planted that little seed in his brain thinking.

Hey, wouldn't it be great if you can show up?

You know while Andrew is here in Washington You can like magically just show up here and surprise

him and and pay for his meal.

That would just be awesome.

He's like, oh, I wish I could.

I would love to do that.

But I got to take care of the wife and you know.

And I got other things to do and I just won't be able to make it.

Okay.

Okay, so I thought okay how about then how about I go to the restaurant wherever we're

at and then I'll give you a call and then I'll pan the phone over to the waitress or the

cashier and you can pay the meal.

Right through the phone and he loved the idea.

He was like, oh, yeah, that would be great.

So then I passed that information over to Aaron and Aaron was going to go ahead and set up the details

when it came to.

Okay, so so let's start with this.

Right right off the bat.

I'll stop this for a second here.

So you and John had this plan, huh?

You guys you're gonna get.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well Aaron's gonna explain a little bit of what happened and why it was a fail.

That it was probably he had a better idea.

We're gonna still get me back one day.

So I will pass it off to.

I concur with John that this was many months in the planning.

There was a lot of time and effort text message Facebook messaging that went into this and

we I drove by the restaurant Thursday at 315 and I spoke with

Daniel the manager who gave me his assurance that Clara the hostess the following night

would be in full agreement with this plan.

He said it sounded like a great thing.

Reviewing and assessing our efforts so far.

It seemed that threatened you.

He would probably.

To the maturity of a five -year -old I went through every effort.

This was a no.

No.

Would you actually believe that I would act like a five -year -old there Matt to try to prevent you from buying me lunch.

You you wouldn't.

Possibly believe that.

Would you I?

Have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, would I would I argue with the hostess.

To I wasn't there.

So you gotta tell us.

But do you would you make.

I mean is it believable that I would argue like a five -year -old.

Just to make sure you don't out slick me.

Yes.

So.

Essentially because Aaron went on for about ten minutes.

So he's too long.

So here's the thing eventually what happened was I Managed to get this beautiful bad boy for you, which is

the bill that I paid for myself when I out slicked you yet again.

You're gonna get me back one day, aren't you?

It's gonna happen.

Yes, well it is and I'm gonna have to eat a lot of crow aren't I yeah, yeah barbecued.

Yeah.

All right, so I'm gonna add in Scott let me Let me give you

some The Twitter that Scott had he tweeted and brought him in

so Scott had said.

And and Scott you'll tell me if this is the same person I'm gonna assume that you are but

it says Andrew he said I'm.

I'm not I Volunteer as a tribute.

I'm not anyone special that you can cat you can categorize me as one of the woke Millennials.

You mentioned on the podcast episode.

He's referring to the rap report podcast and just listening in.

So he has some concerns with social justice now where I thought this would be good Matt is because as I

bring him in You're you haven't been following all the stuff with social justice.

So no, I I figured to be better To have him discuss with you concerns.

He has with social justice.

You approach it from a biblical perspective and what the issues we'd see with it and

that way.

This could be something where you can You know, maybe help Scott see where the biblical

position would be so Scott welcome to the hangout.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

I want to make sure my my headset is.

My Bluetooth headset is coming through.

Okay, okay.

You are coming through.

Awesome, so so what's your concerns with the social justice.

And.

And let's see if Matt can help you go, you know work through this.

From a biblical perspective.

Yeah, so I guess.

And I I want to I guess.

Start off by saying I appreciate the invite.

Honestly wasn't expecting an invitation to a live conversation.

I was more interested.

Expecting maybe some more interaction on Twitter, but I appreciate the the invite and the

opportunity.

And I guess.

Just for your audience in terms of my background.

Can you can you speak up a little bit?

Yeah, or Matt.

What you can do is maybe you can go into the control room and just raise his volume up.

Yeah, go ahead.

Let's keep talking.

I'll take care of that while we're so.

Yes, so Scott.

So what's your issues with social justice?

Why you know you you obviously you should.

For yourself being woke I want you to explain to Matt what that is so that we can you

see he can interact with you on that.

Sure, and I and I want to get to that.

But I just want to let you a little bit from a biographical standpoint and and how I would I would prefer to

approach the Conversation if that's okay.

I think that would just be helpful from a background standpoint.

I'd rather not just be the random guy from Twitter if that's okay.

So so Matt my my name is Scott and I've Actually am a

Christian.

Grew up in a Christian household went to a Southern Baptist Church went to a Christian

conservative reform Christian University.

Still attend church and heavily involved in church Reformed theology.

I Had a passion and was

Made a hobby out of apologetics growing up as well.

Did a whole bunch of reading and studying and thinking through the arguments and all that stuff.

So when I say that I'm a You know a woke millennial.

That's that on Reference to Andrews podcast.

I was you know specifically to the context of some of what he was talking about.

But it was in the context of he had just on that same conversation on Twitter said.

That he was concerned that people were responding to him or were responding to the social justice statement

but you know he he wanted them to go listen to his actual his actual podcast and and

the some of the explanations that were Being given he was concerned that that wasn't happening.

Instead people were just kind of talking over each other.

So it's really important to me in this conversation to

Hear out as many sides as possible and to You know give the other side

their due so I went and listened to the podcast and and then I that's when I made my comment so

I do consider I mean technically you could label me as a quote woke millennial unquote.

I don't mind defending that phrase.

But you probably are not Going to hear from me.

Or from a perception standpoint.

I'm not maybe what you might like.

Yeah, so just let's get to the discussion.

So so I want you to define.

Explain what you mean by woke millennial.

So so we you guys can dialogue with that.

I think that's sure.

Yeah, well, I mean again what woke millennial is the phrase that I heard on the podcast in terms of what do I

have?

What are the issues that I have with social justice?

There has been Over the last four or five years a significantly significant increase

in the church.

And by the church, I'm I'm referring to my corner of the church, which is the more conservative reformed

Excuse me Baptist Broader evangelical circle about how

does you know, how do how does the church engage with social issues?

And there's been a lot of pushback on the church adopting what is perceived as social justice issues or

becoming social justice warriors and my concern or my entrance into this conversation,

therefore is I think that there's probably a lot to be said about agreeing on

terminology but as I understand it, I don't see there being a

With with the way I see social justice being defined by some of these pastors and leaders in the

church I don't see there to be a conflict with that and what I read in Scripture.

So, I guess that's maybe a an opening line or an opening statement but again

I'm happy to go into any further detail in any one of those areas if you if you have

specific questions, I'm Not you.

What is it you think the church is doing wrong.

In like one sentence so we can I mean.

I would say that the church is Not

Is is too quickly hearing something that sounds to them like what?

secular movements are saying and is quickly rushing to

Use that definition and understanding and too quickly overlooking how okay.

Well, let me let me jump in.

Let me jump in.

Let me just jump in.

Define what social justice is.

Just quickly.

A Lot of definitions there for me.

I define I would define social justice as The parts of

society that Are not that are that are not

as optimal as they could be.

You're not being specific not as optimal as that requires me to say.

What does that mean?

Sure, what is social justice?

Give me a one -sentence definition.

So.

Try to narrow this down for me personally.

Would you say that it is something where the Christians are supposed to fix social?

Problems that happened in the past and they owe people recompense for problems past sins.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far.

No.

What do you find it?

And again, I.

Because I don't know we're discussing here because you give me a lot of background information.

But I have no idea what to do with it and I need to know what you're talking about in order to discuss it.

So what does it mean?

So what do you think social justice is?

So, let me I think I think I hear what you're you're asking for.

Let me let me say this then.

I Think that as far as the church is concerned There are

issues inside of the church that I think that we need to address that are social justice related.

I think that's related to the ways in which the church Has not

lived up to the scripture in the past speaking specifically about slavery, but I think that there are some okay.

I you know what?

I'm sorry, but I'm just Waiting for you to define it.

And I'm asking the same thing over and over again.

And then you don't define it and I'm not trying to be rude, but you're just talking and so what do you I mean?

I can come back in a half hour when you're done talking about it and then ask you what are you talking about?

I mean seriously.

Can you be more specific?

Yes, what is social justice?

Social justice is bringing justice to those areas of our communities and society

That are not explicitly dealt with by law.

Okay, so what about it?

I Would.

I'm.

I guess I'm confused.

That's how I define it.

Okay, okay.

So you define it as something that are you saying Christians need to be involved with fixing things in

society?

I Absolutely believe that.

What things should they fix.

Give me two or give me one just just I don't get a long thing.

What's one thing they need to fix in society?

Respectfully I I believe that Christians should be involved in Fixing as much as we can in

society.

Give me one thing so that we can focus on the one thing I can talk about it because you

say all kind of things give me one a specific.

Something that I've been looking into recently is how in the when it comes to

foster care the foster care system and deciding How kids when when a child is taken away

from their parents and put in the foster care system.

There are a foster care.

Differences.

Foster care.

Sorry, what?

Okay, just foster care.

So one of the issues that needs to be fixed is foster care.

Okay, so.

What are we why are we talking about this.

I don't understand.

You have a question for me or you want this as a platform to say stuff.

Let me give it this way.

Let me ask it this.

So do you being that you use the term woke?

Do you believe that Matt and I and I guess you being white are?

Racists.

No.

Okay, so that's.

So the term woke means that we have woken up to the social justice that the church is

the the cause of racism that the.

He brought up the issue of.

What was it foster care.

Foster care?

Yeah, I I don't know what he's talking about.

I mean, yeah things should be better.

He's saying things should be better in society.

Yeah, they should be.

Okay, that's all I had to say.

After all this was things need to be better in society.

Yeah, I agree.

