Slick vs Flowers, Depravity and Human ability

All right everybody welcome it is the 17th of October we got

Layton in the room and We have friend of mine Charlie He's going to be here just to watch if anybody else somehow comes in we had a problem last night and if anybody comes in he'll just tackle them and you guys can see that not a big deal and No, okay good

Getting the good okay, so the audio is working everything's working. I just did a feedback on the link everything's great

So last night what happened? I? Think it was the heresy that he was speaking so much just broke the the

YouTube account That's it's only think I think I think I think God predestined it so that he definitely predestined

He only would y 'all would only hear the truth being spoken. There you go good comeback So at any rate all of YouTube was down last night all of it apparently it just crashed and That's what happens either way

And so here we are again round two. I guess you could say so what's gonna happen is we'll pray and then

Someone said don't break YouTube again We'll just pray and then Layton just gonna jump in and go and then

We'll just I'll just jump in and we'll react to what he says. We'll just see what happens Yeah, and and those that did watch my opener yesterday

It'll be some of the same But I did go through at the end some different verses just for your sake because I saw about a thousand people did watch the

Part of it at least so I'll try not to bore you too much with the exact same opener I'll change it a little bit for you or make a board

All right, I prayed last time you want to pray this time sure Let's go the

Lord father We do thank you for the time that we have to open your truth and father We pray that you will help us to understand each other help us to be cordial and loving to give a spirit of Brotherly love towards one another though We disagree with each other on this particular issue help us to a model what it means to show true genuine loving

Kindness towards one another one thing we do know your word does say is that you will know us by our fruit and that how?

We love each other It doesn't say you will know us by all the doctrinal checkpoints that we have but that you will know us by our love and so I pray that we do display love and and and true

Brotherly kindness to one in one another as we discuss your truth in Firm conviction and according to your your scripture in Jesus name we pray

Amen All right, I guess you're just gonna go right absolutely let's go

In the concluding words of our scripture in Revelation 22 It's written the Spirit and the bride say come and let the one who hears say come

Let the one who is thirsty come and let the one who wishes to take of the free gift of the water of life

Notice the phrase let the one who wishes some translations say let the one who wills take the free gift

But Calvinistic doctrine of total inability teach that all people since the fall are born unable to wish

Or to will to take this gift, but where does the Bible teach this? I hope we can unpack that a little bit this evening now to begin

Let's be very clear about our disagreement what we're talking about tonight We are not disagreeing over the issue of man's depravity or his sinfulness

We all agree that mankind is sinful and in need of a Savior Our disagreement with Calvinist is specifically over this idea of what's called total inability

Which is the idea that because of the sin of Adam all people are born in a fallen condition

Where they can only hate and reject God and even if God makes his appeal to be reconciled from that fall

You're born by his decree mind you unable to willingly to want to accept that appeal

So let me just say something to my Calvinistic friends when we disagree with you about your doctrine of total inability

We are not saying that humanity is without sin We're not saying that they can save themselves nor are we teaching that everyone deserves salvation

We are arguing to preserve what we sincerely believe the Bible clearly teaches about human responsibility

And God's character as well as his love and his provision for every man woman boy and girl

We are not denying humanity's bondage to sin. Please hear that we believe mankind are in bondage to sin

But instead what we're simply saying is that those who are in bondage are still Responsible to humbly confess their bondage and put their trust and the only one who can free them and by responsibility by the way

We mean one's ability to respond in faith to inspired truth that was sent to help set people free

We understand no one seeks God on their own, but we simply do not believe that God has left anyone on Their own nor do we believe the inability to initiate our reconciliation with God Entails an inability to respond willingly to God's gracious initiative

We agree that no one is righteous not even one as it pertains to the law

But we simply do not believe that entails an inability to confess that fact and put trust in the righteousness of Christ So as to be saved by grace that he offers to all people through the appeal of the gospel

I think we can all agree that God holds fallen humanity responsible for the how they reply to his very words

Jesus even said so in John 12 47 and 48 if anyone hears my words, but does not keep them

I do not judge that person for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world There is a judge for the one who rejects me does not accept my words

The very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day Paul said in 2nd

Thessalonians 2 10 that those who perish quote perish because they refuse to love the truth so as to be saved in quote

Again, I think we all can agree that fallen sinners are held Responsible for what they do with the words of God with the gospel therefore

I think it's reasonable to suggest that fallen sinners are able to respond to the gospel by either humbling themselves and accepting it as truth or suppressing the truth and unrighteousness

Calvinism's doctrine of total inability teaches however that fallen sinners are born by God's decree Remember, they're born in such a condition that they cannot respond positively to God's own appeals to be reconciled from that fallen condition

Now let's just think about this if I tell my child that he should clean his room It does strongly imply that he could clean his room.

That's basic common sense I think that we would all understand but is that applicable to how God deals with all of humanity is

Implication in scripture of you should does that always mean you could well Let me give an answer to that by way of analogy

Suppose you had a horrible gambling addiction and as a result you accrued a debt so large that it was literally

Impossible for you to repay within your lifetime Would your inability to pay off this debt excuse you from paying it?

Of course not you should pay off your debt Regardless of whether you could pay off this debt.

This is an example I think of where inability does not necessarily remove responsibility and should does not necessarily mean could

Likewise the scriptures teach us that we should Obey the law of God perfectly

Matthew 5 48 for example But it also teaches us that no one could from Romans 3 and Romans 8 and other places our moral inability to fulfill

All the demands of the law does not remove our moral responsibility to that law

We have a debt that we cannot pay yet scripture seems to teach that we are held accountable for that debt nonetheless in this instance

It certainly does seem that should does not imply could but continuing with analogy above suppose you're wealthy and benevolent father

Offered to pay your gambling debt if and only if you would confess your addiction and check into a rehab facility for gamblers

Clearly this is something you should do but here's the question. Could you do that?

Well, of course you could your inability to pay off the debt in no way hinders you from accepting the benevolent offer a well -meant offer of your father's provision

Likewise with regard to the law your benevolent and gracious father offers to pay your sin debt

If you confess your sin addiction and you trust in him clearly, this is something you should do

But could you I Believe you could Calvinist doctrine of total inability says you could not your inability to pay off your sin debt in no way

However hinders you from accepting the benevolent offer of your father's gracious provision suppose someone try to convince you

That one's inability to pay off their huge gambling debt Equaled an inability to accept the help of the father when it's offered.

Would you believe them? I ask you that because that is ultimately what our Calvinistic friends like Matt Slick are

Attempting to get the church to believe about God's benevolent offer of salvation Now catch this

Calvinist believe we are born unable to want to accept God's appeals in his provision because he decreed he decided this not us

He decided for us to be born Unable to want that our wanter is born broken as R .C

Sproul puts it because God decreed for everybody's wanter to be broken once the fall happen We are all born in this condition by God's decree yet He holds all people responsible with an eternity in hell for something in which they had absolutely no control over Their denial and the rejection of even the words of Christ calling them to repentance and faith and reconciliation

By even some Calvinistic scholars on admission this seems dreadful to suggest that God holds humanity

Responsible for that which he himself is decisively controlling John Calvin himself called it a dreadful decree on Matt Slick's website

CARM He has a page where he lists all the passages that he feels support this doctrine of total inability

And I want to briefly briefly address some of them I did some of them in the first try at this

But I'm going to try to do some different ones and this one just because I want you all to hear More of the verses that we could go through Genesis 6 5 is one that we went over It says then the

Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth And that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

But the scripture goes on to say I think we need to see it in the context It goes on to say the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth and his heart was deeply troubled

So the Lord said I will wipe from the face of the earth the entire human race that I've created and verse 8

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord now You can argue that Noah found favor because God irresistibly made

Noah and his family favorable by some Supernatural effectual means but the text certainly doesn't say this

Plus that interpretation would make the text seem quite unreasonable because then why would God express frustration?

For the wickedness of the entire creation when apparently he could have just as easily made

The human race favorable or at least a portion of the human race favorable by some supernatural irresistible means in the same way that he supposedly

Made Noah and his family favorable again It just I think falls apart on itself when you begin to examine scriptures like this

Genesis 8 21 the Lord said to himself I will never again curse the ground on account of man for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth

Now this is where I think um guys like Matt though Well intending this is somewhat of a conflation of calvinist.

What they do is they list verses which establish that mankind is sinful But they list those those verses about their sinfulness as if they also establish man's inability to humbly confess their sinfulness

Many of the verses in Matt's list rely Upon this conflation in order to support this concept of total inability because on their own

They don't support the concept of total inability Jeremiah 7 9 is another good example in this list.

The heart is more deceitful than all else. It's desperately sick who can understand it Well again, how does proof of the heart's illness?

prove a person's moral incapacity to confess that fact And humbly throw himself at the mercy of the great physician who offers to bring healing to his heart's condition

Again, this is conflating two distinct issues that I hope that you see tonight There's the distinct issues of man's sinfulness where we agree

And the inability of man to confess their sinful condition in light of god's revelation through the law and the gospel

Matt continues to rely upon this conflation in many of these proof texts many of them I went over in in the first discussion

But let me skip ahead to some of the other ones romans 3 10 Through 12 is one of the most popular ones that calvinists will go to where it says no one's righteous not even one

But we have to understand that earlier in chapter 1 of romans Paul said that the righteous live by faith in verse 17

And in the next chapter in chapter 4 after chapter 3 after he's declared no one's righteous No, not one quoting from the psalmist

He says that abraham was believed and it was credited to him as righteous In other words, you got enoch that was righteous job was righteous according to scripture

You've got all these people who are called righteous, but then you've got chapter 3 saying no one's righteous No, not one. Was there a contradiction in scripture?

None of us believe that there's a contradiction Obviously what is being argued here is that no one can attain their own righteousness

By means of the law because we all fall short. We all have broken the rules of god. We've all fallen short

So our only hope is to trust in the righteousness of somebody else See the calvinistic logic it goes something like this for romans 1 through 3

They're ultimately saying something like well one believing in christ. It's righteous. It's good You'll often hear them say is it good to believe in christ?

Is it good to trust in christ because they believe believing in christ is righteous and good and since no one's righteous or good

That must therefore mean that no one can believe in christ Well, that's a non -sequitur and it's certainly not what paul is saying in this these chapters

What paul is saying is only those who believe are credited as righteous And no one merits their own righteousness by means of the law

Therefore your only hope is to do what abraham did and believe in the righteousness of god So that you will be credited with the righteousness of someone else because you can't merit your yourself through the law

That's the intention of paul He also lists romans 8 7 another popular verse Because the mind is set on the flesh is hostile to god for it does not subject itself to the law of god

For it is not even able to do so Again, I have to ask how does our inability to fulfill the law's demands?

Equal an inability to confess that fact and trust in the one who did the reason we call it good news is because He has provided a way in which we can attain righteousness through faith

That's why it's good and it's good news for all people First corinthians 2 14 another very popular passage to prove or to hold up this concept of total inability

But you have to look at the context I believe The verse says but the natural man does not accept the things of the spirit of god for they are foolishness to him

He cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised Now if one simply backs up and reads the context by going back up to let's say verse 6

I think you can go to the first chapter too But go back up to verse 6 and you'll see that the things quote the things to which paul is referring to Are quote the hidden mysteries that are just now being revealed through people like paul through his apostles through inspired holy men

He also in verse 10 speaks of the deep things only known in the mind of god That's according to verse 10 or if you go on to the next verses it talks about the meat rather than the milk of the word as those who are

As the things that he's referring to so this is clearly not talking about an inability of lost people to understand

The plain and simple gospel appeal to be reconciled to god If it were then why did paul go on in the very next verses to talk to the brethren?

The brethren the believers in corinth and say they could not accept these same things either due to their own carnality

Again, when you study the context, it just simply falls apart This concept of total inability is just not found in these texts

Ephesians 2 1 is another very popular verse you were dead in your trespasses and sins now in the first century calling someone dead

Was idiomatic for concept of separation due to rebellion It was not ever meant and I would challenge our calvinists to find any time where the concept of word dead spiritual deadness

Means or connotes this concept or idea of moral incapacity to respond to god's life -giving truth.

It's just not there We're dead like the prodigal son whose father said he was lost but now he's found he's dead

But now he's alive that means we're separated Due to rebellion does not mean you're morally incapable of humbly admitting your mistakes and returning home

Out of your pigsty paul also says by the way christians are dead to sin Does that mean you're morally incapable of choosing to sin?

Well, of course not it means you're to separate yourself from sin just like we were once separated from god by our sin lastly

Probably the most popular verse of all is john 6 44 No one can come to to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

Um, but you have to understand that jesus goes on to say just a few chapters later And I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all people to myself

Okay, so this is a point that has to be under rightly understood to understand passages like this

While jesus was down from heaven his desire was not to draw all people to himself.

Did you hear that? When he was down from heaven his desire was not to draw all people to himself

In fact many times we see jesus saying to his followers. Don't tell anybody who I am yet. Matthew 16 20 for example or mark 9 9

Why would this be doesn't jesus want everybody to be saved? Isn't that what we believe why in the world if this is the case?

Would he want why would he go tell everybody absolutely go tell everybody the reason is is because Jesus is accomplishing redemption while down from heaven

He has to be crucified and if they knew who the lord of glory was they would have never crucified him as he says in first corinthians chapter 2 verses 6 and 7

So he speaks parabolically so that the those on the outside do not understand and believe he he is purposefully hiding his identity

So as to make sure redemption is accomplished through the crucifixion and it's only after he's raised up That he sends the gospel to draw all people to himself.

And once somebody understands that the context of verses like romans chapter 6 and others where he speaks very parabolically about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and doesn't really try to explain himself

Very very clearly and everybody leaves except for his apostles It gives us an understanding of what jesus is accomplishing by saying there are some who listen and learn from the father

Those are the ones who've been given to me and those are the ones who will believe in the son And so I think that's the context of passages like john 6 and i've gone over my time

So i've gone 16 minutes. So feel free to take uh, 16 minutes there matt for your uh your response

Yeah, um, I didn't care. You can keep going if you want doesn't bother me That's all right, I I for the sake of everyone listening

I will uh stop stop at our set on time there All right. Well, I appreciate uh what you had to say and um

Uh, you went over a lot of verses very quickly and it's difficult to address

Um each verse at 80 miles an hour. Yes, it is And then, you know,

I can quote from memory, you know 15 verses to support something really quickly all in 30 seconds It's not gonna it really doesn't accomplish anything.

We need to examine things in context one at a time and uh You know, you brought up things and I could respond maybe we'll have a conversation over a few of the verses

I got some very basic questions. I want to ask later on But you know, you opened up with revelation 22 17

The spirit and the bride say come let though. In fact, I don't even know what my time frame is. It's uh, 23.

So sick 15 38 okay Uh, let him who hears come and uh, let who's thirsty, you know drink and let the one who wishes take water of life

And you said see it implies, uh, well, you haven't said it but libertarian free will but the verse does not say how

They were able to arrive at that condition of being able to desire or wish it

And plus the context is of those who are already in heaven, you know, you can

People do this. They will throw verses out very quickly say see it means that they can believe like john 3 16 Which he didn't bring up but john 3 16.

He got to love the world whoever believes well, that means everybody can believe No, not necessarily, you know And it doesn't say how they come to believe either if god grants that they believe because he does flipkins 129 and he works belief

In them. John 6 28 29. He grants repentance second timothy 225 so I can whip those out too quickly

I mean not too quickly, but quickly also and um We might want to you know, pause and look at one or two and and uh and see how they work

You know latin you went to john 644 Um the one who come to me unless you can't come to me unless the father who sent me draws him

And i'll raise him up on the last day You know the contention of those of us in the reformed camp is that those who are born in sin?

Are enslaved to sin romans 6 14 through 20 talks about this. They're dead in their sins.

Ephesians 2 1 They're by nature children of wrath. Ephesians 2 3 and again. I'm not trying to whip out 8 000 verses

Um, it's just you know, we can discuss things i'm trying to be polite and be slow for everybody but um

You know, so we have these reasons why we say these things and they're worth examining those those scriptures

Yeah, and if someone just has the ability to believe On their own by hearing the gospel hearing something.

It's just something in them that enables them which is a question You need to tackle uh

Okay, just my speech program just kicked into something Please be patient. It just wigged out.

There we go. There we go. Okay, turn it off It's wigging out. Sorry about that. Okay, good.

Wow um my bad Making sure it's off. So it says no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him if it's up to people's free will

Then why was it? Jesus said you can't come to me unless the father draws him If it's the natural ability of a person to be able to come to god on his own free will even within his sinfulness

And why does jesus say you cannot no one can do this unless the father draws him And what you did late and he went straight to john 12 32 if I believe in the earth

I'll draw all men to myself the all men has to do with all people groups because jesus said in matthew 15 24

He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of israel. He wasn't sent to the whole world. He was only sent to israel and then israel rejected him and then covenantally

Uh, the covenant was broken. We the gentiles are grafted in and then that's why Uh that we gentiles can be saved

But he says no one can come to me unless the father sent him draws that that's a limitation He says you can't do it unless the father draws you

And he goes on in john 6 65. He says, uh, No one can come to me unless it's been granted to him from the father.

Nobody can Well, this is important Nobody can come to jesus unless the father granted to him if it's up to people's free will once they've heard the gospel

Heard a message whatever it might be Uh, then they should just be able to come to god on their own

But it would not be necessary for jesus to say that no one can come to him unless it's granted to him from the father

Now this is the kind of verses that we reform people will look at and say we believe That no one could come to christ unless it's granted to them by the father, which means

That your free will doesn't allow you to come to christ because no one can do it unless the father grants it to you

Now I go to first corinthians 12 3 Uh where you know paul says no one can say jesus is lord except by the holy spirit

This is another restriction on the the nature of the uninformed the unbeliever

The holy spirit is in dwells the believers. We know that Well, if they don't have the spirit, they're not going to say jesus is lord.

They can't do it says no one can say Jesus is lord now We know they can utter the syllables, but we know what this means is the confession of it.

They can't do that Unless the holy spirit is there now are we going to say upon them or within them and that's another discussion

Uh, you know, I could go to there's lots of verses I could go to Here's one John 8 43 through 44

Jesus says to the pharisees you cannot hear my word because you're of your father the devil Now there's a restriction

And that they cannot do this because they are the father of the devil this means they're unregenerate They're haters of god.

They're haters of christ and because of this they're not able to do what they're supposed to be able to do They have a restriction on them on them because of their nature because of their essence um romans 8 8 we went he went through that a little bit but uh

The context is about those who are according to the flesh In verse 5 this is really important those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh

But those according to the spirit the things of the spirit So we have the fleshly people. We have the godly people the unbelievers and the saved

And um in their condition of non -regeneration They cannot please god. They cannot it's not possible

This is because it's their nature and because of this this is why we have verses in the bible that say things like uh, god grants that we believe philippians 1 29 if it's true that Free will means the person can just hear the gospel and they're able to make a decision

Then why does god have to grant that they believe and it's not grant the opportunity to believe for that's not what it says

It says they grant that they believe it's the believing that he grants to them Not the opportunity to and to say anything other than that would be the reading of the text

He grants, uh repentance second timothy 225. He causes people to be born again

First peter 1 3 i'll say this slowly if anybody wants to write them down He grants that people come to christ already went over that john 6 65 and we're born again not of our own will john 1 13

It's not far off From the reformed perspective to say look we hold to the idea of man's sinfulness

He's a slave of sin a hater of god can do no good dead in his sins and um uh

This is why because of these god has to elect them and choose them and predestine them

Uh ephesians 1 4 and 5 this is why he has to grant that they believe this is why he has to appoint them to eternal

Life acts 13 48 which says as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed

We can see that god grants that people believe and he works faith in them They said to jesus what must we do to work the works of god and jesus says this is the work of god that you believe

On whom he has sent Now I can go into lots of verses about god moving the heart and will we'll get into that later

Um 1 corinthians 2 14 we could discuss that i'm sure for a half hour, uh, Maybe carnal christian understanding, uh, backslidden understanding and things like that Uh, if they if a person is carnally in a carnal mind a christian is in a carnal state

It says he cannot understand the things of god cannot he cannot receive them An unbelievable excuse me a christian who's backslidden certainly understands as he's a sinner certainly acknowledges his he's a he's a sinner

Certainly acknowledges the issues of who christ is and his deity in resurrection Otherwise, he wouldn't be a christian.