Now what?

So I would say things need to be better in society.

I think everyone agrees with that.

I hope everyone agrees with that.

You've taken 15 minutes to get to that or 10 minutes.

Are we going to continue?

I'm a little like I'm a little bit put off by a constant Non

-explanation of Things that I have to wait and I'm sorry It's just difficult to even know what

you're getting at.

Well, I had to extract it out of you so you.

Yeah, so so.

Let me let me come at this from a different way then.

No, no, no, no.

No, I don't want you to come in for a different way.

If you have a question just ask me the question and we can have a discussion.

Because if you come in from different way, I'll be waiting for that or five minutes based on what you've already done.

Just what's your okay?

Um, yeah, so let me let me come back with a question then.

What do you think?

Basin from scripture, what do you think?

The Christians obligation to.

Like how would you teach The what obligation a Christian has

to work for the good of their society, right?

Obviously we we take care of you ask me the question.

Okay, that's a question.

That's the question.

Let me answer the question.

Okay.

What we need to do is preach the gospel and get people converted.

We need to be praying that God would raise up people godly people.

We need to vote properly and we need to voice.

What needs to be voiced at the right time in unison against unrighteousness and but the gospel needs to be the thing that's going to

save people.

That's what we need to do.

Change people in their hearts.

But you will change other issues if we try and do moralism.

Moralism by saying let's just change how adoption is done how this is done how that it the externals.

We're not going to win the battle.

We're not going to win the battle.

Sir, okay, certainly and I wouldn't.

I would not disagree that the gospel needs to be central To any work that is

done.

I would then follow up with another question when you say we need to vote as the number two item on the list.

How should a Christian vote according to Scripture.

He should vote according to Scripture.

Certainly, I would say that there are there are arguments that could be made that

Christians shouldn't that because democratic forms of government are not found in the Bible.

Then then we really don't have an obligation to vote.

How about that?

Where is there an obligation to vote that we find in Scripture?

Okay, I'm really frustrated with you and I am I don't feel like we're getting anywhere.

You keep asking me one question.

You know, I can go to Romans 13 and say be subject to the government.

We're set up the system that we are right now.

So what we do is we vote.

This is simple stuff.

So there's.

Scripture that's going to talk about in a System of government that never existed before that time.

You didn't you didn't have people getting that that the American voting.

System.

Right, but that's precisely I asked the re.

I asked the question for a reason.

The reason I asked the question is because we don't have American representative forms of government found in Scripture.

We have to apply Scripture as best as possible to the society that we live in.

The concern that I have with social justice is that there is a theme of social justice in the

broader secular world, which is.

We need to use the government to fix all of the problems that we've caused for ourselves in the past.

I Do not agree with that.

However, when I see Prominent Christian leaders even whole churches

say we think that Certain issues are

important.

That made not May not

match up perfectly to a certain Political party or may require may involve

some form of why.

We're done.

We're done.

We're done with.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

We're just moving on you're just taking thinking ever.

I'm really frustrated listening to you and we're not having a discussion.

I think you want your own show to be able to teach this stuff.

No, I Yeah.

Okay last question.

No, he's gone.

Okay.

Okay, I guess.

Okay, because the same thing is going on and on and on.

It's been 15 minutes at least listening to him just go.

Well, he's not saying anything and I'm just wasting.

I'm just sitting here waiting time wasting time.

Just what's the point?

There's no point.

I just move on to somebody else.

Yeah, I mean the thing the thing with what woke means and all this it's it's there is an issue within the church

where people are.

Saying that the church is not doing enough and you're hearing it from him.

Matt actually because what was he talking about politics?

You answered the question.

The Gospels the solution.

I Answered him and then we.

What I'm finding is, you know, I try not to be rude I try to be as patient as possible, but it became well, I just say

aggravating.

I asked a question.

He doesn't simply answer a question.

He goes on and pontificates for a long period of time.

Well, what's the question?

Well, let me get to this.

I'll check out the different way.

You know, he needs his own show where he could just pontificate and everybody wants to talk to him.

Let's just move along see if anybody else has anything.

And I'm probably not gonna pronounce his name, right.

It looks Russian.

Maybe but but.

McHale.

If you want to unmute yourself.

And then you could tell me how much I butchered your name.

So maybe I can't.

It's Mikhail.

Mikhail, where's it from?

It is okay, so I guessed right but pronounced wrong.

You look like you're behind a veil there or something.

You're in a semi -truck, okay.

Well, don't drive off the road.

Don't.

I hope you.

You got a you got a question for Matt.

Anything any any apologetical questions or or things that you Would

like him to answer.

There's been a question that I've been thinking about Years ago, but I think I found the

answer.

Maybe I'll ask you maybe I'll feel bring some clarification like more clear

clarification, what is it in the Essence in the texture of

blood that makes it appropriate for the atonement of sin.

The life is in the blood.

That's x 17 11 17 14 and so God has declared the life is

in the blood and what he's talking about is the essence of what the blood represents when the blood drains out you die and.

Since the wages of sin is death and death is a physical spiritual thing separation from God the manifestation of that.

Is it a physical sense as well, which is declared by God in Genesis 2 17?

So the blood represents that aspect of the life.

And so it became a symbol metaphor for the essence of what a person is.

And this is why it says we're cleansed by the blood of Christ.

Physical blood doesn't have any act ability to cleanse.

It's just blood.

But what is and what we have to understand is that the blood of Christ is something different.

The blood of Christ is the blood that life aspect of who Christ is Represented by that blood and the shedding

of blood which is said to cleanse us of our sins when it's actually what God does Through our faith that he grants to us

in justification by which we are then Made right before God that blood is that representative of the life

of God on the cross who died?

To give us the forgiveness of our sins.

That help.

Yeah, that's what I that's what I thought.

Basically.

It's life.

Yeah, and you can go to Leviticus 17 14 for the life is in the blood and for this reason The sacrifice is given

because they equate it like that.

That's what just got what God does.

That's like not x 1711.

Hope I didn't say that.

It's Leviticus 17 11 1714.

I got all these verses in my head that are similar.

X 1711 is one thing.

The Bereans are more mobile minded.

I'm talking about is Leviticus 17 14.

There's also Leviticus 17 11, but that's another one so.

And help.

Yes, it did.

Okay.

Right good.

All right, so I Brought you have any other questions?

Michael make say it again Mikhail Mikhail give any other questions.

Any other questions?

I've been thinking about the Trinity.

Is Try personality of God.

Necessary.

I mean, is there a possible world where God can know himself not being a Trinity.

And it's not.

Is it a logical contradiction for God not to be try personal God?

Express his own nature in his essence.

And that's what he's done.

He's revealed himself for what he is as a Trinity.

There's no other possibility.

That is what God is.

Was not possible for another universe to be where God wouldn't be a Trinity because God is a Trinity.

He revealed it to us and that's it.

That's that's his nature.

That's his essence.

So he is choosing necessarily.

He is Trinity by nature not necessarily as if he's obligated to be one.

It's that he just is Trinitarian in his essence.

But how he is I get that I just want to dig deeply

philosophically and logically.

Logically without the Trinity we really can't be saved.

We have to have the one who is offended be the one who pays for the forgiveness of our sins and that's another Topic,

but what we see is that God is unchangeable Malachi 3 6 from everlasting to everlasting.

He is God.

Psalm 90 verse 2.

So he is in it's called immutability that his essence and his nature does not change.

This is who he is.

He could he was 922 for that.

That's what he is.

So since he has revealed his nature and his essence to us in the Bible and what we call the Trinity Then we can only

say that's just what he is.

That's what he's revealed himself as as being and it's not a necessity of him being Trinitarian.

It's a revelation of him being Trinitarian.

Nothing obligates him to be Trinitarian other than we could say other than just that's what he is.

It just is that.

Okay makes sense.

Not really.

God is holy, right?

God is holy.

I understand the necessity of God.

God is a necessary being right?

But his attribute of Tripersonality, how can that be also

necessary?

That's part of what he is what we want to say.

Try persons just a person three persons.

But that's just because that's just what he is.

It just is that There's God.

He reveals that he's a Trinity we go.

Oh, that's what you are.

Okay good.

Well, why is he that?

Why is he because that's what he is.

He's that because that's what he is.

We can't say why he is that.

Because that would mean what brought him into origin if it was that case, which didn't happen.

Why is he like this?

Is there some rule?

No, there's some rule.

No, it's just it's just what he is and he revealed himself to us as what he is the Trinitarian sense.

Similar to all we can.

Just like that's it.

Yeah.

Why why is God love?

Yeah, why is God love.

Because he is.

Because he is.

He just lives.

There's no why to it.

It's just that's just what he is.

Well, I'm curious.

I know you basically have like so much the Bible memorized in your head.

Here's one.

I don't know if you know Deuteronomy 29 29.

Are you familiar with that one?

Dude, right.

He's gonna lazy.

I got at least one verse I've memorized that the bad Deuteronomy 29 29 is perfect for this.

The secret things belong unto the Lord That which he has revealed to us

them.

Now I'm paraphrasing because I don't have it, right.

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the but the things that are revealed to belong to

us and our children.

Forever that we may do all the words of the law.

So basically There's gonna be some things we're never gonna know.

So we heard the voice of mr. John.

So welcome John.

You have a question or do you want to just apologize to Matt for.

Let's just go into discussing apologetics seriously because that's what I'm all geared to do

apologetics and.

Otherwise, we're off topic for a long time and it's got a way that we're done X.

That's what I've been looking forward to answering questions and let's just do that.

I'll get John later.

All right, so I'm gonna add in now.

Matt, I don't know quite how this one's gonna go.

One that calls himself anonymous guy.

Okay, and he says that he is a traditional Catholic that so I'm gonna let him ask you his

question.

So sure don't see him on camera.

Looks like his camera is covered but anonymous guy.

Can you.

You're not muted.

I Guess he is anonymous.

I mean we see.

Right now by coming in loud and clear.

Yeah, we hear you.

I don't hear you.

Okay, I don't know why it is.

But when I whenever I plug in my my earphones it seems to prohibit me from

Getting through.

Okay.

Okay, yeah with regards to Baptism Matt's

like you gave the context of what you believe of 1 Peter 3 23

18 through 22 says and I don't.

I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I actually agree with what you said.

And there's numerous.

There's numerous Protestants and and and even within Catholicism is different theologians

and and so forth that have given different expectations of what baptism now saves you

refers to.

And some of them agree with you in Catholicism.

They agree with you and Some of them will say it's not the ark.

It's the water and some of them will say that it's referring to verse 18 Jesus Christ himself

and Some will say it's refers to verse 22 his resurrection

so and then there's some that says There's a combination of those where it might be referring to two of them

might be referring to all of them.

But I like your explanation about the ark because you said that a argument

of Jesus Christ you connected it to Jesus Christ in the New Covenant and his

sacrifice for our sins.

Amazingly, that's what many Catholic theologians have said as well.

Good.

So therefore Baptism now saves you by your own admission is

Connected to Jesus Christ sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

You're making too much of a leap at that point.

Ultimately, that would be the case.

But the context of first Peter 321 is and tea to pawn and according to that or in an antitype

of that baptism now saves you.

So what is he referring to?

What's the antecedent?

Well, if it's the ark you just saying corresponding to the issue of faith in the ark They entered by faith baptism saves you

not the removal of derp in the flesh.

So he's talking about it's not a water issue.

Seems to be a faith issue.

That's what's kind of baptism.

It seems to be.

What's going on.

And I absolutely agree with what you're saying.

100 % with what you're saying?

It's a faith issue, but it's not a faith issue under the Old Testament

with what we have under the Old Testament.

It's a faith issue under the New Covenant.

So therefore in in Catholicism, for example.

It's not a valid baptism unless one has the faith.

You do not receive the justification.

There too from the water baptism unless you have the faith.

So therefore.

What happens is?

What's happening is it's that the salvation you said yourself is connected to the ark.

But you said it was a prefigurement to Jesus Christ's sacrifice from the cross so therefore

when we look at verse 18 all the way through 22, it starts off with Jesus's sacrifice on

the cross and.

And then it ends with Jesus's resurrection in verse 22 and so.

Whether you say it's connected to the ark or some say it's about the water or some say it's

specifically about verse 18 Jesus's sacrifice.

No matter which one you point to.

It always comes back to The saving grace of the New Covenant

because Jesus because Peter's so what about him is not water baptism under the Old Covenant.

It's under the New Covenant.

So what's your.

What's your point or question?

Okay.

Well, it's not really a question.

It's a statement.

I'm agreeing with you because you're you said you can make a story.

Why are you still a Catholic?

Because you pointed out the Catholic view.

You pointed out the Catholic view which is that.

I believe in the Trinity and the Catholic Church does too.

There's a very good job of defending the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't mean the Catholic Church is true or that you should belong to it.

So, I don't know what's what you would say something specific about baptism or what.

What do you want to say?

Well, I mean because because of what you've said it the question goes back to you why are you a Calvinist.

Because the water baptism, so I'm predestined to be why?

Yeah, well from my understanding they don't accept water baptism a justification through water baptism that they don't believe that.

Justification occurs through water baptism, correct?

Yeah, and neither do I and so you've misrepresented my position and what you've done.

I've listened as you've tried to make me get to say something.

I haven't said.

Which tells me that?

How do I say this politely because it's gonna sound so mean.

I just don't think you've been very Sincere and that's not the right word.

Yeah.

Logically consistent that's a better way to put it in your application of what you think I believe and Trying to carry it to a

conclusion to try and get me to contradict what I believe in other areas.

And you just gone through and not connect to the dots all the issue here in first Peter 2 3

21 is that water baptism is not the thing that makes you right with God when Peter says Baptism

now saves you not to removal of dirt from the flesh.

That's the issue of the water He says corresponding to that now.

You know.

Some scholars say that what is referred to the corresponding to the antecedent of that is the water.

Some say that and some say it's the ark.

I don't believe it's the water.

I believe it's the ark and I just what I hold to and that was by faith alone.

They entered they entered by faith.

I mean Consistently, I believe so.

What's the big deal?

Well, okay you said faith alone and I don't.

Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with that either because in Catholicism water baptism is not a work of

Ourselves it's a work done by Jesus Christ.

It's something that he did on the cross.

That's what they could say.

But just saying it doesn't make any difference.

Look, let me ask you.

What can you define for me?

What a ceremony is?

I mean seriously, but it's a participation and well when you mean ceremony, I would guess that are

you speaking about?

Rituals with regards to Catholicism.

Okay.

No, I just said define ceremony.

Okay, I'm looking it up right now.

A formal religious or public occasion typically one celebrating a particular event or anniversary.

The ritual observances and procedures performed at grand informal occasions.

Let's go.

What is it that you're reading?

I just read the dictionaries on on online.

I just went to it.

Here's vocabulary.

Calm.

A Formal event performed on a special occasion.

An activity that's performed on a special Solom's Elaborate or formal way.

I could go to let's see.

They don't know where our terms are because You'll see why in a minute.

Dictionary comm.

The formal activities conducted on some solemn or important public or state occasion.

A formal religious or sacred observance.

Formal observances, let me ask you.

Would you say circumcision is a ceremony?

I Would know about that.

Is communion.

I got commanded, but I don't know if he ever described it as a ceremony.

I have no idea does God command us to perform ceremonies like participating in the Last

Supper.

Well, I I would certainly think that he does.

Command us.

If for example marriage, that's a ceremony.

Okay, I would think that two people could simply say we're married just like that and they're married.

That wouldn't.

I agree, you know.

Agree.

So a ceremony we would say is something that is done in space and time right it I mean a ceremony has

to occur.

Right.

We go to a funeral and there's a ceremony we go through a marriage.

I've done funerals.

I've done marriages.

Some of which needs to be public for example marriage, I would think that would need to be something that.

You know is baptism a ceremony.

Well, I would think that it's a it's a if you could say that it's a ceremony in the sense that it can

be public.

And it's a ceremony a formal occasion.

Okay, so I would say that it would necessarily have to be public in that sense.

I mean somebody could get water baptized without anybody else knowing about it.

So it's a ceremony.

Something that occurs in space and time.

That's a religious event.

That is done and repeated, okay, so then you're saying that we're saved

Ephesians 4 or 5 one faith one Lord one baptism, but let me finish it's one.

It's repeated because the same ceremony occurs over and over and over again with different people throughout the centuries.

Yes.

Okay, so you're so are you saying then.

I'm just asking are you saying we're saved by faith and a ceremony?

I'm saying that we're saved by both faith.

Participating in a Ceremony if you want to call it that.

Okay, and you be speaking Peter himself because Peter himself and let me explain why.

Because Peter himself Said to the those who had faith they were believers so one

could say they had faith.

They were believers.

But he said he called on those that already were believers to get water baptized to

receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which means That they did not have the indwelling of the Holy

Spirit simply by believing simply by holding the faith.

They needed to get water baptized in order to have that indwelling and you can't find anywhere in Scripture where it

says a believer had the indwelling of Of the Holy Spirit prior to baptism.

You can say they had the Holy Spirit of the gifts.

When it says they received the Holy Spirit because they were speaking in tongues and They they had the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

But they never had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And I mean, why else would Peter say that?

Explain why Peter would say that.

So while Peter was still speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who are listening to the message.

And you know the uncircumcised believers who are with Peter were amazed because the gift the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also for they were

hearing Them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

Speaking in tongues and exalting God are charismatic gifts given to the Christians in the church

correct.

Right.

So it's speaking.

No, hold on a sec.

It doesn't.

The Bible doesn't say Christians in the church with regards to those prior to what a baptism.

It doesn't refer to them as Christians.

Are they Christians that they're speaking in tongues and glorifying God or they unbelievers?

No, they're not Christians until they receive water baptism.

Then they're.

Christian to the church you're saying you're saying Christians.

So then you're you're saying they're not even Christian or not even saved until they get baptized in water.

Correct, because when we look at what?

Stop stop stop.

So then what you're saying you if you keep doing that you Asked me I'm asking simple questions.

I don't need explanations 18 times.

So I'm just working with you.

So you're saying then we're not justified by faith or said it's my by faith in a ceremony.

I Think you're saying.

Matt you gotta unmute him now.

I didn't do anything.

I did.

Oh, no, I muted him.

Okay, where is he?

He's anonymous the one Muted or he hold on.

What.

Okay anonymous guy you can unmute yourself but You know if you're gonna speak over Matt

Constantly and give long explanations when he's trying to he's trying to have a dialogue with you and he's trying to gather

information So that he can answer the questions, but yeah, there you go.

What don't do that.

Okay, hold on.

Okay.

I think I got it now.

Sorry you there.

Okay, can you hear me?

Are you able to hear me?

Yeah.

Yeah, that was just okay.

There's a bit of a there's a bit of a leg on my on my pad.

So.

But you do ask me a question.

I am trying to explain to you.

So you're kind of cutting me off every time I'm trying to answer your question.