He's a backslidden christian. He's in the flesh And the so this wouldn't apply to him. He cannot do this. It's foolishness to him.

He cannot understand them That's not the words of a backslidden individual. It's not describing someone backslidden. It's someone who's unregenerate who is

According to the flesh and we could discuss that quite a bit um

Let's see. Uh I'm gonna go to my notes a little he agrees that people you agree that people are touched by sin and under bondage

That's good. Uh, welcome to reform theology. I'm glad you affirm that um

And I got a quote from last night, but I don't need to go into that right now Uh, let's see human response, but let's go through my notes.

Okay, because you went through so many things Quickly that I just kind of wrote some things around Uh, what

I believe that layton does is beg the question He presupposes the validity of libertarian free will and a kind of an autonomous freedom, which we need

To discuss during free will there's different definitions of it but basically it means that an individual basically an individual is

Not so constrained by his sinful nature that he's not able to choose both good and bad Now that's not exactly accurate, but it's pretty good for this for a basic level

We as we calvinists look at the scriptures and we interpret free will in light of god's word we don't presuppose

Libertarian free will and then interpret god's word in light of it We don't do that and that's something

I don't do now, you know, I will confess maybe I do it Involuntarily, maybe

I do it subconsciously, but there's never an intention to do anything like that. I wouldn't accuse Layton of purposely doing something like that.

He's not a an evil guy uh, but you know, we have our presuppositions and our assumptions that we work from and through Now he said

I make a comment here We discussed this last week god offers to pay your sin debt if you confess christ that is flat out blatantly wrong

We went over that last week colossus 2 14 clearly says the sin debt is canceled at the cross Not when you believe and not when you confess and that's just wrong.

Um, we went over that last week and um, Uh, there's verses we can talk about that But he says that we are born in the condition of inability by the decree of god

Now we had to discuss what the issue of the decree of god is Does layton mean it's a question worth asking does layton mean that a decree of god is direct causation?

In that god is forcing someone Because if he's forcing someone to do something that is against their free Well, he wouldn't hold them accountable for moral responsibility

What is meant by the issue of decree and when we talk about decree particularly in the reference? Of of reform theology we have to understand what the term means

Now there's can be direct and indirect decree and god can certainly cause things to happen by his direct hand

Let there be light bang. There's light, but he can also work circumstances So that certain people do what he wants them to do and he's certainly capable of doing that and causing them

Without violating any of the freedom. Um, he is based basically able to indirectly cause them and bring them about To do what he desires them to do.

That's why the bible says he can He can move the heart of the king where he wishes it to go proverbs 21 one

God is the one in control of all this we can unpack this maybe later We have questions that uh need to be asked and i've got what two minutes

Three minutes four minutes four minutes, I think if i remember correctly. Here's the thing

I i'm assuming and layton can correct me I'm assuming this about layton that what he's trying to do is hold justice at a high level before god

And not make god out to be the author of sin or a celestial uh uh

He's one where what comes to mind I don't want to say it but a celestial Mafia hit man who makes people do what he wants them to do and then blames them

For what they've done or commands that they to do something that they can't do and then blames them for that as though he

In his decree, he causes them to be made this way. That's not how it works in biblical theology or reformed theology

The decree of god certainly is that he works all things after the counsel of his will ephesians 1 11. We're going to unpack that but you have to understand that God forms the heart and the mind and the will and all of this in The human being and i've got plenty of references out of psalms and isaiah for that.

We know that god does that Well, if he does that we have to ask a question in light of that Why does one person receive christ when the gospel is presented and another does not?

The calvinist has the answer because god grants that he believes philippians 1 29 works faith in him.

John 6 28 29 Because he's caused to be born again. First peter 1 3 And he's granted repentance second timothy 2 25 we have direct answers

Because we know that the sinful will of the unbeliever is not capable of coming to god on his own

Now layton actually says the same thing. He's not able to do it on his own. He has to be drawn He says that that's what he said last night

Okay, and we agree but then the question then becomes why does Here we have bob and frank bob receives christ frank does not they're identical twins everything in their whole life

Why does bob believe and frank does not? What's the issue what's the difference there's some very important issues here

If bob believes does he believe arbitrarily or does he believe because of reason?

But if he's going to believe because of reason Then he's believing it because of something in him and then there's a quality within him that merits to some degree salvation

In that he can boast i'm the one who saw the need but there is no boasting

Before god, but this would allow someone to boast Well, why would frank on the other hand bob and frank frank rejects?

Why would frank reject when bob didn't why the answer from the basic, uh, arminian position?

He's not arminian. I don't think but the basic position is from the libertarian view. That's just their free will But why is it their free will why is it that one believes another one does not?

We reform people have a very robust answer god's decree his election

Where he chooses people for salvation whether you like it or not. Ephesians 1 4 and 5 2nd. Thessalonians 2 10. Um 2 13, excuse me, and we go to romans 9 which i'll be interesting discussion sometime

Uh, he grants that they believe he grants that they come to him He as as jesus says you cannot come to him unless the father draws you cannot come to him unless it's been granted you from the father, etc

These things are consistent with reformed theology because they're right there in the scriptures. This is why I hold to them

Now he and I can argue about what verses mean in context and find this verse related over to here and move it over here and like that I want to get down to the issue of Why does one person believe another one does not what's the issue that's different about one?

Another one does not I don't believe he has an answer I have an answer according to scripture and because I have an answer according to scripture

Which just happens to agree with reformed theology then reformed theology is substantial Cheated by scripture question his theological position is not his theological position would lead to a capricious

Arbitrary kind of decision making which I could illustrate In our discussion a little bit later. I think i'm out of time

That's about about right right about right Yeah, uh pretty close. Um I was ready to let you go a little bit longer because I went a little longer

So I was gonna let you go a little longer. So, um, you went about right Um, how do you want to do this?

Do you want you want to ask me questions first since I did the first presentation and then and then I'll ask you questions

Well, whatever. I don't care. Well, I'll flip a coin I'll ask you a question. I'll ask you questions first We'll go for about 15 minutes asking you asking me questions and then we'll swap

How about just one question at a time? Let's go. Let's go back and forth. Let's just talk. All right, we're both polite ish

Okay, so Actually, I have some I have several questions that are kind of uh preliminary um

Actually now i'm thinking about it uh, I was reading some of your stuff actually today and uh

I just this is for clarification. Do you affirm what's called autonomous free will? Well, it depends on how you define that but yeah

I don't I don't have a problem with the term autonomous Because I think the word autonomous is the same word you use when you're talking about god's holiness

Uh because you know when you talk about his transcendent his holiness you're talking about his separation from humanity

He's other than and therefore if somebody's making an evil choice Uh that is separate from the holiness of god and that they're making an autonomous decision uh meaning uh

Independent of god's will or desire they are they have a desire Of their own and a choice that god has allowed for them obviously to make he permits

Uh as I think the aw tozer quote is famous for god decrees not which choice will make but that will be free to make it

And that's ultimately what our theodicy is That's why there's evil and suffering in the world is that god has purposed for men to have free will

And because that's that's what makes relationships worth having and in a real world worth living

And therefore the autonomous aspect is the separation between our wills and god's will they're transcendently separate from each other

Doesn't mean that god can't control whoever he wants to control I mean if he wants to squash this or if he wants to convince somebody or if he wants to Uh, if he wants if he wanted a to calvinistically

Compatibilistically, whatever word you want to use change somebody's will I'm, i'm not trying to deny that god has the power to do that.

He could he could do that I my debate is more about what god has chosen to do as we see revealed in scripture

All right, so you don't say autonomous will is where man is independent of god just in contradiction to god

Well, I believe men can act contradictory to his will and his desires and his uh, you know his commands and and his

It's reformed. That's reformed theology Uh, he what god ordains

By allowing and we just use that loosely for now that god that people can act in a manner that's in contradiction

To his what we call prescriptive will he says don't lie But he he wills to allow people to lie and you're calling that autonomous in that he's acting independently.

I see what you're saying there. Okay Um does free will mean then that you have to be able to initiate?

Something of your own desire and will and and be able to accomplish good and bad. How would you just describe that with uh,

You know using uh the idea of our own initiation Well the way I would define libertarian free will is probably the same as the london baptist confession describes adam and eve in chapter 9

Of the 1689 confession that I think you you espouse Um where it gives a really clear definition um of adam and eve having the the capacity to to choose to either accept or reject um to choose for or against uh, but not by necessity of the will but they're able to Choose freely and so the description that the the london baptist confession gives uh

That is is I think a good definition of libertarian free will god has endowed Human will with the natural liberty and power to act on choices

So that is neither forced nor inherently bound by nature to do good or evil Humanity is in the state of innocence in their state of innocence had the freedom

And power to will to do what was good and well pleasing to god This condition was unstable.

It's about mutability. So humanity was able to fall from it I think mutability is really just another word for libertarian free free will he was able to sin or not to sin

Uh, he was he was able to fall from it. He was able to uh to do what was pleasing to god or Uh, not pleasing to god in that instance.

And so I think that's a good definition working definition of libertarian free will God have libertarian free will

Does god have libertarian free will? by the definition of the the power to Act a self -determined power to act in accordance with what one desires.

Yes Um the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action uh, for example, he had the power to choose to uh,

Elect to save matt slick or not to choose to save matt slick.

That's an example of a libertarian free choice of god Uh less debatable

There's a lot of assumptions in there, um Okay The concern

I have is with humanism in that a definition that is given and then you altered it when you applied it to god

Is man -centered instead of god -centered god is the standard of righteousness be holy for i'm holy first peter 1 16

So he we have to live up to him Not him lowering is standard to us Which is why christ god in flesh did what he did under the law died for our sins, etc

He said if i'm if i'm writing it down correct what you said It's not something that's forced the power to will what is good and also

To to do what is wrong because you you didn't say those words But that's what you were implying with the issue of adam and eve

They're able to do what's right and wrong, but god can't do right and wrong. So that definition Does Does not apply to god and what true free will is that means what god is and also applies to to a to man

Otherwise, we don't it's just a humanistic endeavor So you I don't want to rephrase the idea what you think free will is

No, I I think that the the definition of being self -determined Applies to into both characteristics.

In other words, there may be aspects of what god has created that are similar Uh in that we're created in his image.

That doesn't mean that we're exactly the same as him We have a mutable nature. He doesn't have a mutable nature. He's not tempted like men are tempted

And therefore god When you're talking about moral, uh choices of right and wrong you're talking about something different But that's why

I gave you an example of a libertarian free choice of creating Matt slick or not creating matt slick

God didn't have to create you unless you're Of the opinion that you had to be created and that god needed you somehow

I think it shows that he libertarianly chose to create matt slick. He didn't have to create matt slick

That's a libertarian choice because he could have done Otherwise, um the fact that he chose to create you doesn't prove that he could not have not created you

And and that's that's an example of a libertarian free choice Well, I don't know that that would follow and apply to god this discussion i've had with some people is does god?

I am hearing all kinds of sounds in my earpiece here. What the heck is going on?

Uh, sorry it is i'm hearing Hi, i'm hearing water sounds in my earpiece

I don't know what's going on Why is? Okay.

No, I thought I turned it off. Uh, sir. Can you hold on one sec while I try and solve this problem? because It's i'm hearing sound sound sound

And uh I'm gonna close a bunch of stuff Windows, I don't know what's doing it

It's really strange You know, sometimes if you have a window open it it will uh

You know some advertisement or something will come up with a sound in it and it'll do that i've had that happen before Yeah, um

Okay, I apologize Maybe I got it. I closed a bunch of stuff.

I don't hear it It was constant it was just every one second two seconds one second now,

I don't hear you Well, I'm muted myself. Yeah, so Okay, sorry mute yourself for 10 seconds and I don't hear it

I don't hear it Now I hear it now.

I'm unmuted. Do you hear it? Yeah, it's it's happening when you muted yourself again.

I apologize for this when you muted yourself. It stopped Well, i'm not i'm not hearing anything so i'm not sure what

It went there it is again There it is again again

Again, okay mute yourself for 10 seconds again. Oh, there it is.

Okay Okay, i'm hearing it again, so I don't know what's going on I may just have to try and concentrate around it.

Um, it's as though when something is hooked up And then, you know, it comes hooked up and non -hooked up on something um

You know the sound that it makes in windows Everything's unhooked Now I don't hear it as much so I don't hear it at all.

Okay, turn this off. The only thing plugged into my computer is the camera Okay I apologize that was it's

I guess it stopped it was very distracting Okay, are can are you muted i'm not i'm not unmuted myself now so okay,

I don't hear it good. Hopefully we're good Again apologies. That's right

Um, okay, okay Well, you asked you asked me some questions. So let me let me ask you a couple now if you don't mind or at least one um is there

Started up again What is going on that we're having these problems

And let me try this i'm going to get out of that It was the window that I was watching us in So I just closed that out

Okay I'm not hearing anything Well, let's see if I start talking again Yeah, when you talk it happens.

Well here what if I uh Like this does that make any difference?

I don't hear it. I don't hear it You know what maybe your your head Could be your head.

I don't know what's going on But uh, maybe your headphone needs to be plugged it pulled out and pulled back in sometimes it'll fix things

Well, i'll just take it out if you can hear me. Okay without it. There it is again crud Okay, this is not your fault.

It's on my end. I don't know what's going on One possibility is to reboot my computer. I don't want to do that And uh what i'm going to do is just deal with it.

Um Uh Just deal with it. That's all I can do your headset maybe or change your headset out

What's what if you changed your headset? Would it make a difference? Uh, and I don't have another headset this is it

And it's you know what? That's what it is. Sorry. I'll just do the best I can with it. It's um

It's constant Yeah, it's it was constant I could deal with it but it stops starts stops for a while then starts

You know, I wonder if someone's doing something now, I don't hear it No, I don't

I don't know Okay I don't know what it is. And let me try this.

Let me try some things. Hold on. Sorry. Okay, i'm plugging this And uh

Don't know what that is and that is those are i'm gonna that goes like that. Nope. There it is again

I'm gonna turn this off Okay it's

And there's nothing there, where does that go to I'm gonna i'm gonna unplug some stuff.

So if my camera goes off i'll be right back but Okay, here we go I think that's it

And okay There it goes That's frustrating technology world

Can you say something uh something Something I hear it something.

Yeah, don't say anything for five seconds Okay, go ahead

Check check check one, two, three four. Nope. Dang it Okay. Well, you know what this uh

I'm, sorry just to deal with it Okay, okay Well, sorry

Do you do your best if I need to repeat something i'll be glad to if you can't hear for whatever reason just let me

But in our in one of our previous discussions you talked about how my view of free will would somehow deny the aseity of god

Or it would somehow Uh, you know take away the attributes of god But yet would you agree with the the london baptist confession of faith in its explanation of the natural liberty of adam and eve?

because that that liberty seems to be the type of liberty that i'm uh espousing that people have

And so it seems to me that you would have to say that god somehow lost his aseity prior to the fall

Or somehow gave up his aseity prior to the fall if you affirm The liberty of the will at least as described in your own confessions

And so can you help me explain how your your rebuttal of me that i'm somehow denying god's aseity doesn't apply to you for pre -fallen man

First of all, I don't want to affirm or to not affirm that love this the baptist confession, um

I'm presbyterian so I wouldn't be holding to them for that in a lot of areas As far as the free will stuff goes when we talk about the free will of adam and eve

You're talking about before the fall or after the fall before the fall Okay before the fall then they had the ability the free will ability ability to choose to do what was sinful and not

Uh sinful, right? That's that's what it was Sinful, yeah, but I would say that after the fall then they were affected by sin

And uh the progeny that they were already believers in god and acknowledged god and god had already redeemed them uh typologically we could say that through the shedding of the blood most probably by the

Same question you asked me earlier. Why did bob rather than frank choose to accept?

Why did adam and eve choose to sin versus not sin couldn't couldn't they have rejected? Well, I have an opinion on that in that I believe that all sentient creatures will end up sinning because they don't possess the quality of holiness in first timothy 517 it talks about the elect angels

And it's my opinion that all sentient beings who have a will self -awareness, etc

Because they're creatures and they don't possess the ontological essence and nature of god's holiness by necessity will end up falling

That's what I believe and the reason we have that one verse again in first timothy 517

The elect angels they were the ones chosen by god not to sin. So he exercises sovereign will upon them

That's what I affirm. It may be correct. It may not be correct, but that is what I affirm So did they have the ability to reject god?

Obviously? Yes, as they did Did they have the ability to not reject him? Yes, but for how long it only takes one rejection and one mistake one rebellion against god and then they're they're sinful

But but but in the time that they did sin the actual time that they did sin Why why did they choose that if if they were able to do otherwise?

Because that was within their nature to do that Eve was deceived of course and she made a choice and then adam listened to her and he chose and he rebelled

It was his free will choice to rebel and fall into sin. Okay, so here's here's really the root of the question then um, the same thing with the bob and frank scenario that you were earlier alluding to Is in the same way that a unfallen nature

Can be influenced by the appeal of a serpent Can the fallen nature the person who's fallen like you and I?

From the appeal of god respond willingly to it So you've got adam and eve over here who are unfallen they are appealed to by a snake and they choose to sin

Why then is it not logical and acceptable to think that a fallen nature?

when appealed to by god himself Can choose in the same way that same liberty

Of of the freedom in response to god not by themselves not alone, but in response to god's gracious offer

Why can't the fallen nature respond positively? to god's appeals Because the fallen nature and the unfallen nature are different natures

They are affected, uh, but one is affected by sin One is not the unfallen nature has the ability to uh fall as is the fact exemplified by adam and eve

But the scripture says of the fallen they're slaves of uh sin haters of god can do no good don't seek for god

Their hearts desperately wicked deceitful. No make an understander to trust it they um

Do not seek for god, etc. That's what's described of the unbeliever and that's so there's a difference

They have a sinful nature where adam and eve did not they're different so you can't correspond one to one to do so as a mistake

Okay, okay. Well, we would obviously just disagree on that because I think that the the fallen condition

Uh is being appealed to by god And therefore god would know what was necessary to make a sufficient appeal

To someone who is in a fallen condition. Therefore. I think that his appeal would be sufficient To allow for just as free of a choice that adam and eve would have had in the garden

Because it's not just anybody making this appeal. It's god himself Making revelation known to a lost person.

So it's not making it known To just anybody he knows who the person is. He knows they're lost and they're fallen and he's making an appeal to be reconciled

For that lost person to be reconciled. So this is an unreconciled person that he's appealing to be reconciled And therefore you would have to assume that god being god would know what would be sufficient to permit for a person

To make a choice as to whether to accept that appeal or to reject that appeal in the same way that adam and eve

Had the the freedom as you just alluded to to accept or reject the appeal of the serpent

You make a mistake you presuppose that the unbeliever has the ability to receive christ. That's an assumption on your part

That's not established in scripture. We know that adam and eve are different Before the fall they had unfallen natures.