But what you're doing is give me a lengthy explanation each and every time you don't need to if I says if it's a yes Or no question just say yes or no.

You believe that you have to be justified before God by faith in a ceremony.

That's what you're saying.

You say well Peter says we already went over what Peter said in first Peter 321 okay, but what I'm just trying to get to the

point what you're saying is that's a Ceremony is what's necessary along with faith in order to be

saved.

You're saying you can't be saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

That means you're saying people go to hell.

Okay.

Well, you don't believe the Bible.

Okay.

Well, you know, that means you're Saying Faith alone.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't it does.

Well, then show me a verse in the Bible where it has the words faith alone together.

There's only one place.

I tell you what anonymous.

I tell you what.

I tell you what.

I tell you what.

I tell you what.

Show me a verse.

In the Bible that says the Trinity is one God and three distinct simultaneous persons.

Go ahead.

Show me that.

Well, I mean you're claiming that the Bible says.

Question show me that I'm Applying the same principle that you're demanding of me

to you.

What I'm trying to show you is that what you're demanding is unreasonable.

I'm trying to demonstrate that to you you affirm the Trinity.

But the reason you affirm the Trinity is because it's arrived at systematically.

And if you I were to say to you show me the exact words.

Obviously, that's not the right question.

Is it if you were to say and I know that Catholics do this on purpose construct a certain sentence?

It has to be a certain way when it does not accurately represent the issue at hand.

Then I know you're being Problematic and not logical.

See, here's the thing.

This is what the Bible says.

I'm going to read you Romans 4 1 through 5.

What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather according to the flesh is found.

For if Abraham was justified by works He has something to boast about but not before God.

Would you agree that what Paul is talking about in Romans 4 is justification before God

so far.

Well, I don't know why you're pointing to Abraham.

Abraham didn't live under the new covenant.

Therefore he would have received the justification under the new covenant whereby he could be saved.

So therefore it would not have been just a patient before God for anything he did.

At least not just so unto so.

So when it says.

For if Abraham was justified by works He has something to boast about before but not before God.

Are we talking about justification before God?

Well, if we're talking about justification under the new covenant, it wouldn't apply to anybody under the old covenant.

Are we talking about?

You covenant.

Okay, is the text talking about justification before God?

It's not talking about the justification of the new covenant.

Therefore, it's irrelevant.

Okay.

Is it talking about justification before God.

Look in the text

is verse 2 of Romans 4 talking about justification before God?

But if Abraham was justified by works has something to boast about but not before God.

His justification is not before God.

Is the text talking about justification before God.

Well, if it's saying that he was not justified before God, then that would be true.

He was not justified before God.

Yes, it's talking about justification before God.

Great.

The next verse says this.

What does the scripture say.

Abraham believed God and it was credited him as righteousness?

Now the next verse verse 4.

Now to the one who works his wage is not credited as a favor.

But what is due.

Notice what he says here.

Notice that that was in the present tense.

Notice that this is in the present tense of verse 5, but to the one who does not work but believes

In him who justifies the ungodly his faith is credited as righteousness.

Is that present tense?

That's present tense.

To that time period not the not the time period prior to the new covenant.

But the time period in which Paul was speaking.

Is Paul speaking in the new covenant?

He's speaking about those that were performing works under the old covenant and also speaking about works.

The new covenant now.

But to the one who does not work but believes all present tense is it under the new covenant?

He's talking.

No, he's speaking he's referring because he was speaking against the Judaizers.

In context he was speaking against the Judaizers.

So they were going around.

Okay, stop.

Stop.

Stop.

So what it says here is but to the one who does not work.

That's not talking about present Christians at the time.

In what it does not work but believes that's not talking about the Christians at the time the people at the time.

Well, as you know that the Judaizers were going around preaching to the Christians at that time.

I'm asking you a question.

We'll get the Judaizers later and I'm look what it says here.

Romans for the Judaizers are in Galatians 3 and 5.

This is Romans, but to the one who does not work but believes In him who

justifies the ungodly his faith is Credited as righteousness.

Is he speaking the present tense of the Christians there?

He's speaking in present tense to the Christians there because they were believing that what the Judaizers were

saying Was that they needed to continue in the old covenant works.

He was speaking against that.

Excuse me, excuse me.

So the answer is yes.

He was speaking to the Christians there.

So he was speaking to the Christians there yes in verse 5.

There's only two things discussed belief and Works, right?

I mean other things that we do and involved with us belief and works, right?

Correct one who does not work.

Okay good.

So when you only have two things and you remove one the other ones by itself, right?

Okay.

Yes, correct.

So if works are not involved in his faith alone, right?

Well, if you if that was the only thing that was contained in the Bible I would agree with you.

But that's not the only thing that's contained in.

In this verse right here.

In this verse right here.

Is it faith alone?

It is not faith alone because we have to take that in context with the rest.

You just said In verse 5 we have two things

we have works.

When No.

Where's the word Trinity in the Bible, can you show me that again?

I mean, I'd like to see that because it has to say the word Trinity for me to believe it.

Go ahead.

Well again, you're the one that's making the claim that he said that it's a lonely or alone, but it's not

there.

Let me ask you.

Let me ask you.

Are you are you saved right now your sins forgiven right now?

Well, I repented of my sin and I went to confession so yes, my sins are forgiven.

Right this second.

You're in a state of perfection as far as the law goes.

Well, I certainly hope so, okay.

You either are.

Lord puts me there.

Okay, so you sin regularly, right?

Well, I don't sin regularly.

Absolutely not.

Maybe you do but I.

I strive not to sin all the time, I mean I.

Oh, yeah, I blow it all the time but look so.

Let me ask you.

Regenerated.

They grow when they're regenerated and they don't continually.

Age and sin, let me ask you a question, but roughly.

Roughly how long has it been since you've sinned.

Just just curious just a day two days a week month year what I mean.

Just you know, roughly I.

Can't remember I don't sin very often so I can't remember maybe you sin every day.

I don't know but I don't sin every day.

Just give me a rough thing.

Just just.

I mean, you know, just.

Rough time.

Okay, I'll sign you a value.

Since you don't even know your own self what you say you don't sin anymore and you go to confession last week.

So that must mean that you have sinned within I'd say about a week ago.

Yeah, but even though I might have gone to Committed the sins recently.

I could have committed the sins 10 years ago or 20 years ago.

Okay, so let's just you want to say you didn't heaven sin for a year.

I Don't know.

I have no idea.

I can't go for a year because you can't remember that far back.

Let's just use a year.

So let me just say then that what you're telling us is you keep the law of God to love God.

With all your heart all your mind all your soul all your body and your neighbor as yourself.

You're keeping it on the same level as Jesus himself.

Now I never said that.

Yes, you Jesus the standard of righteousness or are

you?

Did I say I never sin anymore is Jesus a standard of righteousness or are you?

I? Would say that Jesus is the standard and that we should so would you agree to follow that in Jesus?

If Jesus is the standard of righteousness Would you agree that it has to be and with absolute perfection and purity of

heart mind and intention that you got to keep?

These commandments to love God and love your neighbor.

Would you agree that that is the case?

Well, I would agree with the Bible where it says that if you sin, then you need to repent of your sins.

You're having difficulty.

You have a difficulty because I know where the weakness is in your position.

I'm just uncovering it for everybody to hear.

You're listening to.

You represent Catholicism.

You are the one telling us that basically you haven't sinned in a long time.

You didn't seem to object that the idea has it a year.

So that means then that you're keeping the law now the Bible says in it says in Deuteronomy

2726 that you're to keep the law perfectly.

Paul quotes that in Galatians 310 at the standard of the laws perfection.

Now Jesus summarized all of the law and he quoted it in the New Testament as being obligatory that is

to love God and love your neighbor and that's in Matthew 22 36 and 37 and 39 respectively out of

Deuteronomy 6 5 and Leviticus 1918.

So this love God to love your neighbor is a standard now you said and I agree with you.

Jesus is a standard.

Jesus did it perfectly so you have to tip me telling me though.

Then that for a year you've kept the law as perfectly as Jesus did.

You're amazing.

You're wonderful.

You're incredible.

Arrogant deceived and on your way to hell you fool for thinking that you

don't sin anymore.

What a lie, you know how come I know it's a lie because of the Bible says if we say we

have no sin we're deceiving ourselves.

The truth is.

Not in us.

You can actually tell me that you keep the law on the same level as Jesus for a year and you don't sin and

you're perfect in your intentions your thoughts your motives.

What incredible self -righteous arrogance.

You're just swimming and drowning in and you don't even know it.

You're lost, okay.

Well you made several insinuations that I haven't claimed.

I never said that I don't sin anymore.

I didn't okay.

Look, dude I said for a year and for a year you've kept the law as good and as well as Jesus himself because

that's the standard.

I Never said that.

I haven't sinned for a year.

You said that I asked you you didn't have any objections for that.

I'm trying to see if it was one day.

One day that you say you haven't said doesn't matter.

One day you're keeping the law of God as perfectly as

Jesus for a whole day perfect in your intentions

perfect in your holiness before God and the intention of everything.

You are on the same level of Jesus because he's the only one who Never said that's the standard.

So are you saying that you're keeping the law as well as Jesus?

Okay.

Well, I I mean you're still putting words in my mouth.

Are you saying that keep?

Because you're a fool.

You're a fool.

That's why.

Because you believe a lie from the devil.

You believe that your salvation depends in part on your ability to keep the law.

And you're.

Do you have the arrogance to tell us here that what's happening is?

A whole day even you don't even

sin you keep the law of that perfectly on the same level as Jesus himself.