They walked in the very presence of god They were unfallen not enslaved to sin the verses that say they're slave to sin dead in their sins, um full of evil

Desperately wicked deceitful that none of that applied to adam and eve

So because it does not apply to them it they're different in their situation But what you're doing is you're making a mistake you're saying here they are in their unfallen state

They had that choice So in their fallen state people have the same choice not so Because the restriction set by scripture upon those who are fallen is different and it's clear you said god knows what is sufficient

Well that presupposes what's sufficient in order to get someone to believe i'm assuming that's what you meant Well that presupposes the ability to receive christ you're begging the question to begin with you've not established it from the beginning

You've not established that they have this libertarian type free will of just being able to believe You haven't done that otherwise you're begging the question

Well what um what I have established is that god holds us responsible for his words and and the response to the gospel

And i've established that just because you can't pay the debt doesn't mean you can't accept an appeal a genuine appeal of a gracious father

Willing to pay off that debt if you admit You're uh, you're you you've gotten that debt on your own and you're you're at fault

And so in the same way, I think i've established biblically that god expects us

To um to humble ourselves and to trust in him Um, he calls us to do that dozens and dozens of times throughout scripture

In fact, he even says if you don't humble yourself, I will humble you and so you want to talk about effectual humility

That only comes at judgment In other words, if god if you're waiting for god to effectually humble you you're going to be waiting until it's too late

You're responsible to humble yourself. You're responsible to own your sin Now that in and of itself does not merit your salvation.

If it did there would be no reason for the cross What god has graciously chosen to do is credit the righteousness of his son to whosoever

Humbly confesses that their righteousness isn't sufficient that they can't earn their righteousness

But what I think has to be noted is that admitting or confessing your inability to merit righteousness does not in and of itself

Merit righteousness. That's why it's not our righteousness It's the righteousness of christ being given or imputed or placed over our account

Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteous and therefore When we believe we're credited with the righteousness of christ

We're not earning or meriting our own righteousness by believing And so I think that's that's important for us to to know the difference between those two things

Um, I would can I respond to that what you said though? You made a comment. I want to respond if I could Yeah, absolutely.

Go ahead Okay, you said a person can uh accept the gracious appeal for a paid debt well, you know

Look, you know, I got a daughter and three daughters and uh, you know, they got the car payments or whatever they might have

Hey, why don't you pay your debt? Yeah If I go to my atheist neighbor and say hey Do you want me to pay your uh your your debt off with that restaurant that you've left your wallet at your home and you forgot?

Yeah. Yeah, would you? that's not the same thing as Receiving christ and trusting in christ when first corinthians 2 14 says a natural man cannot receive the things of god

They're foolishness to him. He's a slave of sin romans 6 14 to 20 These things are there and and these kinds of verses are there and there's a lot of them which then

Reflects the necessity of verses like you caused it to be born again born again. Not of your own will granted belief, etc

If it's just an issue that I think you're drawing a false analogy, uh fallen conditions appealed to um, excuse me

My notes here yet someone can can just uh receive a paid debt and want that well, yeah on the human level

But that's not the level we're talking about when we talk about this issue of spiritual ability You say they're responsible to humble themselves

I totally agree You and I agree a lot in a lot of things people are responsible whether or not they're able to do it

They're still responsible to do what's right, but their responsibility does not mean ability god says be holy for i'm holy

We can't be holy There's no way we can be holy but God requires it and he requires it because he's a standard not man

And when you say to whoever confesses, I agree to whoever confesses But who are the ones who confess?

It's the one who are the elect Chosen of god before the foundation of the world who are predestined who are granted the act of believing who are caused to be born again

They're the ones Who are the whosoever confesses The whosoever confesses does not mean they have a natural innate ability to do it in their sinful free will it just says

Whoever are the ones who do this? Are going to have eternal life, but we have to ask the question. Why does this person do that?

And that's the question you can't beg the question and assume libertarian free will here Well, um,

I would say remember that god's making an appeal. He's calling people to repentance and faith And so he who is he calling to repentance and faith?

He came to seek and save the lost and so he's calling the lost people to repentance and faith

And so that's uh, it's it's as romans 10 14 says how will they believe on one whom they've not heard?

Well, what's what's implicit in that question? That if they do hear they may believe the problem that I think the calvinist the calvinistic interpretation has

Is that what what you've what you've done is that you've missed the the the process by which people can become hardened

In their rebellion to the point where they no longer see hear Uh and able to understand in turn as most of the jews of of the first century would have been

You you ultimately make it seem as if everybody's already in that hardened condition

But the scriptures clearly teach that it's though he's speaking to the jews when he says you're ever seeing but not perceiving

You're ever hearing but not understanding and rebuking them. In fact in john 12 verse 39

It says for this reason and it's the same context as what we had in john 6 It's where jesus is preaching and some of them are believing and some of them aren't he said in verse 39

For this reason they could not believe so he's about to give us the reason that these people can't believe who are by the way

The audience at this time are jews because of course it's not until later that when paul is called to go to the gentiles

And peter has his dream with the white sheet let down that the gospel goes to the gentiles And so he says for this reason they could not believe for isaiah says again

He has blinded their eyes He has hardened their heart so that they would not see with their eyes perceive with their heart and be converted and I heal them

He's talking about the condition of the hardened calloused jews He is not talking about the ontological reality of all creatures from the time

They're born due to the sin of adam He's talking about people who have grown ever seeing but not perceiving as it says in acts chapter 28 verse 23

He gathers together. He preaches to them all day long Some of them are convinced by what he says others would not believe and then he declares the same

Prophecy and saying you're ever seeing but not perceiving your hearts have grown. It doesn't say they were born

It says they were grown calloused. Otherwise, you might see here turn understand and I would heal you

Therefore I take the message to the gentiles and they will listen So we contrast the jews condition that's hardened and calloused with the gentiles condition

Now are they both sinful and guilty and enslaved to sin and all of those things that you continually list as if they support your view?

Of course they are they're both that way The difference between the two is that one of them has grown calloused ever seeing but not perceiving they can hear the words being preached

But they cannot understand them because of their calloused hearts not because of an ontological reality decreed by god from the foundation of the world because of the sin of their greatest grandfather that if if Losing one's ability to respond to god was a result of the fall

Doesn't seem like he would have mentioned that in genesis when he mentions the toiling of the soil And the labor pains he forgets to mention the most significant

Result of all which is all your children will be born god haters and they can only hate god Even when I make an appeals to them even when

I beg them to come even when I send my own son even when I send the holy spirit to Come down and bring conviction to the world even when

I send the the apostles inspired by the holy spirit none of that's going to be enough for your children because they will Be absolute god haters that will reject me and the mass of humanity will go to hell for reasons beyond their control

It seems like if that was the result of the fall That god would have mentioned that among labor pains and the toiling of the soil as those two don't seem very significant in comparison

It just seems to me that there's nothing in scripture which teaches that mankind have ultimately lost their response

Ability their ability to respond to god's appeals should be reconciled from that fallen condition

All right. Um Yeah, god makes an appeal. Uh, he came to seek to save the lost who were the lost well the lost the people who aren't saved uh

How will they believe in whom they've not heard you got to hear that gospel message now that of course We don't mean that if someone's not, you know, someone's deaf they can't hear they can't get saved

That's not what he's talking about But the gospel message has got to be uh given calvinism He said misses the process by which people are hardened and can't hear in turn.

Um, no, we don't we know about judicial hardening we know about covenantal lack of faithfulness on the part of the jews who had

Every reason to believe in the coming of the messiah and who saw what was before them as hebrews 6 4 through 6 implies that they partook of the of the uh, the works the the majesty the work of the holy spirit through the personal work of christ and They rejected christ now.

It says here just as it says You know who's believed a report and to whom has the arm of the lord been revealed?

For this reason isaiah said they could not believe for isaiah said he blinded their eyes. This is great calvinist theology

They didn't believe god hardened them. He has the right to harden them Why why would he do that if they're already born dead like you say they're born dead?

I'm curious to say is people will say well then why would he do that? Because if jesus is there speaking and commanding as he did

And he spoke in parables so people would not believe in mark 4 10 11 12 lest they be saved people will come back and say

Well, why didn't he speak in parables if they're so lost already? Why did he do that? Well, he did that because his power of his word and what his miracles will require certain

Let's just say responsibility and even an ability to believe but the ability is because of the command of god

If god commands you to do something you're going to do it because it's the nature of his word. He hides his Come out. Come out.

Let me let me unpack that to make sure I understand So what you're saying is if he did not speak in parables if he was just real clear with them

And he would have commanded them to repent. They would have just automatically all irresistibly come to faith

Yeah If god himself commands someone to do something and says I want you and I command you right now to repent and believe

Well, they're not going to be able to do that. Are you then saying that? So when jesus said sell everything and come and follow me and the person walked away

Uh, he was denying the command of god What how did he do that in the context of that what was going on was this man was the one who was seeking to stay?

And wanted to work to earn his salvation He said well then sell everything you have and then follow me and what he was doing was applying the issue of the law

To that lawyer and though he was simply showing the lawyer his failure. That's all that was going on there

But when jesus jesus many times says where's your faith and he bemoans the fact that they're a small amount of faith

Shouldn't he have looked up to heaven and say god? Why didn't you effectually give them more faith? It doesn't make a lot of sense It seems to me to god their lack of faith if he's the one who's controlling whether they have it or not

Well, it's not an issue of just simply control god's given to everyone a measure of faith We know that what you do with that faith is up to you

The condition of the unbeliever is that he's a hater of god who can do no good who doesn't seek for god

Who cannot come to him unless it's been granted to him from the father? Because the scriptures clearly teach that this is the case you cannot

To him does the word granted mean to effectually cause or does it mean to enable? well, it's diddle my and uh in john 6 65 and it doesn't mean to Just simply to enable as in which

I think you might be trying to get it to say It enabled the opportunity for them to have a free will choice. That would be like a prevenient grace that comes in The way

I would argue it matt is to say just like john Romans 10 14 is how would they believe in one whom they've not heard?

Well, remember the jews can't hear because they're ever hearing but not perceiving because of their hardened callous condition

So they can't come because they haven't been listening and learning from the father Therefore they can't believe in the son because they haven't hardened.

They have a hardened callous heart So the ones that the father is giving to the son are those like cornelius for example and others who believed feared the lord

But they did not have a knowledge of who christ was. How will they believe in one whom they've not heard?

So that's an ability that they have an inability to believe unless they hear and some can't hear

Of a condition that they've grown into due to their rebellion Not to the fall of adam that has somehow been imposed upon them

Decreed by god so that all people are in this condition where they're ultimately Going to hell for something they have absolutely no control over Well that we'll get to that because you misrepresent the reformed position when you say something like that And you said something

I want to respond to and you spoke for a bit. So I kind of lost it. Um Sorry uh, it was about What was it?

It was something you said I want to respond. So I'm, sorry, let's get back into the note Their calloused hearts are part as part of their nature the mass of people go to hell for a reason which is beyond their control um

I guess you don't like that. God is a sovereign king who does what he wishes with creation He does what he wants who you will say to me

Why does he still find fault for who resists his will the thing molded? Will not say to the molder. Why did you make me like this?

Does not god have the right to make one thing from the uh, One vessel from the same lump one for honorable use one for dishonorable use he has a right to do that Now we could discuss romans 9 sometime if we stick with romans 9

What it actually is saying there is that god has the right to do with his creation as he desires No one has the right to raise their hand up against god and say why'd you make me like this?

As you say the mass of people that go to hell for reasons beyond their control. Where's that in scripture? Where's that in reformed theology the mass of people go to hell for reasons which is beyond their control?

Well, wait a minute What you're trying to say is that they have to have control in order for it to be fair for god to judge them

That's what you're implying But god himself says to the apostle paul That who are you to stand back to say to god the thing molded will not say to the molder

Why did you make me like this god has that right to do with it? Now that's something that you can deal with with scripture Likewise in proverbs 16 4 god makes all things even the wicked for the day of destruction

And this is what he does do he has the right to do that My theology teaches that god is the sovereign king and he does not lower his standard from man's will

I do not believe in libertarian free will I believe in compatibilism that god's determinism and god's ability to control everything

Still works with man's freedom But man's freedom is such that it's restricted to sinful desires restricted to only that which can be done

In his sinful nature, which is why god has to grant that they believe grant that they come to christ

Give them the ability to believe cause them to be born again These kinds of verses would not be there

If it was simply up to the individual's free will choice to be able to believe in god once they hear the gospel message

Because the question I would ask at that point is why does one person believe? And another one does not when the gospel message is proclaimed.

What would you say to that? Why is it that bob believes and frank does not when they have the exact same life exact same everything exact same period

The gospel message is given at the same time the same message one believes the other one does not Why? And that actually is the the last chapter of my book the appendix of the most popular

Argument of calvinist is that question and it starts by explaining. Yeah, it actually starts by explaining that that is a

Begging of the question because it presumes a deterministic answer is is required And it also points out that ultimately calvinist appeal to the same mystery that we have pointed to earlier

With regard to adam and eve's choice to to sin um Most calvinist as r .c.

parole says I don't know the answer to why adam chose to sin any more than I know the answer to why Satan chose to rebel.

Nobody knows the answer to that. So they're appealing to the same mystery of self -causation or self -choice

In the same way, you can't answer why god chose to elect you or not elect you You can't you can't it's just that's his choice.

That's what he chose to do And so ultimately calvinist appeal to the same mystery They just punt it back to the first choice and what we're saying is that all choices have that same

Self -determined mystery involved in the sense that it's determined within oneself as to whether to accept or reject now

Here's here's the problem with you. That's not true. You're not right. Well, let me finish this real quick here's the problem with your analogy is that if you want to look at bob for his reason to come to christ is because ultimately uh christ

Somehow effectually caused him to want to do that. Well, then you got bob over here and let's look at I mean frank

I think it is I guess the frank over here the Reprobate, okay. So frank is denying

God's appeal to be reconciled because god doesn't really love him. God doesn't really provide for him

God doesn't really want him even though he says he does and therefore you've ultimately got frank hating god because god first hated him

Rejecting god because god first rejected him and going to hell for reasons beyond his control Which I never really heard you answer why that's not consistent with Reform theology because who in hell is there for reasons that they did control in other words

What control does the reprobate have? Over his desires to hate and reject the things of god if he's born in that condition from birth

And and you never you never told us why that's misrepresentative of reform theology Let me see if I can go backwards on the answer to this from my notes who in hell's reasons that they

Were there for the reasons they did not control Wait, let me try to get this right who's in hell for reasons that they did not control.

That's your thing No, I mean What control did that those who end up in hell what control did they have?

Over the fact that they were born haters of god born hated by god rejected by god not atoned for Um what in other words what you you accused me of saying that that does not represent

Calvinistic theology what you said earlier, but yet you didn't ever give us anything that's untrue about that statement

It does seem to me that everyone who's in heaven Is that are there for reasons beyond their control in the same way that everyone's in hell are there for reasons beyond their control?

Is that not true? The issue of reasons beyond their control.

That's the problem is the phraseology you keep inserting this into the discussion And I want to back up a little bit and get to this because you said that I was begging the question uh

That so what does one believe another one does not you said i'm begging the question It's not begging the question to ask the question

You have one person believing another one does not why it's not begging the question Well to ask why to watch why they believe okay, they believe right they believe for a reason or for no reason

Well, the question presumes a deterministic answer is required because you're ultimately saying what determined his reason

What determined him to do that and i'm saying the self determined that so I believe the cause

The cause of a chooser is the cause of reason or for no reason Do people believe for a reason a cause or is there no reason and no cause

They they can have listed reasons. Like for example, I can say I ate the cake because it tastes good

That's a reason right? It doesn't mean that the taste determined for me to eat the cake

It's simply a reason that I stated as a free agent to eat the cake I could have refrained from eating the cake and I could state reasons while i'm on a diet

I'm trying to lose weight. Therefore. I refrained from eating the cake, but my diet did not Did not deterministically cause me not to eat the cake.

I am I caused me not to eat the cake I am the cause of my choices. We're not instinctive beings just acting upon The greatest impulse that god has predetermined for us to act within the given stimuli.

That's called animal instinct That's not that's not moral choice So bob believes and frank does not are you saying that they are the cause of their own selves?

Now, let me ask you so let's say bob believes frank does not let's take this exact same scenario

When they had this gospel preached to them where bob believes and frank does not Exact same scenario and let's repeat it 10 times exactly.

Everything's the same Will bob always believe each time and will frank always deny each time in those exact same scenarios?

I have no idea. I mean, I don't know that that's a reality Suppositionally, he could do whatever he chooses to do freely.

He's responsible for it. Okay, the same thing I could ask the same thing Good Hold on.

Hold on. Hold on. Let me let me run with this because I asked you a question And I said it's a setup obviously I don't think you want me to get set apart

You see the thing is if he's going to believe exactly the same each time then his choices are determined If he's not going to believe exactly the same each time then his choices are arbitrary

Now see the thing is about the free will thing that you're you're saying this is a difficulty for your position

Why does bob believe in frank does not the bible gives us the answer god grants that we believe like it's 129

That's what it says. Why does bob believe because god grants he believes my answer is right out of philippians 129 grant does not

But grant does not mean to effectually cause matt. It means to enable and so yes, we believe he brought the gospel first Right, he brought the he brought the gospel first to the jew and then to the gentile thus enabling them to repent and believe

And thus enabling the jews gentiles to repent and believe by bringing them faith cometh by hearing But you're responsible for what you hear.

Hold on. Hold on. Hold on, man You're jumping away too fast here because you're still not answering the question. You're just saying that god enables him to believe

Okay, why does bob get enabled to believe when he's unable to believe he believes and frank when he's unable to believe doesn't

Gotcha Insert adam and eve in the exact same equation They're not adam and eve because the bob and frank are fallen adam and eve are not

But if you insert adam and eve in the unfallen condition, you have the exact same mystery

You are appealing to the mystery of libertarian free will No, no, no, we're not because the issue is that they're believing

Not they're unbelieve Adam and eve were were not fallen bob and frank are fallen

Adam and eve did not have a sinful nature Bob and frank do and the scriptures declare certain things about their sinfulness, right talking about people in their sinful state

When you talk about ebony you're not talking about people in their sinful state Bob and frank are slaves of sin haters of god could do no good their hearts full of evil

That's not the condition of adam and eve. So you're mixing these categories. It's not the same category I can give you the answer if you just say well

Why does bob believe because god grants that he believes flipping in 129? Because he's caused to be born again first peter 1 3 because he's born again

Not of his own will john 1 13 because he's appointed to eternal life. That's why I believe acts 13 48 I can give you biblical answers

You can't No, I think that you're confusing the two issues because philosophically and this is what you're ultimately getting into is a philosophical debate now

And I would rather stay theological. This is this is theological. I'm quoting the scriptures. Well, I know

And you said it's philosophical It is philosophical when you're talking about running scenarios over and over again.

You're talking about possible worlds that that's molinism That's um, the eternal now view of god got outside of time questions.

That's how is god not deterministic boethius and the All the philosophical questions and we can go down that road and we can get on in all of the philosophical

But what we're what i'm trying to get down to and drill down to Is the issue is that just in the same way that adam and eve are held accountable?

Responsible for their choice to sin though. They could have not chosen to sin In the same way frank or bob had the responsibility to choose to accept god's appeals

Or to reject god's appeals now if adam and eve can accept the appeal of a serpent in an unfallen condition

There's no reason to suggest that a fallen person can't accept the appeal of god himself.