Because that's the standard Christ.

You can't even see your incredible self -deception.

Okay, well, let me ask you this question.

Let me ask you this question.

Have you ever gone any time without sinning?

I.

Don't know.

Okay.

Hold on.

Let's let's not distract from the point because you're doing this again.

You've done this I've counted about five times.

Where you keep changing topics, so i'll ask i'll answer the question.

I don't mind.

Yeah, the thing is is that The issue and represent what matt was trying to ask you

very simple questions.

On how long it's been since you sinned he he said a year because he couldn't remember if you wanted to go more than that.

The time's not the issue.

The question is Are you keeping the law?

That's the question.

Perfectly.

Perfectly.

In your heart your soul your mind your intention and it perfectly means on the same level as jesus himself.

Otherwise, it's not perfect.

This is who you claim to be.

Okay, may I answer?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay at this point in time i'm keeping the law and i'd like to ask you this question matt.

Since you brought up time uh.

Is there any period of time whereby you did keep the law?

Um perfectly.

Perfectly, I don't know.

I doubt it.

So there hasn't been one minute of your life that you kept the law.

Probably probably when god saved you.

I mean i'd say at that point man, right.

When god.

When god.

I mean there was gonna be times like that where for split seconds.

I don't know.

So you don't know whether you kept for just one minute With gone without sinning for just

one minute of your lifetime.

Let me clarify.

As I stated I do not know if I have kept the law of god perfectly.

In that every intention and every part of everything that I am according to the standard of jesus

himself.

That I cannot say that i've done that on the same level as god.

Okay.

Okay, well, I i'm Not saying you have to do it on the same level as god.

That's what the standard is.

You.

I've already established.

That's the standard and you right rightfully said jesus is a standard.

You said that and I totally agree.

So that is a standard right?

Jesus is a standard god in flesh.

And and he calls on us to follow in his footsteps.

So therefore it's possible for us to follow in his footsteps.

So you're admitting that you have not.

You don't believe you've ever gone at least one minute in your lifetime without sinning.

I said, I don't know.

If I have I don't know what it is.

I don't know when it is the only possible time it might have maybe occurred.

When I was in the presence of the lord Jesus christ himself in such power that the only thing I could do is keep my face to the

ground and weep out my bitter Regret of my incredible sinfulness before the presence of incredible holiness.

Maybe then for that time in the presence of his shekinah glory I wasn't sinning but even then

I don't know because I know that god is the infinitely holy one.

And I am not and I am never gonna say hey jesus.

Guess what?

I didn't send it for a whole minute.

I kept the law on the level of you yourself.

Look at me.

Never gonna happen.

If we go by your logic.

If we go by your logic.

Matt in that short period of time that you said you didn't sin.

I didn't say I did that.

Why don't you listen?

Once you listen I never said I did not I said.

I don't even know if I even then is what I said.

I don't even know because I am the biggest sinner I know.

Look right behind me is a couch one day.

I was praying on that couch I bent over on my knees, you know praying by trying to be humble

modest or boasting, you know, whatever.

And i'm praying for a long time and i'm confessing every single thing I can possibly think of.

Even my desire to manipulate god if I pray this way, do I get what I want?

You know the stupidity of my own sin.

And I prayed and I prayed till I couldn't even think of anything else to confess and then I said lord I thank you that you

didn't make me like the mormons and jehovah's witnesses.

That I know you.

I actually said that well.

That's out of luke 18 9 through 14 where the pharisee the self -righteous pharisee said thank you lord.

He'd make me like that tax gatherer over there.

Even in the depths of my humility where I thought I was fine.

There was sin.

Now, I don't know about you if you've been in the presence of god.

I don't believe you have and i'm not trying to say you have it, but I don't believe you haven't Believe you ever have.

Because you talk about your own sinless Perfectionism your own ability to keep the law your

desire to be faith and works that in a ceremony that you keep.

To honor god in order by which you could then be justified.

Does god tell us to keep the law?

Yeah, of course he does.

He says don't sin anymore.

It is will we keep the law?

Of course it is.

So are those or is it possible for someone to inherit the kingdom of god if they do not

do god's will?

Depends on what you mean by god's will.

If the will of god is that you believe and trust in jesus christ Then yes, if the will of god is you got to keep all the priesthood

Requirements then.

No, I see you're not specific enough.

You got to be careful when you ask questions like that.

So you can go against the will of god then.

I mean you just said it is the will of god that we keep the law that we keep.

Saying that we don't have to keep that particularly.

We're not justified by the law.

Romans 3 28 we maintain that a man is justified apart from the works of the law.

That's old covenant.

That's old covenant laws.

And he said Love god and love your neighbor.

He said that in romans 3 28.

It's to the church to the romans to the christians.

Right because they the judicizers were trying to uh propagandize the christians.

Look, you know that that's the context of it.

No, it's not speaking.

He's talking to the romans.

He's talking to the romans and look let me tell you he's speaking to the romans because the judicizers are going amongst the

romans.

No, they were trying To This old covenant laws

look.

Don't when you say that it's just simply the old covenant.

That's what you're saying, right?

I didn't say just old covenant.

Okay, I didn't say that.

Do you know that the old covenant is done away with or abrogated at the death of christ?

Yes, death and resurrection three speaking to the church or is it not speaking to the church not just

death.

Death and resurrection not just death.

Okay.

Are you talking to somebody else now?

Are you there?

You had said that uh, it was through his death, but jesus incorporated instituted the new covenant after his

resurrection.

Okay, maybe you're unfamiliar with this but it's upon the death of the testator that the new covenant is ratified.

Hebrews 8 13.

Hebrews 9 15 through 16.

The resurrection is the proof that the sacrifice of god in flesh was acceptable.

Yeah, but that doesn't say that the new covenant was established.

That jesus christ established the new covenant until after his resurrection when he breathed on the apostles.

And told them to go out and preach to all nations Baptizing them and preaching the faith.

That's when the new covenant was instituted by christ.

He said a new covenant he's made the first obsolete, but whatever has become obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

That's hebrews 8 13.

Let's go to hebrews 9 15.

For this reason he's the mediator of a new covenant.

So that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed Under the first covenant those who have been called may

receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

For where a covenant is There must be a necessity to be the death of the one who's made it.

See right.

Because his death was necessary it was necessary with regards to his new.

Enacted with his death at the death of christ.

A new covenant is then in place.

That's what this says right there.

Now right when paul was right paul was talking in romans.

3 You're saying death.

Okay incorporated when he actually.

Otherwise we're going to mute you again.

Okay, you can't keep because no one learns anything when you keep talking over him.

Okay, you got to stop that if if your view is so weak that you can't let matt

speak Then you're just Exposing that your argument's weak so

Let him answer don't talk over him.

Unless you want us to have the conclusion that you really know your argument is that weak?

So it's really that easy.

Okay.

Sorry, man.

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 his faith is Reckoned

as righteousness so You don't believe the word of god.

Okay, may I speak?

Go ahead.

Okay.

Is galatians 5 19 through 21 speaking to the believers.

Okay.

Well the address is to the people in galatia and he speaks about the unbelievers

and the works of the flesh in that context.

Oh, he's speaking about unbelievers.

So you're saying the verse.

Immorality impurity sensuality idolatry sorcery entities.

Certainly these aren't believers practicing these things, right?

Would you agree with me?

Okay, so why would he warn unbelievers not to do things agree with me that those are not believers

Who are practicing immorality?

No, I don't I don't.

I I don't agree with you because if you look at what's before you.

Immediately.

Are you trying to tell me that the christians there in galatia are practicing immorality impurity sensuality

idolatry sorcery enmity strife Jealousy outbursts of anger disputes dissensions factions envying

drunkenness carousing and they're all christians.

But what i'm telling you is that he's speaking to Believers because he's warning them

not to do those things now.

He wouldn't be warning non -believers because believe non -believers go to hell anyway.

So he would have to be warning believers because uh, and and it says right there

it says, uh, He's warning you as he has warned before not to do such things because they

shall not inherit the kingdom of god therefore.

Obviously, he's not speaking to unbelievers.

He's speaking to believers.

Unbelievers will go to hell Anyway, not because of their sins but because of their unbelief.

Are there any unbelievers in the church of galatia, do you think there's a mixture of unbelievers and believers?

Well, what I know is that he's speaking to believers because again, are there a mixture?

Do you think there's a mixture?

I didn't ask you.

I asked you a question.

You don't answer my questions.

You answer a different question I asked you.

Do you think there were believers and unbelievers in the church of galatia?

Well, there may have been unbelievers as well, but they wouldn't have been in the church.

The answer is yes.

Okay as being you know what I'm going to mute you.

I you know, this is absolutely Ridiculous me a question.

I was answering your question.

No, you just pontificate constantly.

Look I just ask you do you think they're believers and unbelievers both in the church of galatia.

The answer is yeah.

That's it.

It's either yes, or it's it's not.

Yes.

This is not hard.

You have to.

I wanted to Single point all the time.

Okay, but it's not always a yes or no matt because the thing is let's try it.

Let's try it.

Let's try it.

Where do you think that there were probably?

Believers and unbelievers both in the church of galatia.

No, okay, so they're all only believers in the church of galatia.

Recognized by god only believers are in the church.

In his church.

You're saying then that the church of galatia only contained believers real christians.

Well, god only recognizes believers in his church.

Okay.

See you're so.

I ask you if there are other believers.

No, there's not.

Well, there's no unbelievers or any believers.

Well, then somebody's a believer.

Hold on a sec.

Hold on a sec.

And then what you do is you change the meaning of the word church.

We're talking about the gathering of people here in galatia the church congregation the whole bit.

Do you think it's unbelievers in there?

You go.

No.

And then you talk about the ones who are really saved, you know.

You just play with the words look the people who are gathering in this place in galatia.

Where the letter of paul was read.

You think there's any unbelievers mixed in the crowd?

Maybe possibly.

Okay, well let's say there are unbelievers.

It still wouldn't make any sense for him to be speaking.

Okay.

I think we should need to move on because I can't get a decent answer from the guy.

Without having to listen to eight minutes of just pontification about something.

We're not getting anywhere.

He can't even answer a simple question.

Yes or no.

I want to try.

I want to ask him a real I would say yes.

Listen I want to ask you one question.

We're going to make it really simple.

It's going to be a real easy question.

Yeah.

For I want to know What is your name?

My name.

Yeah james.

See you can answer a simple question.

And give a simple answer.

Can't you?

Yeah, but the thing is this is supposed to be a discussion.

Is that supposed to be something where you're trying to track somebody into something?

I know it shouldn't be.

You were trying to trap matt.

You weren't letting him speak.

You kept talking over him you.

Answering talking over.

Excuse me.

You're don't talk over me unless you're Want everyone to realize your arguments really are that weak.

Are your arguments so weak that you cannot allow someone else to finish a sentence?

Are they.

He was talking over me many times even after he asked me a question and I attempted to answer.

Okay, matt was asking a question and he would take a breath and you jumped in.

So which wouldn't happen if there was the delay on your ipad?

I don't think that you you knew right when he would take a breath so here's the thing.

I mean unless I mean that could maybe be a lie just saying that would be a sin.

I don't know if you realize that so.

The thing is is that.

What we end up seeing is matt would ask you something.

Okay, you would answer different things and.

That this matt's trying to gather information to help you To answer the questions, but

this is what people have to do now.

If you would like what matt could do is just assume what you believe because you were doing that with matt.

He corrected you several times.

Telling you what he actually believed.

And you kept going on with what you want to claim he believed.

All right that happened several times in the discussion along with what catholicism

believes.

No, I was saying catholicism.

Okay, can we get back asking you what you believe and you wouldn't answer and that's the thing.

Is he a troll?

Maybe he's a troll.

I don't know answered numerous times so.

All right, so here's here's the thing so i'm going to mute him matt, but a couple things let's discuss.

We'll move on.

Yeah, let's we'll move on because but there were some cool things you did with the discussion with him um,

and and this will be helpful for folks to to see um.

One of the things that happened early on you he tried to argue that you believe in his view Of

baptism because there was agreement in one area.

And then he he tried to argue that you believe that baptism saves.

So explain to folks.

I mean you you were quick to cut that off.

He did it a couple times.

What's what is the importance of?

Like why do people do something like that?

Why do they try to?

Make it seem like you're agreeing and then change it to say you believe something you don't.

Because they have to be a little bit.

Um, this is genuine.

To.

That's all that's all.

And that would go as well for this why he would speak over.

Yeah.

It's a it's a tactic he was trying to use and um.

Another tactic is to not really answer questions that are worth just a yes or no answer.

It's either the case that we're saved by water baptism.

Or it's not the case the simple logic is that a statement either true or false is called the law of excluded middle.

When someone repeatedly has to pontificate and explain uh, and at infinitum every single detail of every single

thing.

You know, it gets old after a while.

Um.

And so all he's doing it's it's as though he's a troll.

And in that you can't get a straight answer out of the guy.

And so after a while, you just got to move on.

I don't mind having discussions with people who disagree.

But as is obviously the case he would I had to ask a question.

And did you believe this or you don't believe it and he'd go on and on and on you ask another question.

He goes on and on and on another question on and on and on.

It just gets to the point where uh, it's ridiculous.

So I tried to get to the point where discussing whether he sins or not.

How long he won't even tell me that's how long I got to work with him on that and then showing that his arrogance and foolishness are just

profoundly blinding him because He actually believes he can keep the law of god on the same level as jesus.

And then when he says I didn't he didn't say that of course he did he didn't use those words.

But that's what he's saying because that's what it means not to sin.

It's on the level of god not the level of man because he admitted jesus is a standard.

Well, then he's saying that he's doing the things on a level of jesus himself keeping the law and of course that is foolishness

and so, you know, it just is we have the The evidence here that someone like this is an unregenerate person.

And the reason I would say that is because of galatians 5.

And it says there in galatians 5 which is really important behold.

I paul say to you that you've received circumcision.

Circumcision is a ceremony as is baptism.

If you receive circumcision that he's under obligation to keep the whole law now circumcision is the old testament covenant sign.

We know that for sure.

But what he's doing here is talking about the necessity Of not keeping the law of the old testament in

any way shape or form in order to be saved.

He says you've been severed from christ.

You are seeking to be justified by law and notice what he says.

By doing the one thing he says you're trying to be justified by law now.

Believe it or not the issue of the baptism that jesus underwent.

In matthew chapter 3 when he was baptized.

Most probably is a reflection out of numbers chapter 8 verse 7 when jesus entered into the priesthood.

He had to be Uh sprinkled with water.

That is the baptism that is spoken of such sprinkling is also mentioned and you can get the baptismos out of Hebrews 9 10

and some other issues and some other areas in that context.

So what he's actually doing is saying that baptism the what either sprinkling which I don't have a problem with because my covenantalism

or immersion.

Either way the baptism of water is a necessity for salvation and that you can't be a true christian unless you're dunked in water.

There's other questions.

I like to ask him.

Which we problem because you see the real fact is that um, if a man and i've seen this I used to work at a

hospital if a man for example is on his um, deathbed.

And he's got tubes in basically every orifice and you can tell he's dying.

Um, I used to work at a hospital and i've seen things.

And so, uh if a minister comes in and Gives him the gospel

the death burial and resurrection of jesus christ and I asked incidentally I asked.

The chaplain of the hospital I used to work at.

Who went to our church?

I asked him specifically does this happen?

He said yes very quickly.

I guess it does.

Where someone on their deathbed the last minute two minutes of their life?

He will give them the gospel.

Do you receive christ.

They can't even speak they got stuff down their throats and they just nod.

You receive christ you trust in christ for your salvation.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, and they do this and then they're gone.

Now this man this guy anonymous guy would have to say that such a person is going to hell.

Because he wasn't he didn't have water applied to him.

Which would mean that we're not justified by faith as romans 4 5 tells us the one who does not work.

But believes his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

And what this guy has to do is say it's the old covenant that he's talking about.

No, because it's in the present tense the man who works his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but what is due romans 4 4.

He's talking about the present tense what's going on and to the one who does not work present tense.

And so paul is quickly talking and clearly talking about that.

Which is the present tense in order for this guy to try and get out of this issue in order to maintain his works.

Righteousness and self -righteousness in the process.

He has to say that his old covenant doesn't apply today.

But it's in the context of present tense.

And yes, it is in what's going on.

It's about people justified before god.

Yes, abraham was justified by faith and he says and we are justified by faith.

What paul is doing in galatians 4 1 through 5 is taking the past tense of abraham?

And equating it to the present tense of the christian today.

Showing that the justification in both the old covenant and the new covenant are identical.

By faith and that's what it is.

It's not faith in a ceremony and so the foolishness and the apostasy of the cults and roman

catholicism.

That teaches you must keep a ceremony which is a representation of one aspect of the law in order to

be saved along with their faith.

Then preach a false gospel and they're lost.

This guy can't see that refuses to see it and he's not capable of seeing it because first Corinthians 2 14 says.

The natural man cannot see the things of god for the foolishest to him.

These are spiritually discerned and this is the condition that he's in he's under sin.

He's not died with christ roman 6 6 roman 6 8.

He's still under the slavery of sin roman 6 14 through 20 because he's not trusted in christ alone.

But christ and a ceremony by which he's then justified and if we were had time I would have a

conversation with him, but it's not worth the effort to continue.

I would talk about the necessity of the sacraments the infusion of grace the maintenance of his salvation.

By the infused grace through the sacraments that he has to have in order to keep himself right with god.

That's what catholicism teaches.

And so what we have here is a false doctrine an antichrist doctrine as someone who is a servant of the evil one.

Because he's espousing a false gospel.

And you know one of the things that will be helpful for folks matt there.

I mean he he used a lot of logical fallacies.

And yes, he did, you know, we should point out some of them.

There's one I picked up on that I do want you to address and you could discuss the other fallacies that you picked up on but He

kept doing a fallacy of equivocation with you where he wanted things one way.

And you caught him a couple times where he'd use it one way and then change it and No, so

first off with that one.

Explain that fallacy explain how he did it and go into any of the other fallacies that you saw him

use.

Well, I can't remember the exact example I called him out on it when he did it.

I said you just changed the meaning of the word or whatever it was, but that's what equivocation is.

Um.

When a word changes meaning in its usage and you haven't clarified the depth the change of definition so

Uh a bird I see I saw a bird fly into that bush.

Um, that's why president bush is a bird brain.

What the word bush then changes meaning from a plant to a person?

And that's that's uh an illustration of what the fallacy of equivocation is and he did that I forgot what the context was church.

He did it on the words.

Thank you very much the word church.

He did that in word church.

I pointed out what he did there.

And of course, he's made uh improper inferences as well.

Uh misrepresented what I said, uh failed to understand my position um.

Doesn't even understand the basics of yes and no statements.

Uh, you know, not everything is yes and no and I understand that but a statement is either true or it's not the case.

It is true.

And so we are either for example baptism is either a ceremony or it's not the case.