Yes, there is what scripture says That god's appeal is not Come to me unless it's been granted you from the father.

John 6 65 and how does he grant it by by the gospel? He sends the gospel.

Okay, wait So what you're saying then is that by simply saying the gospel words and i'm not trying to mock you or the gospel message

But how will they believe in one they've not heard? I got you. I got you So then by just saying the gospel message

That that's what it means to grant that they come to him You how do you come to a party unless you're invited?

That's the that's the matthew 22 invitational, uh parable He goes to his own his own don't receive the invitation

So he takes the invitation to the highways and the byways they come because they're invited They can reject the invitation or they can accept the invitation.

That's their responsibility. That's why they're held responsible. They can be Righteousness Okay, I did not jesus not use the word invited said grant

And what he's talking about there is granting him It's the invitation to the wedding banquet.

It is an invitation in the parable matthew 22 We're talking about matthew. It's talking about john 6 Well, I I was referring to matthew 22's parable to to talk about how one who's invited to the wedding banquet um in the same way

Well, it's an ideological parable This is not here john, I mean john jesus is not speaking parabolically.

He's not speaking eschatologically Speaking about soteriology. Well, you're going to a different place.

Wait. Wait now matthew 22 He he talks about feast right what first he he gathers his servants who go to his own people

Who are the servants representing if not the apostles? Who go to their own people who stone them?

The prophets and the apostles are the servants that he gave the invitations to to go hand out to his own people the jews first When they rejected him and try to stun him

He's angry and he says go into the highways and byways and invite whosoever will come And they take the the servants take the invitation to those in the highways

How is that not a perfect parallel of exactly what we see paul going through because he goes to his own people

They try to stone him And so he becomes an apostle to the the gentiles those in the highways and the byways the good and the bad alike

And he takes the invitation to them. What is he doing? He's granting them entrance He's enabling them to repent and to come by taking them the invitation

The gospel is not even sent out until jesus is raised up That's why he says when

I am raised up. I will draw people to myself. How does he do that? He commissions the gospel to go and to be sent to all people the reason that the people of John 6 could not believe was not because of adam's sin in some

Ontological fall that that calvinists are espousing upon the reason that they can't receive

Jesus is because of their hardened calloused heart They are ever seeing but not perceiving and you cannot find me a passage of scripture

That says anything about the moral incapacity Of people to respond positively to life -giving truth inspired by the holy spirit

There's because it doesn't exist. There's no scripture that I can find that says that mankind is incapable

To respond positively to god's life -giving truth and his appeals to be reconciled from that fall

I just don't I haven't found it yet. You cannot come to me. Let's have been granted from the father first Corinthians 2 14 the natural man cannot receive the things of god for the foolishness to him

You can go to romans 8 the one who is of the flesh who's that is their condition. They are

Uh, what's the wording that's used there? Um, According to the flesh they cannot please god, uh romans 3 10 11 and 12

Like you said we already kind of shotgun all those texts we can go through one of them at a time You asked i'm giving you the answer.

You say there's nothing in there. I'm giving you the verses, right? And I responded And so i've already given you my interpretation

So why not deal with my interpretation instead of just reading them and beg the question as if they support your view instead of mine Why not?

Why not? Where are those scriptures? I give you the scriptures Well, i'm just the one presupposing libertarian free will over them

This is why we have to get to the issue of bob and frank as the illustration you say it's philosophical Sometimes this is philosophical.

We have to get to the issue what the truth is But other times it's not when i'm quoting the scriptures You see god grants we believe and what you are saying.

He grants the opportunity by offering it to them you presuppose constantly libertarianism

You presuppose that there's some ability within the unbeliever to simply believe in god It still does not answer the question why one does and one does not other than for you to say it's just because that's

What it is. Okay. So why has your lost friends? Okay, let's say let's say you have a lost friend

And they they reject god all their life and they die and and they go to hell Why has your lost friend continued to hate and reject god?

That's his nature to do so Okay, and who determined his nature from birth? It's not a who determined as if you're saying did he make it this way make him like that We know that the bible says and there's discussion about this and no one knows how it works

You i'm, I hope you're familiar with federal headship Yes Okay For those who don't know federal headship is the male represents the descendants all people in adam all die first corinthians 15 22 romans 5 18 through the trespass of one resulted condemnation to all men

He represented us when he fell we fell in him and we inherited his sinful nature

Exactly how that inheritance works in that is a generation of the egg and the sperm that come together Is it something that god causes to be and something we don't know?

This is something that you're broaching into this issue as though god directly causes them

To have a sinful nature as if he designs them to be specifically sinful and then says now i'm going to condemn you for being sinful

Isn't your interpretation of romans 9 jacob? I loved esau I hated that before they've done anything good or bad that god shows for esau to be salvificly hated

Or do you interpret that differently? That's exactly what it says. There was no condition based upon them

This is important because james very clearly says in james 2 2 through 4. He says there's no partiality with god

That's also said in romans 2 11 There's no partiality god never looks on a person to see any quality in them to deem them worthy of being saved

At all jacob and esau he sovereignly chose to love one and hate the other

Because what was in god not because of what was in them and that's what's in the context Okay, so to properly answer the question.

I asked earlier. Why has your lost friend continue to hate and reject god? It's because he was hated by god like esau was hated by god.

That would be the correct answer No, the correct answer would be it's his nature to continue to do.

So he's going to act in a man I'm answering nature. What is nature if not decreed by god?

Let me answer okay, okay The nature is that he's a hater. God can do no good doesn't seek for god, etc.

Etc. His heart's full of evil This is his nature. He's going to He's going to act in a manner consistent with his nature

The question was why does he continue to reject because of total depravity? Because the sin nature is such that he's never going to receive christ unless god works on him and you even admit that When you say that they can't come to him on his own god has to work on him

Well, god sends the gospel. He sends the revelation. And so here's the gospel Is a gospel simply the speaking of it is that would enable something what happens ontologically to a person?

That changes them by the hearing of the gospel that enables them to either receive or not receive Well here faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of christ

And so if he he brings the word then you're responsible for what you do with it You can suppress truth and unrighteousness and grow calloused and hardened to eventually where you're given over or you can

Humbly accept the truth of the gospel Accept that you're a sinner accept that you need a savior and you can accept it and so But you you asked and so I answered.

Um But the the point is the point is you keep saying you keep referring to natural. It's this natural ability

It's his nature as if god's not sovereignly controlling the nature just as much as he's sovereignly controlling

The the nature of the regenerate man He has sovereignly controlled the nature of esau as much as he has sovereignly controlled the nature of jacob

And so you keep trying to dodge it seems to me The negative side of your you're the negative side of your theology under double predestination

Not negative this equal ultimacy issue that kind of hangs there Which is ultimately that god in the same manner that he loved jacob and chose jacob before he did anything good or bad

He also salvifically hated esau before he did anything good or bad either So it wasn't because of his sinfulness or a nature because this is before he did

Anything good or bad or had a nature to do anything good or bad? And therefore you've ultimately got god reprobating

Hating rejecting people for no apparent reason for reasons Absolutely unrevealed and therefore they are in hell for reasons beyond their control

No, as he said adam and eve sinned adam fell we fell in him and then we by nature are children of wrath ephesians two three

That's your answer. We are by nature children of wrath when you say reprobating them for no apparent reason

No, our nature is that we belong damned You can go to ephesians 2 3 and you can read that because that's what it says

Now I asked you earlier. I said what's the ontological change in a person that enables them to believe upon hearing the gospel?

The reason i'm asking that is in light of the scriptures that says there has to be an ontological change. That's the whole point

They have the imago dei that god created them with they have the ability to hear Nice word

Wait, it doesn't make sense because you're saying you you agree with me in total depravity in the sense that they can't do it Unless god moves on them.

That means they don't have it inherent within themselves They don't have the knowledge of christ unless somebody tells them.

Oh You're just saying that all it is is a matter of knowledge. That's all you're saying Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of christ

It's just a matter of knowledge and paul's a gnostic because he says how will they believe in one of who they've not heard I'm saying what you said

You said all they need is knowledge You said that's all they need revelation.

You're ignoring the issue of their depraved nature their hatred for god their enslavement to sin They're rejecting him.

That's why they're going to hell because of that the miracle is that anybody goes to heaven What we say in reformed theology is simply this

Adam sinned we fell in him because he represented us if you don't like it Then you have to reject this the last adam who rejected us on the cross

The first adam rejected us the last adam rejected us. I mean represented us So if he is going to be the one who represented us adam

And we fell in him and we have a sinful nature because of it Then we are by nature children of wrath ephesians 2 3

The only way we can be saved is if god does something specifically which you yourself admit is the case

I say But he does is biblically revealed by saying he grants repentance. He grants that they become born again

He grants that they believe he causes them to be born again because he's appointed them to eternal life I have the answers you don't you just say they hear the gospel and that enables them

But that's nothing and i'm asking you about that. You're saying what happens in the person that changes

Okay, let me respond You keep saying god has to do something god has to do something god has to do something you said so too

Okay, right. Okay. He sent jesus christ incarnate He sent the holy spirit to bring conviction down like fire he inspired holy apostles to write words

Written in a book and preserved that book for us for thousands of years for us to have today He indwells the bride

And sends that bride to the furthest reaches of the world to proclaim his truth And you say that's not enough

He has to do some effectual irresistible work on top of all of that in order for it to be sufficient

I simply say what the bible says That these things have been written john 20 31 so that you may believe

And that by believing you may have life in his name now follow those words I have written these things the gospel so that you may believe that means you have the capacity to believe it

And that by believing it you may have life. There's an order right there. You're not given life So as to believe you are you are you are you are um believing so as to have new life

That's the order that the scripture continues to give and so I understand that we both think that we're defending scripture

Obviously, that's that's a given in the situation But go back to my opener and go back to the point that i've continually harped on Is that you continue to beg the question of inability by assuming that sinfulness equals inability?

You keep saying slave to sin equals inability to confess enslavement. Where is that in scripture? I need to find a link.

I need to find the link that bondage to sin Slave to sin all those things you keep listening over and over and over again

How that somehow proves man's incapacity To humbly recognize that condition in light of the law in the gospel that God reveals

Knowledge gives you knowledge through revelation And tells you through the law, which is the schoolmaster trying to lead you to christ

That's the purpose of the law And what you're ultimately saying is the law is not sufficient to accomplish that purpose without some effectual

Causal work that happens inwardly supernaturally that I don't find anywhere taught in those pages of scripture And so i'm just pushing back on you to say

Where in scripture is the link between the sinfulness? And the inability of man to recognize and to confess that sinfulness when approached with God and his truth clearly

Well, you misrepresent the position of reformed theology. It's not just an issue of sinfulness. It's an issue of his fallen nature

Sinfulness emanates or is a property of his fallen nature and you make this mistake

His sinfulness. It's just sinfulness. No, it's not just sinfulness. It's his fallenness

It's his depraved nature, which the bible says you are by nature children of wrath

That means they belong their natural state is that of wrath from god damnation

You're dead in your sins ephesians 2 1 you're a slave of sin romans 6 14 through 20 the harsh desperately wicked deceitful cannot be trusted.

Jeremiah 17 9 Yeah, i'm just giving you and others to know why you ask me why i'm giving you the answer

The answer is in the scriptures it's not an issue of sinfulness

It's an issue of his depraved nature The depraved nature according to scripture. You cannot come to me elizabeth grant from the father

You cannot come to me unless the father draws you that's why we have verses that say and i'll repeat them This is what it comes down to you have to be caused to be born again

And you're born again not of your own will john 1 13 If they have the ability simply within their sinfulness, then why does god say they're born not of their own will you see

We have this we reform people. We have these scriptures left and right to talk about And i've written articles on all of them so we we could go through those if we and I can respond

I read I read part of your article today And I went that's not right. That's not what I my position.

That's not this Okay, so so let's go through some of these individually, um, so you move from the word sinfulness to the word fallenness.

No, no, no Yes, correcting you is what i'm doing. I know but what i'm saying is the brave nature I said you're doing the same thing because you're you're trying to say that fallenness equals inability to recognize that you're fallen

And that's the problem. Is that appeal? Wait, I never said that. I never said that. I never said that Let me finish my thought what i'm saying is is that god has made an appeal

To be reconciled from the fall And what you're ultimately saying is because we're fallen we can't

Respond willingly to that appeal to be reconciled from the fall And i'm asking you for the scripture verses that prove that because you keep listing verses about how fallen we are

How sinful we are as if they just mean inability and i'm asking for the link

Don't just list to me how fallen sick dead all those kinds of things show me where those entail scripturally

An incapacity of man to recognize that fact and humbly admit that they need a savior when called to do so by god himself

The verses themselves say it where I quote you let's go one. Let's go pick one of them quoting

Okay, let's pick your favorite one. Let's pick your favorite one and go through it. Okay, look You're by nature children of wrath ephesians 2 3

Okay, we belong do we belong? I'm a child of wrath. Can I say i'm a child of wrath?

Am I able to admit that i'm a child of wrath if certainly people can do that because you misrepresent the position

You say fallenness means the inability to know you're fallen. I never said that I never said that I don't say these things

Arguing with it's implicit in the argument because you know, no, no I've picked my words and I do not say fallenness means that you don't know you're fallen.

I never said that Well, what i'm saying is is that you're using them to prove inability And It's not enough to show that we're fallen because that does not that's not enough to entail an ability to admit you're fallen

Just like saying you're sinful doesn't entail an inability to admit you're sinful Just like saying you're you're dead doesn't mean your inability to confess your deadness or your separation from god

That's what i'm asking for is the clear teaching in scripture that links This fallen sinful condition that you continue to list over and over again with the inability

Because what I argued before and I would like us to get into this Is the condition of the jewish callous jewish heart as being judicially hardened as you even mentioned

What is the difference between someone who's become judicially hardened and given over to them? Hold on for example, you're asking 15 things

What you do is you ask a question? That's this long then you go another question that long and say now respond to it

Now, let's just get to one question at a time Be direct and ask a specific question i've tried to respond to you and then you misrepresent my answer

I happen to call you on this. I never said fallenness is the inability to know you're fallen. I know people

Versus about fallenness to prove inability and that's what I say No, the inability to trust and believe in christ for say for salvation

This is what it comes down to the issue of salvation that we're arguing about so fallenness Proves that mankind is incapable of admitting they're fallen and accepting the help of the savior who offers to get them out of their fallen condition

The fallenness is revealed in scripture. I agree scriptures reveal what the nature of the fallenness is

Okay, and so where does the scripture say that the fallen man can't recognize that and confess it when approached?

That's like saying show me in the scripture where it says the trinity is one god and three distinct simultaneous persons Show me that or i'm not going to believe it.

Come on That's not the way to approach and it's the wrong question to ask you want a specific question

Want me to answer a specific question as with a specific design answer and it's not in scripture

You know that it's not like that and I know it's not like that What I do is answer you the same way with the same scriptures

I keep coming back to the same thing if what you're saying is true That what you're saying is it's simply up to the person.

All he needs is the presentation of that gospel He's simply enabled to believe I would say Well time out real quick.

You keep calling the gospel is it all it is like it's real This is the double -edged sword.

This is the inspired word of god. This is the power of The inspired word of god being talked about here

So you can't just dismiss it as being just all they have to hear is just just the words I'm, just trying to say that this is the double -edged sword that pierces in not through bone and marrow

But through soul and spirit and pierces the heart i've seen people and I know you have who are deeply under conviction for their sin

But who continue to resist the holy spirit's conviction and grow calloused and they grow hardened to the point as hebrews warns

If you hear the voice of god do not harden your hearts That is something that people can become if they continue to reject him

That's why jesus pulls up a random child of the audience and says You have to humble yourself like this child to enter the kingdom of heaven

Why not just pull up any person why not pull up an 80 year old and say that if they're all either Totally depraved or not

It doesn't matter how old they are. What's the difference between the child and the 80 year old the child is moldable

He's able to listen. He's humble And therefore he's able to to learn whereas the 80 year old is set in his ways.

He's the the stick in the mud He's the the old wine skin that can't take the new wine And therefore he's not able to hear because he's ever seeing but not perceiving

Which is not a natural condition from birth inherited from adam It is a condition of the heart that has grown calloused because of suppression of truth, which you are not

Destined or decreed to do from the fall. It's your choice It's your responsibility as what you do with the words of god, which we're held accountable for Okay Are you ready?

Because every time I try and answer a question you jump in and stop me from answering the very question. You want me to answer I apologize.

Go ahead And then you speak for five minutes and then you want me to answer 15 things and if I only answer two

People come back later. So you didn't answer all those things This is why I don't like this kind of things to happen One thing at a time and let's go back and forth with one thing at a time

Because I can ask you questions and do the same thing Okay, but so I got a lot of notes.

I mean my notes here are just they're just stacking up Okay, so let's talk can we talk about the hardened condition then let's talk about that one thing the hard Hold on hold on hold on, you know this issue of the gospel

I mean, this is like three minutes ago. You said i'm just being flippant about the gospel No, I am not being flippant about the gospel

And when I say just a presentation of the gospel in no way am I being flippant? You know better than that, you know, i'm not saying it that way.

Hope not. Hope not. No There's never any way of be flippant about the gospel good

It's the issue of when I say merely the preaching of the gospel is what enables what I don't see merely as it's something to Be considered underfoot and in passing disdain not at all.

What i'm saying is it's merely the act of presenting Merely not derogatory sense simply the act of the presentation of the gospel.

You're saying that's enough To enable someone to believe and i'm trying to get you back to this issue and say

Why does it enable one person and not another and only thing you can come back with is It just means that they are you say i'm begging the question.

No, you're begging the question You're the one who assumes that by the preaching of the gospel Bob is able to believe and frank's able to not why because that's what the gospel does

Then I asked the question. What does it do to a person? Something has to happen to them because you said yourself that not everyone can come to christ on their own

They have to have help one way or another because they're depraved This means that the preaching of the gospel has to have an effect on them

Because you're contradicting yourself if you're going to say on one hand that they're just not able unless god works on them

And then the gospel comes then it has to be the work of the gospel upon them. What happens to them?

But if you're saying the gospel doesn't do anything to them. It's just a presentation then nothing's occurring. Nothing's changed

Why would one believe and not the other? You say because this thing was given to them. It's like saying and i'm not being flippant.

Please understand this but just the illustration It's like bob believes Because the light was blue and frank doesn't believe because it was blue Well, why because it's what it is what happened to blueness that caused one to believe or not to believe?

It's a non -sequitur because blue doesn't have an effect on them. It's a perception Why does one's perception of the gospel message enable him to believe or cause him to believe?

This also gets to the issue of the causation This is why I have to ask you this question about the very nature of our soul the very nature of our wills

Because you see if you're going to say that someone's going to believe Why are they going to believe

I have the answer god grants it to them But when I say that he grants you say he grants them the opportunity by the gospel presentation

But that doesn't answer the question. All it does is say he gives them The gospel jesus died in the cross rose to the dead believe in him.

Does that enable them? No Does it disenable them? No What happens to the person

I can tell you what happens? God causes them to be born again first peter 1 3 He born again not of our own will john 1 13

I believe we've been over these already. And so I mean you're just the work of god. No, yes

I am praise god for the scriptures god grants that we believe leapans 129 This is why frank believes bob believes excuse me and frank does not

That's why I have the scriptures answers For the people who are watching we're kind of looping and so we're going back over the

Again, and so what i'm trying to get to is to drill into a particular point that you're making and that's why

I was That's why I was pointing out the esau jacob situation with why bob is rejecting is ultimately because god's rejected them

And that's the issue with your side of of there's really no human responsibility because he's ultimately going to human responsibility

People responsible for their own sin and condemnation, but they're not capable of coming to christ That's why jesus says you cannot come to me.