That's a ceremony.

It can't be both a ceremony and not a ceremony in the same sense in the same way.

If it's a ceremony, which it is because I read the definitions.

It's something that occurs and uh I talked about this before in another article on karm.

A ceremony is where one person does something usually in this context to another person.

Circumcision is a ceremony we do something like that baptism is a ceremony you perform an action upon somebody else.

That's what a ceremony is.

So he's teaching justification by faith and a ceremony and so He's failing to

understand the issue of justification by faith alone because if it's faith alone, no ceremony is necessary.

But then what they'll do in order to maintain their heresy is to say that a ceremony is something commanded by god.

Therefore it's not a ceremony.

So when god commands it, it's no longer ceremony.

So he says don't lie.

Don't cheat.

Don't steal.

So those aren't ceremonies, but those are things you're obligated to keep the law in order to be saved, right?

Right, and you're still under the law now.

Here's the thing.

When you're under the law, it's because you haven't died with christ.

Now we've died with christ those who are represented by him on the cross.

We've died with christ romans 6 8 or crucified with him romans 6 6 and romans 3 1

through 5.

Talks about those who've died with christ now.

The one who has died with christ is freed from the law of romans 7 4.

If we're free from the law, we're no longer obligated to keep that law.

But what he's saying is that the new testament law is circumcision.

Excuse me.

Baptism, you've got to be baptized in order to be saved and then we get to the issue back in life.

We could ask him sometime maybe another week.

Maybe say hey the man who's on his deathbed who confesses christ.

By faith trusts in jesus and dies before he can even be sprinkled with water.

The man's walking to the sink to get water he comes back the guy's dead.

Does he go to hell or does he go to heaven?

He would have to say he goes to hell.

If he says no, he had a baptism of what's called baptism of desire.

Well, then you're saying he didn't get baptized.

Water baptism is either necessary for salvation or it's not.

Necessary for salvation if they say it's a baptism of desire if he wanted it then baptism by water is not necessary.

Otherwise He'd be lost or saved.

I mean You can't have both and what they do is they equivocate they Hopscotch they jump in and out

and they change meanings.

They change arguments.

They change the flow of the logic.

And it's difficult to deal with them particularly this guy when he tries to misrepresent so much of theology.

And he said that for example i'm remembering on the issue of the new covenant.

He said it was the death and the resurrection, but that's not what the verse has said I clearly showed that it was the

death.

That's the issue.

The resurrection is the proof that the That the sacrifice.

It's a death of crisis and you know, he was corrected there and ignored the correction and continued to go on.

So when we get into people like that after a half hour or longer, I just run out of steam.

Just going in circles with someone who you can't have a decent conversation with and has to argue every single point all the

time.

So we can move along.

Yeah, and and one of the things that he was doing was uh he kept

wanting to Use certain ways words exact words with you.

Right, and I don't think he picked up what you were saying and it would be good for people to realize you kept bringing up the trinity.

He wanted a specific wording In the scriptures and you you ended up

going to another thing.

So explain to folks why you brought up the trinity there so that they can learn what you were doing.

What the catholics do is make a huge mistake.

They have a double standard in things.

They'll say Uh, show me the words faith alone in scripture because what you're teaching has to be it has to be these words.

Otherwise, I won't believe it.

Well, then that principle can be applied to other things show me in the bible.

Where it says the trinity is one god and three distinct simultaneous persons.

It has to be those words or I won't believe it and they would of course say well.

That doesn't make any sense to say that why.

Because you don't do it that way.

When I showed him in romans 4 or 5 to the one who does not work.

But believes his faith is reckoned as righteousness that is faith alone and he even admitted.

That when we have two things works in faith, those are the only two things that were in the text he admitted that.

And then you take away one the other one's left by itself.

He said yes, that's faith alone.

So he admitted it.

And then denied his admission.

I was just trying to show in at least two different ways his inconsistency.

He doesn't Really apply fairness.

Uh, you know, they want to say faith alone and then he goes to james 2.

And he wants to go to james 2.

I could easily answer that.

But uh, he wants to go to james 2 see not by faith alone and he rips it out of context.

Not understanding really what's going on there.

And say it has to be in those words does it have to be in those words for you to believe everything?

Of course not but he it does when it comes to this one issue.

And so they're selective in what they require that precision with but they're inconsistent.

Because they believe other things with no such precision as necessary, but it's vitally important.

For example, the hypostatic union in two natures of christ never does it say jesus has two natures.

You don't find any verse that says jesus is god.

You don't find anything like that, but they believe these things.

Where are the exact words?

They're not there.

And so what they'll say is well, that's okay.

You don't need the exact words there, but I need them right here with these two words faith alone.

Why the inconsistency?

Because they have an agenda.

The agenda dominates the conversation not the scriptures and that's a problem with them.

And you know, that's a thing we see with muslims as well.

The muslims will do the very same thing.

They'll they'll say.

Where does it say?

Where does jesus say?

Specifically these exact words.

I am god worship me, right?

There's no where it says those exact words, but jesus does call himself god.

One one last thing on the on that discussion.

Um that I thought was brilliant that you did.

He took you to galatians.

And you you said well, this can't be speaking of christians because do christians do this list of sins?

Um I think that I think I could be mistaken, but.

We can't see because his video he didn't turn on but I think that you know.

His hair was just cut really short when that went right over his head so.

What we.

Because you were doing something that was brilliant and I don't know that everyone might have picked up on that.

Why were you arguing the way you argued at that galatians past is saying that can't be speaking of christians.

Well, he you know.

He wants to say that it's the christians that are being spoken of because the christians have to maintain their salvation by their goodness.

That's what he's ultimately getting at because that's what roman catholicism teaches a blasphemous lie from satan.

And so what he'll do is he'll go to galatians 5 19 through 21 and say these are the deeds of the flesh.

And okay, so i'm asking is that what the christians are doing sorcery and immorality and fornication?

Is that what they're doing?

He said he has to say yes.

Well, wait a minute.

Could it be then that um, They're unbelievers in the church of galatia.

No, he said no at first.

So wait a minute.

And that's when he was equivocating on the word church um I said give me a break, you know, it's just ridiculous.

He's addressing the christians about unbelievers in that particular thing.

Christians don't abide in that stuff.

They don't do that kind of thing.

They may slip up and fall but it's not an issue of abiding.

It's not an issue of that kind of stuff.

So he's just um stretching.

And he's obviously not trusted in jesus christ alone for his salvation.

That's what I was ultimately trying to get him to but uh, he doesn't want jesus alone.

He wants jesus and.

And that's the problem because on the day of judgment It won't be jesus alone.

That he's hiding behind it'll be jesus and his works jesus and his ability to keep the law.

Jesus and his water baptism and um.

Since it means then.

That he's not trusting in christ alone by faith alone that he's trusting in his own ability and that will

damn him okay, so.

You know since he's still here muted.

Let's just move on because we're not going to get anywhere.

You share the gospel so that folks who who here would know what the gospel message is.

The gospel is simply that we cannot keep the law in any way shape or form by any obligation or any way

period.

Nobody's good enough in heart.

Or intention or in hand the heart.

In the hand the heart is everything that you are inside internally.

The heart is desperately wicked deceitful.

No man can trust it.

Jeremiah 17 9.

And god says you must love the lord your god without your heart soul mind body.

And this is the obligation that we're happy to have.

The reason that god gives us that obligation is not because we are the standard.

But because god is a standard the obligation is perfection.

First peter 1 16 be holy for I am holy.

That's the standard god himself.

The standard is Absolute perfection.

Deuteronomy 27 26 quoted by paul in galatians 3 10 talks about this.

No one could keep the law perfectly.

Nobody can do it perfectly.

And what he says he doesn't say I don't keep it perfectly all the time.

Well that he admits he's a sinner.

But he still is saying that he's maintaining his position before god by his ability to keep the law.

And that in his incredible arrogance, he doesn't say he's sinned.

And when I said for a whole year, he didn't object to that.

He didn't object to that.

If someone said to me matt, could you not sin for five minutes?

I'd go, uh, don't don't even don't even say five minutes five seconds.

Maybe I don't even know if I could do for five seconds.

Because the bible says you're to love the lord your god with all your heart all your soul all your

mind.

All your strength.

Am I doing that every single second?

Because some people will say well if you don't you're not doing it on purpose you can do it by by not doing anything.

No.

All the time only christ was able to do that.

And we are not able to do this.

This is why the gospel the ewingalia is necessary.

Because it's the good news is that jesus kept the law perfectly.

Jesus is the one who did everything and we can trust in what jesus did having therefore been justified

by faith.

Romans 5 1 says.

And galatians 2 16 galatians 2 21.

That we just trust in christ and not in any works of the law that's in galatians and it's just you know

folks.

You can't get to heaven by your faith.

And.

Anything you do any ceremony?

Any sincerity any sacrament any church.

Any bible reading any goodness?

Any repentance.

None of it is perfect.

The standard is perfection.

And your sincerity is sin stained.

And it's not acceptable enough to god because of sincerity and your efforts were good enough to get to god.

Then righteousness would not come through the law.

Galatians 2 21 christ would have died needlessly, but his death was a

cleansing of our sins.

Leviticus 17 11.

A necessity for us so that we can be justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

But this man doesn't want to believe that he wants to say that's all old covenant so that he can say there's a new covenant.

Law, he's got to keep and the logical thing.

We have to ask at this point.

Is is he doing it?

If he says no, well, then the standard is his whole perfection.

Galatians 3 10 says so that he's still damned by his own system.

Folks, you got to understand something salvation is by faith alone in christ alone.

It's not by faith and Nobody's good enough.

Nobody's able enough.

Thousands upon thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of catholics are leaving and becoming

true christians realizing that the apostasy the darkness the

superstition the mariolatry the level of self -righteous.

Works righteousness and going to the church in order to have a priest give you.

Through his authority through the sacraments grace that's infused in you to keep you right with

god.

The church holds the certificate of your salvation in its hands.

And meets out to the catholic upon the sacramental participation.

That grace necessary for the maintenance of their position with god.

And this is blasphemy.

It's blasphemy.

The roman catholic church will pay dearly for the millions upon millions.

It is sent to hell with this antichrist doctrine because it is not trusted in christ alone.

An example of this is i'll ask roman catholics.

I'll say Is jesus god?

Yes.

Can you pray to him?

Yes, if you pray and you ask jesus to forgive you of all of your sins.

Will all of your sins be forgiven?

They don't want to answer half the time.

Because they know where i'm going.

Well, then can you do that?

And if you do and all your sins are forgiven.

Do you need mary?

Do you need your priesthood?

Do you need your sacraments or is jesus enough and this is where they fall apart?

Because they don't believe jesus is enough.

They believe in their sacraments and their priesthood and their church authority the church which holds their salvation in its hand.

They believe not just in christ.

They believe in christ and jesus and something by faith and.

In this case, they're under that antichrist religion the roman catholic church.

That teaches a false gospel.

And all who die believing official roman catholic theology will be lost.

We need to preach the true gospel.

That you're justified before god made right.

By faith and trust in what christ did who kept the law perfectly first peter 2 22.

Who bore our sins in his body on the cross first peter 2 24?

And were justified by faith apart from the works of the law of romans 3 28 romans 4 5

romans 5 1 galatians 2 16 galatians 2 21 that is all

we have is jesus.

Not jesus in a ceremony baptism.

Not jesus in a ceremony the mass.

Not jesus in a ceremony the rosary.

Not jesus in anything.

Because everything that we do is touched by sin.

And for anyone who would think that somehow we're capable in the sin stained.

Sincerity of our own hearts to please the infinitely holy god Is simply deceived.

The closer you get to the bright light.

The more you see the flaws within yourself the closer you become to christ the more you recognize

your own sin.

And those who are close to him in the recordings of the bible.

When they're in the presence of god, they say be gone from me for i'm unholy a man of unclean lips.

In the presence of the true living god.

No one boasts that they're able to not sin for a period of time if anything they confess.

They're just not worthy this man undoubtedly in the presence of jesus would say

I'm worthy.

Because I did not sin for a long period of time.

And that kind of stuff is foolishness self -deception he needs to repent needs to come to christ.

Yeah, and it was good the way you said people who believe in roman catholic doctrine because You're not saying

all roman catholics are not saved because it could be some who legitimately believe the gospel and just don't know to

come out of the church, but right and i'm specifying that for the people who are going to try to Make a false accusation because

you're saying those who believe.

I always say if you believe official roman catholic theology, you can't be a true christian.

That's not to say there aren't catholics who are true christians, but they are true christians in spite of roman catholic

theology.

It can happen.

All right.

So here's a question.

I came in in the apologetics live Uh facebook group, which is a facebook group you and I have

for this show.

Uh, daniel asked this, uh, first off.

He said he's very excited about the show.

He said would y 'all please address hyper calvinism?

What does uh, what's the difference between the two?

So what's the difference between calvinism and hyper calvinism the word hyper?

I Guess you want me to be more specific hyper calvinism is considered a heresy within

the calvinist camp.

Hyper calvinists affirm the five points as I do.

But uh hyper calvinists will basically say you don't even need to evangelize.

It doesn't really matter what you do and say because it's all predestined anyway, so sit down and do nothing.

Basically, that's what it is.

And that's a heresy.

It's rejected by biblical calvinists and uh.

So stay away from the hyper calvinism unfortunately.

What happens is that sometimes people will misrepresent calvinism by saying hyper calvinists are true

calvinists in that sense.

No, that's not the case.

Now.

I like to say the hyper calvinist was paul a calvinist and they know what I mean.

You know, did he you know, he wasn't a calvinist, but you know, he affirmed the five points obviously paul.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I did was paul very evangelical.

Yes.

Well, why aren't you then?

And then that's when the conversation falls apart because They don't realize and you're a calvinist.

I mean, you're a five -pointer.

I'm a five -pointer you and I have gone out in new york preaching the gospel you know begging people to

believe and we do that because We know that god uses foolish people like you

and me.

To preach that gospel message and he brings people through um.

Through that for the preaching of the word into a place of salvation using flawed

vessels, that's for sure.

Yeah, especially with you.

Oh, sorry.

Uh, you got that right?

I'm not gonna do that one, especially with me.

That's for sure.

So another one i'm trying to look at some of the questions and actually, you know It's actually before I get that.

Instead of going to question her son.

I did want to.

I have I have something right here called the influence written by some guy named Matthew

jay John slick, huh?

But.

That book's been out for a while.

Uh, there's some new books that hit the market on amazon, aren't there?

Yep, let's talk about them.

There's new books out check it out.

So we got you got two new books that deal with the topic of atheism, right?

So first is an uh, well, it's a short novel, right?

I forgot what they're called What you call them but novella novella the novella.

Called atheistica.

So tell what's atheistica about?

It's about an island that forms in the pacific and a very rich atheist buys it and creates a an

atheist community and uh things Don't work out exactly as they'd hoped.

Let's just say.

You mean like the way atheism always doesn't work out the way they don't.

Yeah, you know it can't work out logically.

But you see the thing is when I told an atheist about a year ago I was working on this and here and there I just decided to finish it the past few months

but um.

He said oh you're gonna make the atheist look stupid and I did not uh the main character

the contrarian Uh is a good man on a human level, you know, he's a good man.

He loves his wife.

He's he's Humble he makes mistakes like anybody else.

I don't bring those up as a big thing.

He's protective of his wife and uh.

Concerned for her safety, you know, I don't present him as an as an idiot at all.

And uh, the main atheist, uh, brian slarone.

That's the one who buys the island and all this stuff and there's also he's not an idiot either and um, there's an

atheist woman who is uh named sean Ali who's kind of an mc?

Uh kind of director at an organization and through.

A series of discussions that are televised on the island in order to solve problems and she's very intelligent very capable

and um.

You know, and then I do mention that there are bad people on the island some bad stuff happens.

What does that mean because her atheist bad stuff happens?

Hey, there's best of everywhere.

And so I try to present.

Uh, You know them as as normal people.

And I think I did a good job at it and I just tried to show that that philosophically there's some issues that are raised.

And I accelerated that problem because it's novella, you know, i'm not going to go on for 1800 pages

that's all and then you have uh Atheism and or is it

i'm familiar the title atheism and apologetics and atheism actually, that's okay.

And it's a series i'll be doing apologetics and roman catholicism apologetics and mormonism apologetics and jehovah's witnesses

apologetics and islam apologetics and christian theology.

So it's a series apologetics and and I did.

Um, I had that sitting there.

Um, and I went oh, I tried to forget about that and I had it like 80 done.

So I decided to finish it.

So after I released, uh atheistica uh, I I uh Unearthed this one and did that

one.

So now i'm literally working on apologetics and christian theology.

But i'm trying to finish up my section on annihilationism.

Which when i'm done will be over 130 articles that i'll be releasing in the next week.

That means you wrote nine more articles since this morning.

Because I think this morning you told me it was 121.

I said ready.

Oh, okay ready.

I've got over 170.

Oh really.

Yeah, but i'm not going to release all of them because some of them are repetitious.

And I don't need to be you know, there's variations word studies that aren't ready.

I just need to go through them once.

Okay.

Now it's ready.

So I have a little system on my little what I do either word ready.

But ready with a comma made to spin finally checked.

And ready without a comma means it's not finally checked.

It's ready, but it's not it's just mostly ready.

And so, uh, that's what I have.

And so when I say ready, I mean with a comma and uh, we now have

121 and it'll be more.

I could write another 50 articles because it's really quite a topic and uh, i've done.

Oh, man, have I done some studies?

Oh, jeez.

I've discovered stuff.

Annihilationism, it's just not true.

It's not true.

Well, and they're trying to come out when you know recent on my recent podcast.

I interviewed, uh, George alvarado who you know.

Right.

Yeah, and so he did the debate with with someone who uh, chris date who is a you know.

They don't say they believe it's not annihilationism.

They play with the words, right?

They equivocate on the the words and so it's it's the uh, You know, um

contain.

No, what is it?

They i'm trying to remember how they call themselves conditionalists so um

but.

That's something that you're going to release those articles and it'll be fun to see how how they're going to respond.

I know you've sent a couple my way and and I think that uh I think that should

for honest people silence.

The issue it will some but uh i'm just I want to make this clear because

anonymous said that the real reason that he was muted because I couldn't answer him.

That's not it.

I just wrote in.

The reason is not that the real reasons that I said you were rude unfocused blabbed constantly

Etc.

It just got old that is the reason.

So don't misrepresent.

Yeah.

That's the reason and I muted him and a reason I gave him was because he was rude and refusing to answer simple questions.

Yeah with simple answers.

He just goes on and on and on and on and on.

Okay, so yeah the conditionalism stuff um, and I can start talking about some of the arguments here if you want, but um.

There's a problem of continuity and there's a heresy that um, chris date is is uh teaching

and uh when he was here in my office and he said what he said I My jaw just dropped.

Like what and decided then not to tackle the issue.