Let's have been granted you for the father. John 6 65 Okay, but the the the scriptures say i'm not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of god for salvation

Right. So the gospel is the power. It's the means by which god brings truth

And therefore it empowers it enables grants And it first goes to the jew thus granting them the ability to believe and repent

Then it goes to the gentile thus granting them the ability to repent and believe by bringing

The gospel the truth of god's Reconciliation love and his acceptance

That is enabling a person to respond. It's just like um It's just like me and you having this discussion and the people watching this discussion right now um all over on youtube

Both both of them have let's say they're everybody watching I know everybody watching is probably not a believer

But let's just say everybody watching is a believer There are going to be some people who believe what i'm saying and there are going to be some people who believe what you're saying

Why? They both are regenerate They're all regenerate And so what is the distinction between why some of them believe matt slick and become a calvinist?

And some of them believe leighton flowers and become a traditionalist. What's the difference? That's free will because ultimately what you would have to say is that god has pre -selected some of his children

To become calvinist and the ones he doesn't like as much He'll let them follow that leighton heretic guy and become a traditionalist for whatever reason

And and that's and that's part of the reason that some of the higher calvinists like the guys down in houston denounce me as a christian and say that people who are deny calvinism aren't christians because that Theologically at least philosophically makes more logical sense to say

Well, the reason leighton's denying calvinism is because god really hasn't elected him to understand and accept truth

Like he has me the calvinist and those who are believing in calvinism So this is a demonstration of libertarian free will that there are people who are listening to our words right now

Trying to convince them with words with truth that we both we believe we're speaking And we're going to try to persuade people with our truth just like paul does with the gospel

He's persuading them using words all day long. It says in acts 28 verse 23

He's trying to persuade them some are convinced others would not believe that is the that is the the libertarian free will

Demonstrated in scripture right there in acts 28 23 and following No, it's not

But you said that is the gospel Enables them now i'm going to use a phrase here

I'm, not meaning the gospel in any disrespectful way. Gotcha. You and I would both affirm the gospel is not a magic formula of words

Okay Just say this formula these words and if you get saved that's not what we're saying But I had to say that because I needed to make sure that we understand that the gospel message is not some

Ethereal kind of a present something that does something to somebody But because if you are we've got some questions

But no, it does it does what I would agree. It does what paul said it does it reveals the truth. It's a revelation

It's a supernatural supernaturally revealed truth. That's what it is. You said it's a presentation

You said it's a presentation that enables them to respond that means that the gospel message has a

An effect upon the person's nature essence will whatever it enables him to believe or not believe

Now Why does it work that one people isn't one person is enabled to believe another one does not?

Both of them are enabled both of them are able to believe Why does one once enabled believe another one does not you're gonna have to say libertarian free will?

Exactly, just like adam and eve. Why did one of them sin and one of them not? Why did why did why could they have to send or not send same answer?

It's their choice because adam and eve were not a slave to sin But it's the same issue the philistine Of the liberty of the will remember remember.

Hey, guess Time out remember on our position

Adam and eve didn't lose the liberty of the will that that the the confession says that they have on your view they do

So by by assuming that they don't have the liberty of the will you're begging the question on my side

I'm saying they haven't lost it because I haven't seen any scriptures that said they've lost the liberty of the will to respond to god

Until you can find me the scripture that says they cannot respond willingly to god's own appeals

Then i'm going to continue to believe that adam and eve um As adam and eve had the imago dei that created in the image of god and the responsibility to respond to god in his words

That we still have the ability to respond to god in his words. Yes. We're influenced by sin

You can keep saying that Well i'm explaining to you

Why I keep putting back to adam and eve because you're appealing to the same mystery when you appeal to why adam and eve chose to Sin no i'm appealing to that issue when i'm talking to you the issue of why does it work on one and what is not

I keep giving you the answer of why it is because god elects them god predestined them god grants that they believe

God causes them to be born again. I keep going back to the biblical answer and that's exactly

And that's exactly why people Some people hire calvinists say ask the question. Why did adam and eve sin they say because god predestined we're not talking

Look leave look adam and eve were not sinners. They didn't have a fallen nature We're talking about why do people in their fallenness because our debate topic is supposed to be depravity

Adam and eve are not depraved in that context. So it's outside the debate purview

The discussion here is this the nature of the unbeliever He is a hater of god doesn't seek for god deadness sins, etc, etc

These things all this stuff is no good. This is what it's talking about And so when

I ask you when you say the gospel just enables them. Well, wait a minute What do you mean by it just enables them?

It's a serious question What what happens something has to happen? And here's another question that goes along with it

Doesn't god know how to present the gospel in such a way that bob gets and frank gets saved not just one

Because god certainly can do what he wants with his creation He moves the heart of the king where he wishes it to go.

I've got a list of scriptures I don't have memorized and I can list them off to you Once we haven't even gone over yet where god causes people's hearts to become obstinate where he causes them to become

Difficult where he says god causes people's hearts to change and to move he opened the heart of lydia

Acts 16 14 to believe the words of paul. Can't god do that with anybody and everybody you would have to say?

Yes, well i'm going to ask you Why doesn't he the reformed person has an answer because god has not elected that person's salvation and romans 9 9 to 23 deals with the objections about that and the objections are there in scripture.

Why will you say to me? Well, you who are you to answer back god has the right it is the reformed perspective that has the robust complete theological

Answer to the questions you don't you have to beg the question Assume libertarian free will and assume that the gospel is some ability to simply change somebody

But it doesn't have an effective call on them Well matt because our answers are different than yours don't mean we don't have them.

We do have robust answers I wrote a book on the subject romans 9 is about paul objecting anticipating the objection of a

Jew who's grown calloused and hardened and so romans 9 is not about reprobation of People from before the foundation of the world uh, the the objector in romans 9 is about The jews who have grown calloused and hardened in the rebellion and god giving them over and using them

As he sees fit by hardening them in their rebellion to bring over bring about the passover

So just in the same way he hardened pharaoh to bring about the first passover He's now hardening the jews to bring about the second passover

Let me finish but those who are hardened those who've stumbled have not stumbled beyond recovery According to the scriptures and he goes on to say that those same ones who are hardened the rest as it goes on to say

There's the remnant who are who are believing and following god, but then there's the rest Who have not stumbled beyond recovery verse 11 chapter 11 who may be provoked to envy and saved according to verse 14

Who may be grafted in according to 20 and following and therefore this hardened person is not the reprobate

It's the callous jew who god has used in his callous condition To bring about the passover and the redemption for all of humanity

And so it's through the rebellion of israel And god can show mercy to israel when it serves his purpose to show mercy to them like he did in the golden calf

Incidents is where that quote comes from He they deserve to be killed showing somebody mercy by the way doesn't mean effectual grace

It means to refrain from punishing them when they deserve to be punished And so he shows them mercy when it serves his purpose to show them mercy

And he hardens them when it serves his purpose to harden them and he hardens them in the time of the first century

So yes, we do have very robust very deep theological answers to these questions I just don't think very many calvinists are very familiar with those answers and therefore they land on calvinism is my is my estimation

And so we can go back and forth and talk about how we interpret these different verses and understand them from our theological position but to to go back to the condition of hardening it says he

You even alluded to the fact that you do believe in judicial hardening that he gives them a spirit of stupor That he hardens their hearts those kinds of things

So what is the difference between a a heart that has been hardened? And and calloused and the natural man from birth the eight -year -old that he pulls out of the crowd and says you have to become like this

To enter the kingdom. What's the difference between that condition of that child? And the condition of a hardened calloused heart if not the capacity to hear and believe and respond positively to god's own truth

Um Before I answer the question We're going to be on two hours here in a little bit

So maybe we should set a time to quit because we'll go on forever I do have a different kind of question. I want to ask you after this if that's okay with you

Maybe we can quit in 10 minutes. What do you think? 115? Perfect. Okay Um, a heart is hardened as calloused, uh as child

He said what's the difference between someone who is judicially hardened and that of a child? The difference is one is judicially hardened and one is not

And so what's the difference between their abilities natural abilities? Well, their abilities are the same both are incapable of coming to christ on their own because jesus says so When people are judicially hardened, it's a further judgment just as romans chapter 1 verses 18 through 31

There's a judgment upon those who give themselves over to the depravity of their hearts and their minds and things like that And god gives them over excuse me when they do their sinful things like homosexuality

God gives them over to the depravity of their heart their mind. That's a judicial hardening It's a further hardening of what it is that they are due because they free will in their sinfulness still seek their sinfulness

And in that sin, there's an immediate consequence A child's not done any of that.

So there's a difference there because we're not judicially hardened judicially hardened Hardening is different than being born by nature a sinful child.

Isn't the child humble? Comparatively to the adult That's a very subjective statement.

Is he humble compared to I mean, you know, I mean How do I know what a child's humble state is or isn't? Jesus called him humble

Well, yeah, but you know, he must be humble as a child is and they and what does that mean? He you know children just trust just openly trust and he's saying this is what you got to do

Is he saying that that uh, they're humble in the sense that it's true humility? Because then we have to get into this issue of what is humanistic humility versus god humility and it gets into deeper discussions

God was just jesus was just using that as an illustration of what we're to be in faith. We're just a trust Humble and you know don't agree which a child can do

Typically, I mean i've been evangelism and I have four children Sure children children are very moldable and open to hearing the truth word and to repent

Whereas when I talk to a 40 50 year old oftentimes, especially if they're they've been surrounded by the bible for a long time

They're hardened and callous to it And so it seems to me that they are ever seeing but not perceiving ever hearing but not hearing

Whereas the child is seeing hearing and able to Not harden his voice to the word of god as the scripture warns us against and it seems to me

You're just jumping over that hardening process. It actually says they became calloused. Absolutely We have no problem with that become calloused.

That means they were not calloused for a time And then it says otherwise they might see hear understand and turn so it tells us what their abilities would be

If they had not become calloused It says they could see they could hear they could understand and they can turn and I would heal them

That means he wants to heal them It's an expression of desire, but they're unable to see hear understand and turn because of their callous condition

That's chapter 28 verse 27 of acts if you want to pull it up And so it tells us the scripture paul in a diatribe here

In in in a public invitation where he's preaching to them all day long And these jews are refusing to believe and he's telling them why they're refusing to believe because you're ever seeing but not perceiving

Because your heart has grown calloused and otherwise you might be able to see hear turn and understand and god will heal you

Therefore I take the message to the gentiles Contrasting the condition of the gentiles saying they will listen. They're kind of like that kid.

They're still sinful, but they're moldable They're willing to listen Whereas the jews they are self -righteous and calloused and that's the condition

I think calvin is a mischievous because ultimately everybody's born in a condition where are there already

Judicially hardened and calloused as a reprobate from birth. They're already given over. They're already rejected

They're already suppressing the truth by nature and can't do otherwise they're already unable to see hear understand in turn because of An ontological reality from the fall of adam versus I think what the scripture actually teaches is that they have become this way

If they continue to reject and continue to grow hardened and calloused in their rebellion against god As 40 50 year olds do harden themselves and they do become more callous because they abide in their sin

Which is exactly consistent with the doctrine of total depravity Exactly consistent total depravity does not say that a person is as bad as he can be

But that sin has touched all of what he is and that he is enslaved to his sinfulness The jews were in covenant relationship with god

And yes, they hardened their own hearts because in a covenant relationship with god They knew what they're supposed to be doing and when the messiah would come

The messiah himself who was covenantally faithful and fulfilling the covenant requirement would come they had the obligation to believe

But because they had hardened themselves through their own and righteousness. They were judicially hardened And they could have believed

If god had decreed it if they had not Resisted the covenantal responsibilities of god

There's a covenant aspect the covenant theology is really important here because their covenant boundaries which are supposed to keep

And whether or not someone is able to do this is very much important and related to the issue of excuse me

Very much related to the issue of their covenant faithfulness before god the covenant of israel before god

Was something god had instituted with them and said that you are to keep these certain requirements There were certain boundaries and covenants when they were to break these there'd be judicial hardening upon them.

This is prophesied This is what would happen and it's exactly consistent with total depravity Now I want to go back to something here because we're going to run out of time

We talked earlier about something and I wanted to get a question out does free will the issue of free will

Are you still there? Yeah, okay Free will the a the ability to act of your own initiative.

I want to ask you a question Because you have your own initiative your own desires your own will what you want to do and what you want to accomplish

Now does jesus have free will? Yeah, again, I think this is getting to more of a philosophical discussion over the nature does jesus have free will

I would say Yes, he has free will but I already know where this is going. Jesus said he could do nothing of his own initiative right

If jesus had free will but he could do nothing of his own initiative, then does it mean? Well, I would say how does that affect your understanding of what free will is if jesus himself said he could do nothing of his

Own initiative except what he saw the father do and yet he had free will Well, and he also says he learned obedience through humility.

It also says that um, he said not my will but yours be done Um, so you've got other you had other passages to take into consideration and this gets into the triune nature of god into the concepts of of how the union works

How the nature of god works with regard to the incarnation and it takes us down a whole nother rabbit trail

Jesus said he could do nothing of his own initiative Does initiative of free will require having your own initiative?

Well again, we're talking about an ontological reality of who jesus is in relation to the father versus who we are in relation to the father and so To me that even proves my point even more because according to calvinism

Everything I do is is accordance with the father's will as much as what jesus did is accordance with the father's will

And I don't think that that's no no jesus will is perfect and that he always does exactly what he's gone

But it was but it's our will is our will is permitted I mean what we do is in his permissive will because we don't always do everything

Jesus always does what was right before the father. John 8 29. He always does the things pleasing to the father

We do not what is god? The question is still there. The question is on the table here Does if jesus said he could do nothing of his own initiative?

How does that affect the doctrine of your free will since he was a human being? A single person he was a human being but he could do nothing of his own initiative and yet you said he has free will

So now what are you going to do with that? Well god as the triune being has free will jesus

He has the ability to do what he wants, but I I continue to believe they have one nature and so therefore they are they are

United in a separate way than you and I would say and this is the problem is that when you say permitted You're not answering the question

I ask you how does jesus Initiative deal with the issue of his free will and you say trinitarian stuff

Right because I believe the nature of christ is tied to the nature of god in a different way than it's died to us

And so when you say permitted Let me reply how

I want to reply, okay Um, when you say god permitted earlier, what is he permitting if not?

The the free will of man. Is he permitting what he has determined for the person to do? because um calvin and other calvinists say permission is just a made -up word for the

You know Whatever the calvinist look god free god ordains whatever shall come to pass

That's what the fact is. He works all things after the counsel of his will So if I decide to do something wrong in an hour

It's within god's will that that occur but it says within his will to allow it to occur We have what's called a directive decree and a permissive decree that god allows things and he causes certain things

What is he allowing about jesus initiative? But what is he allowing if not your free choice in other words

Of course we have free choice But if god has determined your desire to be such that you would have to choose to do what's wrong here in an hour

Hey, let me define free will Okay, free will is the ability to do whatever you want

That is also consistent with your nature without being forced Okay. So, okay.

Let's go with that definition then It's consistent with any christian's nature to be a calvinist or not to be a calvinist, right?

It's consistent are there a true regenerate ban is it's consistent. You're able not reformed, right?

Right. Okay. So that's libertarian freedom No, he's able to accept Yeah, you're equivocating now.

You're playing with the words. I'm telling you what my definition of libertarian freedom is He's able to accept the quote -unquote truth of libertarian

Of truth of reformed theology or he's able to reject the truth of reformed theology. That's a regenerative person, right?

But that is generate that's not the unregenerate. Okay, i'm fine with that That's but that is an example of my libertarian.

You didn't apply my definition. You did not work with my definition I said according to his nature the We're talking about the issue of the depravity of man the depravity of man says he's a slave of sin a hater of god

Can do no good cannot receive these things by nature child of wrath deadness sins full of evil full of evil

That's what the bible says And that's what we're talking about. Okay, so that explains why a lost person rejects god

Exactly, but it doesn't explain why a regenerate man rejects calvinism And that's the problem because because we're allowed to in romans 14 1 through 12.

God says that we're allowed So god doesn't sovereignly God God says through paul each man must be fully convinced in his own mind romans 14 5

We're allowed to have differences of opinion God's not up there with a big hammer saying you have to believe this you have to believe that that's not how it works

So god's misrepresenting calvinism So is god sovereign or not sovereign over our choice to accept?

Of course, he is i'm certainly hoping you're saying the same thing Okay, so sovereignty therefore does not have to mean that he controls my decision to accept or reject something

Nothing can occur in the universe unless it's the will of god to either cause it or permit it Okay, so back to my question god

God is sovereign over my choice as to whether I accept or reject. Yes. He is. Absolutely But yet i'm still free libertarianly free to accept or reject didn't say libertarianly free

Okay, then you're not understanding what libertarian freedom means it means that you are contra choice its ability to choose

Otherwise i'm able to become reformed And Okay You're changing the subject.

No, no you're changing the subject. I asked you about jesus free will initiative I gave you this you went into the trinity and you're off a different direction

You do this a lot. And so if I do it, hey, you're changing the topic now Wait a minute. I asked you a specific question and i'm waiting for you to be done

You've asked me about various issues. I take notes and then I try and answer them when you jump off a different direction

I've specifically asked you a question about the initiative of the free will of jesus

When he said he could not do anything of his own initiative And I asked you how does that affect your doctrine of your free will of man because jesus is a man

You didn't answer the question. I don't think you can answer the question You can argue that jesus was free

It was his free choice to submit to what god wanted him to do not my will to be done But your will be done.

He said it's not his initiative He would would you say that jesus was determined to do what he was doing by the will of the father?

Did the father determine what jesus would do? Again that you're getting into the whole issue of the nature of the incarnate son versus the father determined Whatever the son would do

I I don't know how to answer that question because I I don't know how to answer how the nature of jesus relates to the nature of god because there are verses which seem to indicate that Um that if you want a lesson on the hypostatic union we can talk about it

Okay But the hypostatic union is the point i'm making is that you're trying to draw analogies about jesus in the hypostatic union with the father

As relation to us and what i'm saying is that when we act we're not acting in accordance with god's sovereign decree

And and will and determinations causally determined acts Um, but jesus is acting in accordance with what god the father wants him to do because they are in union with one

Of course, they are Our responsibility to be in jesus Said says lord.

I don't want to father. I don't want to go through this. He said this So it's not a 100 one -to -one identical will issue we have what's called the communicatio

Idealmatum the communication of the properties of both natures of the single person and the attributes of both We could talk about that sometime and it reflects in this the issue here.

I want to ask this question I want you to answer the question if you can't answer until you don't know how okay did the father determine predestined?

What jesus would do in light of these scriptures jesus says I can do nothing Jesus says the son can do nothing of himself unless it's something he sees the father doing

John 5 19. John 5 30. I can do nothing of my own initiative. I hear

I judge the judgment is just etc Because I do not seek my own will but the will of him who sent me john 8 28

When you lift the son of man up, then you will know that I am he and I do nothing on my own initiative But I seek or excuse me.

I speak the things as the father taught me So the father's teaching him telling him directing him john 8 29 and he who sent me is with me

He has not left me alone for I always do the things that are pleasing to him Did the father determine what jesus would do?

The father son and holy spirit self -determined which is libertarian freedom the ability to self -determine

And so in the hypothetic union that you mentioned he self -determines How that works with the incarnate son in relation to what the father desires?

I think there's mystery involved in that and I don't think it relates to our discussion with regard to And you misrepresent my my question too because jesus said the father what the father does

I was at the father you brought in the Holy spirit and the doctrine of trinity Jesus is restricting it to the father. So did the father determine whatever the son would do?

I believe the son submitted to the will of the father Okay, you can't answer the question because if you say yes, you support my my view if you say no you work against I don't know

Either way I answer. I don't think it supports determinism of humanity

You're all your father Predestined and determined what the father would what jesus would do and and matt slick by the way

He also predetermined what matt slick would do let's talk about jesus. Let's talk about jesus. So you're the same Sent the son wait time out time out.

Let me answer the question You're determined by the father to do what you do. No, no, no, i'm not going that we're talking specifically about jesus and the father

You're going to take this off the heats on did the father determine whatever the son would do? We want the perfect man.

Jesus the perfect man who's the example of what it means to have free will He teaches

Compatibilism he teaches that he did did only what the father determined and predestined ordained that he would do

And they're the verses for this Here's the problem for you. You're not able to respond to it. Oh, I am responding.

You don't like their answers Um, no, you went to the holy spirit, which is not in the scriptures with the trinity, which is not right there

I'm sure you don't believe in the triune nature of god Oh, come on, you can do better than that. Okay, you do believe in the tri nature of god

You go to com .org slash trinity and you can see you believe the triune nature of god, right?

Yeah So are they acting in accordance with their self -determination? The triune nature of god is he acting self -determined?

Of course, that's why it belongs to god not man answer answer is given then so But here's my point. You haven't answered the question here

But here's my point You believe according to compatibilism that your desires are decreed by god

They are they are ultimately determined by god and you also believe that jesus desires and his choices were determined by god

So you've ultimately put yourself on the same playing field as jesus with your argument You're ultimately saying if compatibilism is true with jesus, then it must be true with you and me therefore god

Very good. If it's true with jesus, it's true with you and I welcome to calvinism.

So you're you're jesus That's what you're saying. You're at the nature of jesus Because that's that's the argument you'd have to be making because what you're saying is that in the same way that god

Is determining jesus's thoughts and actions he so too Compatibilistically is determining my thoughts and actions

So when I choose to sin i'm not acting autonomously autonomously from the will of god

But in fact i'm acting in accordance with what god has decreed and decided for me to do And I have no choice in the matter.

You don't understand the reformed doctrine of what it means for god to decree and ordain It's it's an obvious weakness in your theological perspective.

You need to study it more It does not mean he's directly causing He decrees by putting his your his hand on your hand on the trigger and causes you to murder somebody

And this says see what you did. That's not what it is. That's how you're representing it Specifically the issue of jesus initiative.

This is what jesus is teaching. He's teaching compatibilism. He's not teaching libertarianism He is the one who is completely doing the will of the father and jesus said himself

He can't do anything of his own initiative. He can only do what the father has for him to do this

Necessitates it necessitates that god the father is determining Are you divine you're not divine so you're relating what jesus does to you i'm talking about jesus first second finish jesus said

He can do nothing of his own initiative We know that the father decreed for him and brought him and sent him to do what he had to do

Can matt slick do anything of his own initiative? Let me finish we know that jesus could do nothing of his own initiative and yet jesus had free will this is compatibilism

It's not libertarianism. This is compatibilism right here that jesus the perfect man is exemplifying

Just as you let it slip about two minutes ago You said well that means that he has compatibilism that it means the same thing for us.

Yes, exactly, correct Okay, let me try to let me try to explain what I think compatibilism is and you do five minutes

Okay, and you tell me if this is an accurate description, okay of compatibilism Compatibilism doesn't mean that god is forcing or coercing man's choices like with the gun analogy you just use

Yes instead what it means is that god Ultimately is determining the nature and the circumstances

In which a choice is made in such a way that it could not and would not be other than what it is

And therefore under compatibilism you're acting in accordance with your desire But your desire is controlled or determined by the nature that god has destined for you

And therefore it's acting in accordance with in a sense Like a lion chooses to eat meat instead of grass because of his nature

So in the same way our moral choices are ultimately the same thing we act Instinctively according to our greatest preset desire in a given preset circumstance that we could not choose

We could not want to choose otherwise because god's ultimately determining our nature and environment make a mistake

We can't want because god's already determined as though he's running Roughshod over desire that's not the case

He's able to move the heart of the king where he no No He's able to move the heart of the king where he wishes it to go The heart of the king the mind the heart the soul desires.

He can move it. The bible says so I heard it says there's lots of verses like that.

We calvinists say that's what he does now if you would admit that Then can he cause someone to be to uh believe in him with that yes, he can

He certainly can the question is why doesn't he? It works against your position

Your libertarianism doesn't work because what you want you want people to be independently free libertarianly free and you don't want god to influence them

But wait a minute. I do want god to influence them and when I pray i'm praying that god changed them But that's violates libertarian view of their independence and their self -sufficiency and their self -generated ideas

We can't have that but we do have the idea of scripture speaking in Multitudinous places where god moves the heart puts things into the heart puts the fear of god in the heart

He does these things. He's the sovereign one in control This is what reformed theology does it puts god on the throne and man off the throne

So we don't be able to say with a little finger on the throne of god in my wisdom and my ability

I chose you when I was presented with the facts I have the ability to manhandle my dog and make it do what

I want it to do Does that prove that I always manhandle my dog and make it do what I want it to do? Let me finish my you broke up though.

It it broke. I didn't hear your sentence again I have the ability the power to manhandle my dog and make him do what

I want him to do Does that prove therefore that I always manhandle my dog and make him do what I want him to do?

In the same way god has the ability to change the heart of a king Even the kings who were seen as gods back in those days

So the verse is saying god has the ability to sway and move kings as he wills That proves that he's overcoming their free will not that they don't have free will therefore

Examples that you give where god thwarts the will of man proves that there's a will to thwart It doesn't prove that there is no free will it's simply demonstrating that god has the power to overrule or to override someone's free choices

And he can persuade and he can use different means in order to get what he wants accomplished That doesn't mean he's meticulously controlling or determining

Every desire and therefore thought action deed of man through causally determinative

Which is what compatibilism is compatibilism is no less hard determinism than I mean Determinism if you say hard determinism demonstrates you don't understand the reform position of compatibilism

No, no, that's like that's like physicalism. We don't teach that But yes god does have the power to direct their free choices

He absolutely does have that that ability because that's what the bible says. Now. Here's a question if he has that ability

If he has ability, why doesn't he direct everyone to do that? And does god not know how much grace to put upon a person how much work to put upon because all he's got to do

Layton all he has to do is just show his glory when I was 17 And I got tricked into walking up front and this is a short short short version

The holy spirit himself in his power and his glory just wham just came on me boom instantly

I'm down on the ground from five seconds ago doubting god not believing to all of a sudden

I know for a fact god is there and it was the result of god's work I was in rebellion every single step of the way.

Not that you have to exegete my experience. I'm saying all it's an illustration I know god's power is incredible if he wants every individual to be saved

All he has to do is show his glory. Wham. They're going to freely repent and choose from your perspective

Why does god not do that from your perspective? Why does he sovereignly choose not to reveal his glory to people so that they freely just freely just believe and trust in him?

Why does he not do that? Why has god chosen the means of faith by which to please and relate to him? They would have faith.

That's a question that we can ask him when we get there I think the answer to that question is that god wants a real relationship not a determined one

Could he happen to me? I have a real relationship with him. He did that I was on my knees weeping then jesus was there his presence.

I remember and I am changed. I've calmed down That was 17. I'm 61. I've calmed down since then.

This is the work of god himself I've freely submitted. Oh lord. You're my savior. I praise you. Why does he do that to more people?

That's a good question. I you know, if calvinism is true, that's a really good question Why doesn't he deterministically cause more people to believe but on our?

Answer we don't choose not to do it to all people. You don't have the answer Let me answer from my position what i'm saying is on calvinism

That's a really good question because god does have the capacity And the ability to sovereignly change people's wills to come to him but yet he's only chosen a select few

And it doesn't make a lot of sense But on our perspective, he's assigned the right to do what he wants with his creation. He says so This is perfectly calvinistic.

Okay, but on our perspective we would say that he has chosen For us to relate to him through faith and he has thus given us the free ability to respond to him

And therefore in order for us to have real relationship and love worth having he wants us to relate to him through spirit

Not through uh signs and wonders acts i .e showing manifestations of glory

He wants us to relate to him through faith. That's what he's chosen. That's how you we please him That's what he's chosen to do now

Therefore we're responsible To whether we put our trust and faith in him or if we want to put our faith in muhammad or some other

You know world religion or even atheism people are putting their faith in something. That's their choice

They're putting their trust in something and that's their responsibility. Okay You see he's given us the ability to relate via faith

Not signs and wonders the signs and wonders were done to demonstrate who jesus was But um, you're basically implying he wants relationship over salvation

The question is if god wants every individual to be saved all he has to do you would agree All he's got to do is just let his shekinah presence shine.

Wham. I know this now I'm, not trying to be unfair. You can't actually eat my experience and i'm not trying to use in that way now

See prove me wrong. It's not a fair thing for me to do and i'm not trying to be unfair in that sense I'm, just saying that I know of this and it reflects in John, excuse me acts 9 15 when

Uh, when paul was riding along this is what happened to to paul the apostle the holy jesus himself

Bam, knocked him off his horde knock knocked him down I understand what that means not to the extent i'm sure that it happened there because he heard an audible voice

I didn't but i'm telling you I know what it means to be in the presence of incredible holiness and the only thing you can do is put your face

To the ground and weep because you are in the presence of of of purity and you're a sinner I freely chose to believe in him

Right there at that moment when I was 17 Why doesn't god do that calvinist would say because god sovereignly chooses not to do that I believe the reason he gave that to me was because he knew what i'd be doing for a living

I had to have something very powerful very strong to keep me strong do all the cult crap and Crap, I got to study and everything for hours and years and years.

That's what my opinion but whatever The thing is all he's got to do is do the same kind of thing he did to paul the apostle

He can just sit there and go wham He's a chosen vessel of mine. So your eyes they do to everybody

I have an answer because god chooses not to okay. So your answer is god's decree. Did you know that's my answer too?

I I believe that god sovereignly decrees not which choice we'll make but that we'll be free to make a choice

That is his choice With paul with paul, that's it paul Chooses to grant you responsibility and the choice.

Yeah an axe paul actually says that he could have resisted Uh the the the call upon his heart and so Listen when acts 9 15 when he got knocked off.

Who are you? I'm jesus who you persecute So this is paul had all that ability there in that time to say no i'm not going to go with you

No, well, he said he submitted to the heavenly calling But what I often point out is that proof that god uses uh persuasive means like blinding lights or big fish

To make sure that his messengers are sent to where he wants them to go does not prove that god uses some secret Irresistible means to make the messengers believe their message and this is another thing.

I think calvinist oftentimes make Conflation on is that they they point out passages where god is using persuasive signs and wonders

To convince his messengers to take the message where he wants it to go As proof that god uses some kind of effectual inward

Deterministic means to make certain people believe their message and I don't find that established in scripture God is going to fulfill his promise to make sure the word is delivered

And he will use a big fish if that's what it takes to get jonah to go That doesn't prove that god has pre -chosen certain innovites to irresistibly cause them to believe jonah's message when he gets there

And so I think that's just a conflation of the calvinist now I would point out on matthew 23 12 when jesus says whoever exalts himself shall be humbled

And whoever humbles himself shall be exalted So you're responsible according to scripture to humble yourself

That's the words of scripture not my words If you don't humble yourself god will effectually humble you but he does that at judgment time and so if you if you look at that, uh that Command of the the father that statement of jesus.

What does that mean from your perspective to say whoever exalts himself Shall be humbled and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted

If not that you're responsible to humbly like the child to humbly confess that you're a sinner and you need the savior

You and I both agree that people are morally obligated to do what's right Not because they're able or not able but because it's based on god's nature in essence

So whoever humbles himself will be exalted whoever exalts himself will be humbled the question then becomes

How are they able to do those things and that's what our discussion is about So god effectually humbles both those who go to heaven and those who go to hell under your position

Absolutely, he humbles them both. Yeah, look, um It's been two and a half hours.

How about this? You want to do a three minute closing? I'll do a three minute closing or what are we done? Sure. You go first since I went first last time.

Okay Uh on the top of my head here. Look, um First of all, thank you for participating

And uh trying to defend what you believe is biblical and I appreciate that and uh, we you know, we disagree but um

I would say that you're not able to answer the difficult questions You're not able to answer the question of why one believes another one does not

And I am my reformed theology gives me the answer It gives me the scriptures which i've repeated so many times for people to hear

The reason we believe is because god grants that we believe the reason we're able to believe is because god makes us born again

He causes it first peter one Uh three and i'll forgo the the references but he caused us to be born again grants that we believe grants us repentance

He gives these things to us and we as jesus says we cannot come to him unless it's been granted from the father these are

Verses I don't have to do anything with them I just quote them and they answer the question of the why Why is it that one believes another one does not because god grants them the ability to do that?

and as it says as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed And god did not look in the future to see who would believe and then appoints them based on that That'd be reactionary for god's part.

We didn't discuss that but I don't believe you would affirm that either Furthermore when we get to the issue of jesus being the perfect man

The one who represents human will the best We know for a fact that jesus said he could do nothing of himself

Unless it is something he sees a father doing john 5 19. That's not libertarianism He says

I can do nothing of his own and my own initiative john 5 30. That is not libertarianism

He says I do nothing of my own initiative, but I speak these things as a father taught me That's not libertarianism

He said I always do the things that are pleasing to him. Now. That's both libertarianism and Compatibilism could we both agree the point here is that and there's other verses

I could get to about christ talking like this Jesus who's the perfect man with a perfect human will he's the one who represents free will and he

Could not do anything in his free will unless it was what the father Decreed and caused and had for him and had determined that he would do this is exactly what compatibilism is jesus himself

Proposes and jesus himself supports compatibilist at free will This is why I want to get ultimate to the issue of what free will really is

Why one believes one does not because these are philosophical questions whether you want to admit or not We both are going to have our philosophical assumptions

And we both can come to the same scriptures and interpret them differently as you do and I do in those same verses

We come to these differently the issue then becomes what is our natural? Natural what is our most basic understanding and presuppositional form that we have?

Through which we interpret the scriptures what i'm trying to do is get people to look at the word of god And it clearly tells us

God grants that we believe he grants us repentance. He causes us to be born again Not of our own will which if libertarianism is true

It should be by our own will and finally repeat this leave it with the words of christ He said he could do nothing of his own initiative.

He could only do what the father had him do that's determinism That's compatibilism

That's what jesus lived and exemplified and since he's the perfect exemplar of what it is

And I believe what he did. I believe the rest of the scriptures That's why i'm reformed in my theology and that's why

I believe in compatibilist free Will and the incapacity of the unbeliever to do what is morally and obligated to be right

Okay, I don't know if that was three minutes or not, but I tried to keep it at three Yeah, and i'll thank you too for this discussion

It's been cordial but firm and I appreciate that I like the back and forth and the banter iron sharpening iron. So thank you for that Um, you continue to say i'm not able to answer.

You just don't like my answers We do have answers there answers to the theological questions of every verse that's been raised

Um, I would encourage just like calvinists have answers to every verse we raise that there's back and forth And I encourage people to study both sides objectively come to the scriptures like good bereans

And I think matt would encourage you to do the same go to the scriptures and learn for yourself He continues to use the word grant as if it means effectual cause but it never means effectual cause to grant something

I can grant my children permission to take the car and to go On a date that doesn't mean they are effectually caused to take my car and go on a date

It certainly doesn't mean that I am determining what they do on that date or how they treat my car God grants or gifts us with a lot of things.

I have the ability to breathe My next breath is a gift of god, but I can use it praising him or cursing him That's my responsibility how

I use the gifts of god. That's why i'm held responsible. He continued to go to this argument, which is befuddling to me to to relate jesus, uh,

His will tied to god's will in the hapostatic union as somehow comparative to how our will is therefore tied to god's will

Um when we're sinful fallen creatures who are not even attempted according to james Uh, according to jeremiah 731 whenever they're killing the the children and throwing into the fires

He says that didn't even enter my mind and yet they're supposedly acting quote -unquote Compatibilistically according to what god has predetermined or predecreed for them to do

I I see no sense in holding to that view because it ultimately would make god Uh in a sense the author to sin though I know he would never want to call god the author of sin

I think the the implication is that he would be the author of sin if he's ultimately controlling

Compatibilistically my desires in the same way that jesus and the father are tied together in some way So i'm not sure how that argument actually helps him

It actually seems to hurt him because the distinction that we have between jesus is that we're sinful we're fallen

He's not he always does the right thing because he is tied Naturally, he is tied by nature to who his father is

They're one and uh, and we are not one with the father in that same way We can become one through faith in christ and through faith in christ, which we're responsible for We can have the spiritual blessings that he's predestined for all who are in christ

But nowhere in scripture does it say we're predestined or predetermined to be in christ It says that those who are in him are chosen for these spiritual blessings

We're predestined to become conformed to the image of his son We're predestined to become holy and blameless never says that certain individuals are predestined to become believers or to become in christ

That that that's not our choice Um, he he also said several times and this i'll use as my closing because i'm coming to my time

It says he says he causes us to be born again as if we wouldn't believe that but who does he cause to be born again?

According to the scripture he came to those his own and his own received him not but those who did receive him

He gives the right to become children of god Your responsibility is to receive him and then you're given the right to become children of god

And so he does yes cause us to be born again But why because we humbly confess our sins and then he exalts us

That's what it says humble yourself and then you will be exalted That's what being born again is is to be exalted with christ.

And so again, thanks for the time tonight. Appreciate it All right. Well, thank you. Um, i'm sure this won't be the last time we disagree

I hope not. I want to read i'm going to review something you said Not in the debate. I want to defend you

When a calvinist says that you're not a christian because you don't affirm calvinism I stand against that just so you know,

I don't I don't like that Yeah, I you know i've met you in purpose i'm pardon purpose Met you in person.

You're tall and um You know, I have no doubt that you love the lord I think you're an error just as you think i'm an error

And you wouldn't say i'm not a christian any more than I would say you're not a christian So when calvinists say that kind of thing,

I just go Come on guys, you know, don't do that I appreciate that and I feel the same way and and for all of those who are quote -unquote on my side of the issue

Uh some of the vitriolic things that I hear people say about calvinists are undeserved and unneeded

It's not going to be uh, the the proverb 1621 says we win people through persuasive words through the sweetness of our speech

And so it's through being kind and cordial and respectful to those who disagree with us that we're going to be able to Convince them of what we think may be true

Especially if we believe that persuasion and free will are true It makes more sense to speak With cordiality and love and respect towards our calvinistic brothers

So I encourage those who are listening to model that kind of respect if at all possible Yeah, I agree.

All right We're done. Love you, my friend We'll talk again soon. Hey, i'm praying for your wife still and I hope everything goes well with her

Yeah, I I appreciate that god bless god bless you, too I'm gonna hang a little bit and blab with a few people and then that's it.

I'm done. Sounds good. Bye. Bye. Okay. Okay. Bye All right, so anyway, he's not there we can now we could talk about him behind his back.

Um, so at any rate that it was fine uh Here we go

All right, just reading some of the comments gospel presentation. It was fun. Ladies and gentlemen Uh, thanks for debating

Debating with us. Love everyone here. Matt's just more correct uh wheeler

Face so funny matt, whatever Anybody get comments or questions if you guys want to come in the room for i'll i'll go for another 20 minutes

I'll give the if you guys want I can give the url to participate if you want You could do that.

I don't know You guys want? If not, no big deal If you give the url, then you'll put me to work

Good i'll i'll do that. I'll uh, put the url. Let's see if it works I don't know if that's going to work

But I just put it in the uh, youtube chat What i'll do is i'll put it on facebook and um

Whoops, there goes there goes the neighborhood. There goes the neighborhood people coming in. No, i'm just oh

Okay, I just put a link in there for the participate on my matchlock facebook page

If anybody wants to come in and blab a little bit If not, no big deal, but it's on the facebook page

How do you respond matt? I missed it Matt just gives scripture without proving his point

It's all theology Jason hi jason Yeah Kevlar I don't believe in deterministic fatalism.

So you didn't even listen. Did you you got an open mic there jason?

Anybody want to come in? Okay, so the uh We have four people in here now. Oh, there we go.

So if you guys want to blab that's fine, you know Hey, man, can you hear me? Yeah, who's this tim?

Yeah, hey I don't know. I'm doing great. Um, thanks for uh, thanks for taking the time to talk to layton um

I know you don't study his uh arguments and stuff Just from the top of your head.

You're able to refute what he said I found it Very telling at the end there

When he was making his closing statements that he pointed out that god saves us because we

And then he I didn't hear that what we do and That is the most troubling thing

I didn't hear that Every now and then it was his his thing on my screen would boot and I wouldn't quite get something.

I didn't want to keep Interrupting him and repeat it, but maybe that's what happened then. Yeah, he said god saves us because we humble ourselves ah

Yeah, that would yeah, that's that's uh, that's a heresy Yeah Yeah, and that that's really at the core of everything.

Isn't it that um difference between layton and the person that goes to hell? ultimately is something

Yeah, right because well the question is why does one humble himself this is a question he cannot answer

But this but the scriptures give us the answer God is the one who gives these things Right, yeah, right

I and also when you think of the issue of Jesus Actually, jesus exemplified compatibilism not libertarianism

I thought that was excellent. I look forward to Do you have that? Did you write an article on that or something?

I've never heard that argument before Um, I think it might be uncarm. I think

I wrote something like that a while back jesus Compatibilism Um, I thought the fact yeah do jesus own words prove compatibilism is true

I said it's uncarm. Um Yeah, I got lots of references

He came down from heaven not to do his own will but the will of him was sent me do nothing of his own initiative Do nothing of himself nothing of his own initiative

Uh did not speak of his own initiative the words. He says he uh I do not speak on my own initiative

Whoa I should use that one. That's even better the words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the father abiding in me does his works

I mean, I don't see how anybody can get out of this This is compatibilism and I wanted to get to this earlier, but he would so often take off a different direction

And so I had to bring it back And finally get to it. I don't think What do you do with that to me?

That's killer Well, he's He seems to be the ultimate calvinist skeptic

You can share anything you want with him point everything as clear as possible and he's just going to reject it and reflect it

Yeah, hey con where did I contradict myself because he says matt knows he contradicted himself and gave up his position several times sure

Nice to say it but uh prove it So, uh, yeah, it was it was interesting. I discovered that uh about Six eight months ago,

I guess I don't remember Uh the issue I was just what was I discussing or something and I went through and I saw the word initiative and because in in libertarian free will

Everything is about your free will ability your own initiative to be able to make a decision that's not forced

That's it And yet if jesus said he could not do anything of his own initiative

That refutes libertarianism you know, I tried to go in and and I didn't get too far before I found out, uh,

You know pretty definitively from scripture, especially from jesus. I'll put it into the uh, google chat it's too big to put over in the uh, the youtube chat but uh

I went into people like at robertson and philip schaft. I mean, it's also very simple um

That uh this total inability this, uh Is so clear and when jesus puts to it a truly truly i'm telling you this

And he expresses it in airtight terms That uh in the most negative terms man has no ability whatsoever to act on this uh

It just catches my eye and i'm thinking you know That's pretty much as far as I need to go to settle the the idea, right?

Yeah Well, I you know reviewing it in my mind. Um jesus compatibilistic

Stuff that I was presenting to him and then I was really I was blown away when he started saying are you divine matt?

Like what was that? Um, that really that was a concern Because you know, it was it was um, i'm not sure what was happening.

I don't know maybe he was so cornered What's that I don't think he meant it like that I know but he said well you divine you're comparing yourself to jesus

And what I was saying was that jesus is the example the example of what true human free will is

And he even said it. Well if jesus is compatibilistic, then we are too. Yes He said it

And so I go. Yeah, exactly Um, so I I don't know. I I think the jesus issue which

I wanted to get to earlier I forgot about and then it came back to I think that's uh, it's it's critical.

At any rate. Hey matt. Yeah Hey, so I mean, have you ever heard the argument?

Uh, you know, uh With all the reform group. It's in our favor of adam's wills different from Night mankind, you know fallen man's will and then yes still

Even after we're saved our will is still not Intact as far as adam's will it's not as free.

So right That was a problem wills Was a problem on his

I would say and I'm not saying anything. I I didn't say there It's a problem to equate our or the unbelievers fallen will to that of adam and eve.

That's right It's because they weren't fallen but so and so is fallen and the scriptures declare and reveal issues about the fallenness

And that scripture Set limits their ability. That's why I believe in total depravity because what the scripture says, that's right

So it's not Adam and eve had libertarian freedom though well, I have to define what libertarian freedom is and um from what

I understand Okay, I may be wrong on this let me let me get this Libertarian freedom deals only with fallen humans

But maybe layton would say no that's not correct and if it's not correct, okay, but um

Because when I asked it does god have libertarian freedom and then define what libertarianism is

And i've got his definition here in my notes someplace But I don't like the definitions that I see because what

I do is I try and trick people when it comes into the issue of Of free will I'll say what's free will and I say does free will mean this is a trick

I say I'm going to trick you now. You ready? um I'll say, uh Is free will the ability to be able to choose between good and bad and perform good and bad yet to be able to have?

Those options people go. Yeah. Well, that's god can't choose to do good or bad. He only has a limited uh set of possibilities correct and and that is his you know, holy and good so that we have to have a definition

That's going to include god and what free will is to exclude god is to become humanistic So i'm going to define truth

By what humans are able to do that's humanism And so we have to have something that's going to be god -centered

Well, my definition that I use for free will is the ability to act in a manner consistent with your desires.

That's unforced And and consistent with your nature I say consistent with your nature that's unforced because that then includes god

Because his nature is holy He can only do holy things and it also is consistent with a fallen man because he is able to do

Only those things consistent with his fallenness which the bible reveals as limited I have a question.

Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry Um, I just want to make sure this my name's andrew.

Can you hear me? All right, sir. Yeah Awesome. I just I wanted a clarification on something that you just said so you were making the case that we can compare ourselves to Jesus to get the position you're saying who's not fallen but we can't compare ourselves to adam and eve who is fallen and draw

That is that I like that. That's a good. That's a good way to put it. Um, let me let me work through that a little bit

Yes, jesus is unfallen. But jesus was also a man who exemplified The issue of free will you would agree and layton would agree adam had free will he just had free

Will you and I have free will no problem the question of the nature of the free will is that Compatibilism says god i'm gonna use the word directs

Directs your choices and you're still responsible. We're incompatible in Non -compatibilism would say no your choices are basically autonomous free according to what you want and that's why you're responsible

Basically, those those are it Yeah, well jesus did nothing of his own initiative. Now. That's the question

If jesus did nothing of his own initiative Whether he's fallen or not fallen isn't the issue. He did nothing of his own initiative

Yeah, and how does that affect the issue and the nature of what free will is if free will requires you have to act of Your own initiative, but jesus didn't

And that would be more consistent with compatibilist thought than libertarian thought that was my point Yeah, and I just real quick and i'll be done just because I was interested and I appreciate that answer

Um, I I think from what I understood and I kind of logged in late so maybe I I miss I misheard some points, but I from what

I understood is the The attribute of jesus being a hundred percent god and a hundred percent man and not having total depravity in the equation

Makes it, uh somewhat unfair to say that the way his will works is the same way our will works

I think that's a fair criticism to say although maybe you countered that and I just logged in late it just seems to me that a lot of what i've understood from reformed theology and calvinism relies heavily on the

State of being totally depraved and how that has impacted your will and why free will is kind of more of a facade because total depravity means

No, we wouldn't We wouldn't say sorry facade. You're right. That's a wrong word. I should say

Free will is is is in our totally depraved state is always going to choose.

Um sin over god You know our wickedness over his holiness. I should have worded it that way. I'm, sorry And so the idea that we can somehow say our will reflects the will of Jesus or that jesus provides an example of how our will is to me seems

Unlikely, uh, because we have the factor of total depravity to have to deal with whereas jesus Yeah, so I don't know if that's a fair criticism, but that's one point

I'm, not sure if i'm i'm putting together I guess is where i'm at, but I appreciate the answer No, I do and I see what you're saying.

But um, and I have no problem with that. I'm not trying to avoid the question I don't think the question really reflects what my point was and maybe

I wasn't being Uh clear enough in my point Uh, because yeah, absolutely, uh, he has uh, you know, uh, a um a sinless nature and I You heard me

Maybe you heard me mention the communicatio idiomato And this is related to part of the issues that were about to be broached by light by layton on some other issues

I didn't get to it didn't have to i'm glad because you don't get time constraints. The issue was the nature of free will

Just generically free will human free will who's the best example of human free will jesus? Well, he had an unfallen nature.

We have a fallen nature. Okay, but that's not the issue because in fallenness We know there's certain restrictions that is that by scripture.

You can't receive christ You can't this you can't that but this doesn't apply to jesus. That's correct. However The thing i'm pointing out is jesus said

I can do nothing of my own initiative All right, if I said god does things with me and I can do nothing of my own initiative you'd say less determinism

You know not you but I mean people say that's determinism. That's But that's what jesus said is it determinism with him, uh now they're stuck and that's that's

I think is um, So just real quick and i've hogged up enough time. I actually really appreciate your answers

Um, i'm, i'm just curious if the factor that because god was jesus was 100 god

That's actually a factually true statement that jesus can't be anything but god so that would apply to him

Whereas to try to then translate that to man can't do anything unless god determines it seems a little um

Did you repeat that? I got distracted. Sorry. Oh, i'm, sorry I may have articulated

Okay, um the idea jesus is 100 god So it is in my mind at least and maybe i'm wrong here

But it seems like it would be an easy case to make that because he is 100 god He literally can't do anything apart from the will of the father because they are one in the same in a sense

So that the reason he's saying that has more to do with his divinity than his humanity

I guess is where i'm getting at Right and that would be a problem because you're getting into the storianism at that point

Are you familiar with what the communicatio idiomatum is? I'm, not I I logged in after that part. No, sir

And we didn't define it But the communicatio idiomatum is a fancy latin term that's impressive when you're on a date when you say it

But what it means is the communication of the properties So jesus hypostatic union jesus is one person with a divine nature a human nature.

So that's one person Two natures, no problem All right, the communicatio idiomatum says that each nature the divine nature and the human nature have attributes and the person

Claimed the attributes of both natures the person said uh,

I I will be with you always even into the earth as a divine Uh father glorify me with you with the glory. I had with you before the foundation of the world.

John 17 5 Or yeah, and so but the man the the eye jesus the person said i'm thirsty i'm hungry i'm tired.

I need something to eat Yeah, and so the eye laid claim to the attributes of divinity as well as humanity

Which is why jesus could never have sinned because the holiness attribute was given to him. All right, so We had to be careful not to commit the error of the storianism where the two natures are separated

We have two persons and absolutely never do that and he knows his stuff that way Because I believe he does he'd never do that.

So the issue then becomes if jesus says I can do nothing of my own initiative

That he's speaking as the person with the attributes of both humanity and divinity And as such he representing both of them because the human attributes are there and what layton was doing

I think you're bringing this point out making me think about it more Is that he was kind of focusing more on the divine aspect and ignoring the human aspect and we can't do that Because that would be a heretical thing to do and and just real quick.

I know I said this four times um I I agree with you But I think you're creating the opposite mistake by saying let's focus so much on the human aspect without the divine aspect

And saying that that itself is a replica or an example of what humans will is

Yeah, because they're ignoring that we don't have the divine aspect like that. I haven't thought Yeah, yeah,

I don't know I appreciate the answers and i'll look into what you just laid out because that's that's a new kind of concept for me

So I appreciate it. Yeah, it's on karmic community Let me see if I can kind of respond to that because you're right I was focusing on the human aspect because we're talking overall about human will

This is this is a human And are you familiar with diathletism and monotheletism?

I'll be honest, uh vaguely but not enough to say yes All right. So leo is the greek word for to will so okay die to Mono one did jesus have in his hypostatic union?

Does he have one will or two the orthodox answer is two? Yeah, a will of the divine a will of the human.

Okay, but then they're expressed in the single person. This gets complicated Yeah It's difficult to really work through them all and at this point

And with the communicator with amatum and the hypostatic union Okay, how do we exactly work through all of this?

I don't know but I do know this that jesus the man To whom we perceive as man who also represented divinity even said

I can do nothing of my own initiative This means that you know, then we say well, what does that mean about the divine aspect?

Was he saying I the divine aspect can do nothing? Well Yeah, I know it's weird.

No Let me get into the eternal decrees and the eternal sonship and then it gets even more complicated more complicated but the point

I think is made that um There are several points I just thought of I could have said but i'm not going to go into it don't need to But I think that the idea is that human freedom freedom is best represented by christ as the god man

And he did represent the I will I want I this as a single thing

And he represented it as I can do nothing of my own initiative There's a divine aspect and a human aspect with the diathletism

But the thing is he said I the singular was what is represented and that's the issue The singular representation of I can do nothing of my own initiative is singular in presentation

And that is the issue I was focusing on. I think your observation is a good one. Okay.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much Good Why wouldn't the I imply that there's one will

That's see this is that's good stuff, I mean How does that work? Because by By having a human nature.

He has to have a will otherwise. He's not human having a divine nature He has to have a will otherwise. He's not divine hence diathletism

But we perceive them in a single will So jesus says not my will be done, but your will be done.

So he's exemplifying both of those as a singular will when he says I Or my am

I misinterpreting it? By saying that when he says that he's not

When he says not my will but your will I thought he was talking to the father not his divine nature Oh, no.

Oh, he would not talk to his divine nature. That would be an historianism and the error of uh,

When this pentecostal where actually the human nature is talking to the divine nature, that would be a complete heresy

We have no discussion. I think the false assumption I have then that I got to work out is that I guess

I always assume that having a nature isn't sufficient for having a will Well, this phone has a nature

Phone in this it doesn't have a will to it will is an issue of sentience and so the word that's eternal is sentient has a will and by uh,

Since we are the imagio de as lightens layton said properly genesis 1 26 made the image of god imagio de image of god

Assumption. I see it I think my false assumption is this I think I think what I was assuming was

Uh having a will is sufficient for being a person And so I was like if he has two wills, why isn't christ two persons?

Oh, yeah, that's an historian issue. That's necessary to persons. So what so the word person has a theological

Significance so personhood. So you're a person. I'm a person i'm saying you and me

Yours mine. I recognize you I recognize me and you do the same thing

You have a will I have a will Um, we can communicate. So these are attributes of what we call personhood

And so we say jesus has is a person but he has two distinct natures

How does that work? I have no idea Person two distinct natures. I've never struggled with that but person but two distinct wills is weird to me.

It's a guy fellatism yeah, so so it basically puts a wedge between nestorianism and And mano

Uh, how do you say felatism monothelitism dystellitism monothelitism die is two wills a will of the human and a will of the divine

But they are perceived and work as a single will and then the mystery is

And the mystery is having two wills but being one person There you go and not and not going back into nestorianism.

That's the mystery Is there an analysis of that or is it just kind of like a mystery? It's kind of mystery There's probably an analysis by people who are smart

Oh, i'm not and so i'm sure That's true and so Um, i'm just but uh, so it's an issue that is really important but by the way

If you want to be able to refute the heresies christological heresies of various cults all you need to really study 99 of them will be solved by this is that the um, hypothetic union and the communicative idiomatum

That's most of them right there if you understand those you'll be able to uh, Refute almost any is it is it unorthodox?

But still not heretical to say jesus had one will This is no

Yes, and no, okay if you're saying jesus the one person Had one will then we have

As one person I would say this first I would go and say He necessarily had a will of the divine and the will of the human they were expressed in one will

That's as far as i'm going to go because people can ask me detailed questions. I'll say I Don't I don't know, you know, i've never thought of this in my entire life

That's the first time I ever heard that I always thought jesus had one will Okay, this is no he has two wills the human

No, no jesus has One will yeah, the expression is one will and I may not even be saying this, right?

So i'm i'm trying to be very careful, but diatheletism The human will and a divine will but they're manifested as one single will and so we could say jesus had one will

Is is the manifestation relationship still the same after the ascension? Yes Awesome.

Okay, forever will be a man in a glorified body Forever and this is necessary Because he lives forever to make intercession for us.

He was 620 and he was 725 And he can't be a high priest to be an intercessor if he's not a man.

That's that's law Gotcha. I don't know if he stopped being a man. Yeah Mj demore,

I don't know if you have your chat box or your text box open, but I I dropped those links I dropped those links in there.

Thank you so much This since we're talking about the communicator, let me ask you a question

If jesus has two natures, which one died on the cross? It's got to be the human one

Yeah, human nature if only the human nature died on the cross, then how is the sacrifice of divine value?

Because the father accepted it or nope Dang, the community caught you with your mottom. Oh Person died on the cross person.

Here's another little something to think about okay, if if I had a glass of Humanity i've got human essence in the glass

Water's out now If I could I put human essence in the glass? It doesn't make sense to say that Because well, what is humanity?

It's not something you put in a glass, you know, and then they could put it in my cat now He's human. It doesn't work like that So what is divinity?

Can we do the same thing? No, what is divinity? We can't answer the question. What does it look like?

How much does it weigh? What shape is it we take a picture of it? No, we can't So when we say jesus has a divine nature

At you know in a sense we could say what's all it says. We don't know if it's true or not How would we know?

If he had a divine nature, well divine divinity has attributes If we could see his attributes of divinity

Then great Receive the divine through the human If we were walking on the sea of galilee on the shortest sea of galilee and we saw jesus walking on the water

And saying to the storm be still We would be seeing The divine manifestation through the human attributes, right?

He's speaking raising i'm raising his hand. Whatever peace be still we'd see this We'd see the divine aspect of walking on water through the physical human aspect

So the idea is we perceive the divine through the human So when jesus died on the cross we're perceiving the divinity

And the actions of divinity in the single person communicatio idiomatum The attributes of both natures described a single person and the person died on the cross.

It was represented in that humanness Now as a as a false analogy that i'll bring up because it's not the same

Uh the relationship between my soul and my body if I if I cut my body Like my soul be in pain, even though my soul wasn't cut so in the same way

Jesus human nature can die on the cross and because of the communication of the attributes the divine nature is also

Partaking in that is it kind of like that? Yeah, that's very good now Let me run with that a little bit and in some groups of annihilationism.

They hold a physicalism It's called anthropological physicalism, which is the view that when the human body dies the soul ceases to exist

If that's the case that when jesus human body died his Human soul ceased to exist.

That's a violation of the community of the hypostatic union It's a violation of the incarnation And you're saying the human soul is the same as the human nature

I don't know how to answer that question Have a human nature probably I don't know how to answer that question uh, but uh

These these doctrines have ramifications to other issues of his natures and his interrelationship

Now with respect to layton it's difficult to get through these things with him because he has a roadblock in my opinion to the issues of going through and And discussing these issues on a deeper level

And i'm not trying to be disrespectful to him But I just think that's the case because why is it that one human will does something another one does not?

Well, this is something that's really uh important why even jesus do what he did

The only reason jesus did whatever he did was because it was decreed by god And that's compatibilism

Well, then are we not compatibilist, but jesus is It doesn't make any sense

I did have a question for you I'm, not sure if anyone else does because i've asked a lot but um, I I kind of tuned into the the last part of it where you were challenging layton on his um

What and I don't remember the exact way you worded it, but you essentially said why doesn't god According to layton's view.

Why doesn't god reveal himself in glory to everyone? If that's the only thing that's stopping it.

Am I getting that right? Yeah, what's he doing? This has an answer So and that's

I just want to kind of just make sure I understood because I did kind of come in midway Your answer you gave was because god decreed not to right did

I get that right? God chooses not to do it to certain individuals for reasons. He does not tell us.

It's within his nature His reasons not ours Okay. Okay. And so why I was kind of curious why layton's answer of god giving um god decreeing to allow humans

Uh to choose whether they have faith or not why that wasn't a satisfactory answer in your mind

Like I feel like that. Yeah Because the gospel according to layton enables someone to believe because that's why god has given the gospel because he wants them to believe

Mm -hmm. Well if he wants them to believe which I said then why does it appear to him? So so I guess the reasoning at least as far as I understand it

Which I haven't listened to late in a whole lot so I could i'm not really speaking on his behalf by any means but um The way

I understand it is like in and paul in his letter to the corinthians I think it's second corinthians six or seven and there he says, you know, we use

Every argument we can to remove obstacles Uh that keep people from coming to know jesus and to know god so the

The idea would be that that god set it up and decreed it in such a way that we're supposed to Reason with people about why they should humble themselves before god

And that that's that's why he doesn't give faith to everyone is because that's not how he decreed it to be I guess

And i'm not quite sure why that's not a good answer It is a good answer that he hasn't decreed to give faith in that sense

But that would mean then that if god did not agree to decree to give faith to some somebody Then that's definitely a reform perspective

Um, but yeah, let me clarify maybe so it's not so i'm thinking more broad than individual. So he didn't decree to give uh, he decreed to set faith up in a way that people can

Can um interact with what he has revealed and choose if they want to humble themselves

Or turn away and that that's the way he's decreed the setup to be I guess if that makes sense

I got distracted. Sorry by a phone call. Thanks repeated my apologies No worries,

I think I missed it said that anyway, so give me another opportunity The uh, the idea is that god as far as I understood what layton was trying to say or at least maybe a position

I would Personally advocate for is that god's decreed and set it up in a way that people can based on general revelation the bible

Certain factors they can choose whether or not they want to humble themselves Or not and have faith in god based on on how he has set it up.

So in other words i'll end with this god decreed the ability for people to Have faith to choose to have faith or not in who he is that that's the way he set it up And that's why not everyone comes to god is because the way he set it up is

You have to humble yourselves to come before me and because humans aren't naturally humble That doesn't happen as often

I guess is where i'm getting well that would if people can humble themselves in their sinful state How is that possible? So, let me ask you a question

Please do because i'm actually curious about why that wouldn't be possible. So please do okay What's a good work and it's a serious question.

We could talk about it for quite a while But basically a good work is something that can only be done with the proper motive to glorify god to the proper means of the word of god

And for uh through the cleansing blood of christ That sanctifies our work

If an atheist if I drop my wallet In a store and an atheist picks it up and gives it back to me

Is it a good work on the human level? Yes on the divine level Not at all because he did not do it for the glory of god, which is why we're created isaiah 43 7

So ultimately the point is you can't have a good work unless it glorifies god and it's cleansed through the blood of christ

And so let's say a christian Who loves jesus returns my wallet to me.

Is that a good work? well In the human sense of the christian. No because his nothing in him is perfect and pure Which is a standard of god himself so it wouldn't be acceptable on the other hand

Yeah, it's a good work because he's doing it in the name of jesus christ and it's not perfect. But you know

It's cleansed through the blood of christ. So in that sense, yes now Humility being humble

Can an unbeliever be humble It's a question Can an unbeliever be humble before god?

Because it's a good thing to do but the bible says he's a slave of sin a hater of god doesn't uh And cannot understand or receive the things of god

And that's 1 corinthians 2 14, which which he says Layton says is a um backslidden person

Well, wait a minute. It's a backslidden person And how is it possible for him to understand these things of the of god the trinity the dg christ justification by faith

Unbelievers don't accept those believers do but the bible but 1 corinthians 2 14 says they cannot receive them

So it doesn't make sense. It's just a backslidden individual Okay Is the issue of humility unbelievers can't be humble.

They cannot be because it's a good work. It's a good thing It's a before god, so it doesn't work that way either

I want to say this to him, but he won't let me and give much answers. He keeps interrupting. It keeps so Yeah, and I agree that part of that's the problem with google hangouts and not really hearing

I mean I do my job is talking over the phone to people and it's very easy to interrupt and not have a coherent Conversation just because it's hard so the format doesn't help but I would bring up two things so that i'm curious about one

It seems to me that you introduced a category of good works that the bible doesn't really mention

So when when you're talking about when paul says you're saved by faith not by works 95 % of time he ends that with works of the law meaning he had a specific type of works in mind not just generic

Generic works, but a specific type of work So when you introduce the idea of what is a good work and you define it

I don't see in the bible where it's defined that way not to say you're wrong I just don't know where the biblical case is to define a good work that way

Um, and and two i'm curious about as well Jesus said humble yourselves like these children now unless we're to assume all those children were born again it does seem to say that there is a state of almost and i'm probably gonna word this wrong, um, but there's almost a state of of humility that That children have and there's almost hints of people who are who have who are poor

That there's like a humble state that a lot of them are more prone to having that the bible says

And it doesn't comment on if they're born again or not or elect or not It just kind of says, you know, these children are humble.

So humble yourselves like these children So it seems to me That humility is not a trait only born again believers can have but that humans who have been humbled by life.

Let's say Can can can have and and i'll end on that. Although I do have a question about when you said

Uh those who kind of referencing romans 8 those who in the flesh cannot please god So, how can they be humble if they cannot please god?

I do have a point a question with that as well but anyway, so the first two points would be The where do you get that definition of good works from is there a specific passage or is it more kind of just The the whole council type of is where you're coming from right to how can children be humble if they're not born again?

Um different senses of the word humble humble in the sense of light. Layton's talking about his humble unto salvation

But humble as far as a child goes a different sense Humility of the child is i'll just believe whatever you say

It's a different sense of the word humble and this is why there's a problem because he equivocates a lot and he begs the question

Not very precise This is a problem. Okay. Now, okay. Let's make sure we understand that requirement to do what is right

Doesn't mean they're able to do what is right Okay, because to say that we have to be able to do what is right, even if we can't is humanism

And this okay so this is a really important part of the discussion and If someone's going to say that you have to be humble in order to be saved then they're becoming christians and being saved

Because god is responding to their humility god would then be responding to a good quality in them and saving them based on that How's that not works righteousness?

um I do have an answer for that actually or at least one that i'm i'm okay with um

So so two things god set it up in a way to say look if you humble yourself to my son then

Um, I I will save you right? So it's not it's not it's not a work of the law that you're doing at that point

Which is the only type of work the bible actually condemns the bible never condemns a generic works righteousness

It's a works of the law righteousness as far as I can understand it. Um, no Generic is condemned

And there's two ways it's condemned romans 4 or 5 does not work But believes his faith is credited as righteousness and is in context talking about abraham before the law was given

Exactly, right So jesus quotes jesus love god love your neighbor and paul says we're justified without the works of the law without loving god without loving your neighbor

So real quick with the romans 4 verse Paul specifically brings that argument up to say it's not by works of the law

Because this happened before moses his whole argument was contingent on the fact that he was saying look If it's by works of the law that were made justified my jewish brothers

For example, how was abraham justified if he had faith before works of the law were even a thing? So even there that defined works

In the context of works of the law It doesn't define works in the generic sense that I see you going towards if that makes sense

But but I could also say that abraham, um didn't have that law because as he's saying

You know, he's saying to the jews you're justified by the law. You want to be Justified by what you do But abraham didn't have that law and he was exactly so he's negating that law

That law. Yes, exactly. He's not negating good works in a generic sense. He's negating good works in the law sense

Yeah, no, but but any sense because the works of the law is to love god and love your neighbor and the works of the law actually, um, i've got

I've got a I could take you a while to find it But some of those things in the in the issue of the law actually has to do with I don't know if the word

Humility is there be humble But it has there's a lot of issues of the works of the law that deal with just being nice to people being honest to people

Giving them the doubt and things like that and that involves certain aspects of humility, but notice what's happening here

Is that layton said? humbled themselves Yeah has to be humble.

So you have to be humble So on the day of judgment, why are you saved because I humbled myself

That's um, so I I think so So I would say That no one would answer that one.

Yeah I'm gonna put myself on mute. You keep talking. I need to use the restroom

And you keep talking. I'll hear everything All right, all right, I appreciate that i'll try to lay it out as good as I can.

Um, so so the idea would be that It's it's if god set it up in a way to where if you humble yourselves before his son, he will save you

So one verse that specifically comes to mind is romans 2 6 where it says he will render each according to his works to those who pursue

Glory honor and immortality. He will give eternal life um, and there's many passages throughout the new and old testament say those who humble themselves god will show grace to if god set it up in a way that those who

Choose to humble themselves before god and choose to say i'm not worthy Thank you for giving giving me this opportunity if that's the way he chooses to set it up and then we interact with that and we do humble ourselves before that and we do respond to the general and revealed revelation that we have on judgment day when he says

Why are you saved our answer is not? Oh because I humbled myself But rather because you set it up in a way where humble people are given grace and that's only according to your will

You didn't even have to do that, but you did That seems to me Like you're not boasting at all

Actually, you're just you're just acknowledging that god set it up in a way where it allows humble people to come in And you're not giving yourself credit.

You're just Acknowledging that because god set it up this way You were even given an opportunity in the first place is where it's kind of where i'm going so Okay, I heard you.

Well, i've heard a gargle I'm telling you Sorry, um from the day of judgment. I see what you're saying.

They're not going to say. Hey, look at me how humble I was But That is the condition of which they're saved their own humility, which means there's a condition within them

By which they're then justified so god would then be looking at people to be humble He'd be looking at a condition within them, but the bible says we are by nature children of wrath

Which would kind of conflict with the idea of any potential humility particularly when the bible says Because it cannot

Foresees spiritual evil wickedness and deceit. It doesn't seem humility has any room in any area like that.

And so without a doubt, I mean I'm, one of those rare people who's not a calvinist not reformed but very sympathetic with kind of the romans 3 description of humanity

Um, so i'm following your logic there. Definitely. Yeah, and I think your questions are good questions and I think they're worth discussing

And the reason i'm going to just jump ahead sideways The reason i'm a calvinist

Well for one reason is because the bible clearly teaches that um As layton blew it.

He blew it. I'm, sorry. He did we discussed it last week. Um, he had a statement that uh, you your sins are paid for when you uh

Trust when you receive that's not true They are canceled at the cross colossus 2 14 and he couldn't handle that last week wasn't able to do that This is one of the reasons

I affirm reform theology as years as I look back I go that is too solid for me

Because it requires election Because if you look at colossus 2 14, it says, uh, he canceled the certificate of debt

Consisting of decrees which is hostile to us. He took it out of the way having nailed it to the cross The certificate of debt or sin debt was canceled at the cross

Not when you believe not when you're humble not when you trust not when anything it's canceled at the cross and that's a fact

So if it's canceled cross it must mean that god has decreed Now that we get the issue of how he is doing this his foreknowledge of some would say look in the future

But he has decreed that only the sins of the elect are imputed to christ and jesus said i'll come only for them

You know All that the father gives me. I um will come to me and he lays his life down for the sheep

Not for the goats and you're not my You're not my sheep. You're a goat. He says in john 10 So this idea here,

I believe well this necessitates This necessitates god's election. Well, this election is there.

What's his election based on? foreseen humility, for example If that's the case that god foresees in a different ways of foreseeing, but he foresees a humble state of somebody

Then it would mean that his choice of electing and imputing to christ the sins of the elect

They would become elect because of the quality he saw in them But we teach as reformed people unconditional election

What he teaches is conditional election So we would say the unconditional election means i'm sorry, there's nothing good in you even your humility is not good enough

The standard of god is perfection Absolute perfection be holy for i'm holy not be mostly holy because i'm holy

Okay, he because god is humble, right? He is in the person of christ. He humbled himself philippians 2 5 through 8

Well, if that's the case, then the standard of humility itself Is perfection. So let me ask

Do you think that anybody? Who humbles himself before god is doing it perfectly to the level that's required

No, um, yeah, I mean so I think at least in my position and I realize this won't be super satisfactory

But in my position, I don't think he demands a perfective holiness before he's willing to Just to finish

Before he's willing to offer forgiveness I'm, not saying he doesn't expect it or demand it in in an ultimate sense because ultimately that comes from jesus

So i'm not i'm not negating that i'm saying Those whom he said he will forgive are those who have humbled themselves and had faith in the messiah

Not those who have perfectly humbled themselves, but who have humbled themselves Uh before jesus,

I don't think it's a a requirement to be perfectly humble in order to be forgiven in that sense

I guess so I don't really have that issue. I guess is where i'm going I would disagree with you and the reason I would disagree.

Yeah, that's fair is because thank you is because God does require absolute perfection absolute perfection the reason we know that is because Only god in flesh could do what was necessary Only god is absolutely perfect.

Absolutely humble. Absolutely loving absolutely just etc And was able to do everything the fact that it was jesus god and flesh two natures divine human

Because of that we know that the standard is absolute perfection because if it wasn't absolute perfection then

Righteousness could be based upon something we do or something that's in us and galatians 2 16 through 21 deals with that kind of a thing and refutes it

Because if righteousness comes by what we do according to the law and the law itself Just to love god and love your neighbor that requires humility

To love god and love your neighbor you love your neighbor as yourself. You have to be humble before people I'm, sorry, that's part of the requirement

And so we can't have that it the perfection. This is i'm going to say something i'm going to preach at you specifically

I want you to believe in the perfection of christ not in the mostly ability of man

The humility of man even at its best is not good enough. Yeah now That couch right behind me if you can see it

About four or five years ago. I was on my knees praying there and I was barfing up one of my most humble times ever

This really happened And I was barfing it up, you know god i'm this i'm full of lust i'm full of pride

I'm full of selfishness i'm this i've had very good and if I say this to you god Can I get what I want because i'm being humble about it?

I mean I was just it was nothing I was it was everything I couldn't even think of anything more to say and then no lie.

I said And lord, thank you for not making me like the mormons and jehovah's witnesses Yeah And the only reason

I recognized my pride in my humility Was because of the word of god and I literally still remember going keep praying going

Wait a minute heard those words before that sounds familiar. Yeah, I didn't even recognize it So i'm not saying my standard of what real humility was, you know proves that nobody could be perfectly humble but it's a good illustration of Really pride and humility.

Yeah. No, I I get you and I just want to clarify one thing real quick because i'm not saying Perfection isn't required in the sense that we don't need christ's perfect sacrifice

I'm saying we don't need the the humility we're commanded to have doesn't need to be perfect before god's willing to apply that sacrifice to us as just a

A distinction that that kind of I think accounts for what you're saying. I would say maybe that's not even true either because maybe and this is for discussion

Saying this I want to say perfection is required. Absolutely Let me think this out loud and that the perfection that is provided is only through the work of christ

And god grants that we believe he gives us the faith that if he gives us that faith If it comes from him, it's a perfect gift so then

I can make the case It's perfect faith. I'm kind of stretching a little bit. But um You see you see what i'm saying there i'm beginning to wonder if that might not be part of the thing there

I don't know. I'm, just thinking out loud. I mean, no i'm tracking with your with your logic most of my studies and and kind of experience with reformed theology had more to do around Total depravity and unconditional election more than anything else

So when you're bringing up the points about limited atonement and applying at the cross i'm a little outside of my um, okay you know comfort zone there in regards to what

I would be willing to say and not say just because I haven't studied anything worth saying at this point, but I I just have always um,

Always been very intrigued and appreciative of calvinist reforms A desire to just open the bible and deal with hard passages, which is why

I was attracted to it in the first place Um, and that's why I like seeing debates between you and like layton not that I even agree with everything

Layton says but I like the open and honest discussion because that's what kind of helped me deal with a lot of the issues So, I mean,

I i'm very appreciative of this. I just I come from more of a of a stance that I My my view of what works means when

I see paul use it as in the context of works of the law in that kind of jewish context causes me to Uh take very key scriptures calvinists used very differently

And so whereas I don't have a complete cohesive framework I'm, okay with that because I at least have enough in place that I feel like is stable

That doesn't lead me to believe in like a total depravity and unconditional election type of framework. It's kind of where i'm at Okay, I can see that we could

I can comment about that but okay Yeah, I put a verse in the text. I put a verse for you to take a look at first samuel 3 14

Therefore i've god speaking i've sworn to the house of eli that the iniquity of eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's limited atonement right there Yeah, I don't

I don't have a problem with saying the atonement was limited to The people who um

Yeah, honestly, I almost don't want to say anything because I feel like i've missed up in three different directions and it wouldn't make sense, but I I get what you're saying and i'll look into that some more

I just i've always come from the idea that If if I come to the conclusion that I don't think total depravity and unconditional election is is biblically supported

Then kind of a lot of the other framework falls So I never really took time to look into limited atonement just because I assumed it wouldn't stand as well

But maybe I made a mistake. I need to relook into it well, yeah, take a look at it, but um Also consider that the reason we have the verses in scripture

In light of total depravity verses if the total depravity verses are correct If our interpretation of them is

I won't quote the references just quote the verses. Uh, yeah full of evil Uh slave to sin hater of god can do no good, you know all those kind of negatives if it's the case

Then if it's up to man's free will all he needs is to humble himself Then you're going to find verses say just humble yourself and you'll get saved

You won't find things like has to be granted for you to believe granted there come repentance and you're born again

This is a killer not of your own will john 1 13 And you know, it's like this doesn't make sense to me.

This is why I hold to this I'm, not knocking late or anybody else. It's just me I don't understand how anybody could not affirm the restricted on the human sinful nature

Uh when we see the total depravity verses and they're confirmed By the other side of those verses that would only seem to exist if those total depravity verses are what they are

Yeah, yeah. No, I I agree and there's certain passages where i'm not gonna lie I don't I don't have answers for it

It reminds me of when you were saying jesus can't do anything unless it's by the will of the father and then you quoted the

Verse where he says not my will but your will so there's kind of there's passages that I think I don't have answers for that calvinists bring up But I also think there's there's passages that calvinists don't have adequate answers for so it leaves me in a kind of an awkward position

Of trying to deal with it, but I try not to hurry it because I want to have a good answer. So to me whenever You have passages when it says not by the will of man

I don't think god is obligated to offer one person salvation So the fact that he's offered even one person or anyone the option to be saved by faith

That wasn't by my will I never made that happen. I don't deserve that opportunity to even be still so it wasn't by my will

I'm being given the opportunity to have faith. That's by god's decree and his will because he's gracious that that doesn't um

Contradicts the verse when it says it's not by human's will because it ultimately isn't it's kind of where I land

Okay, here's something i'll give you something else to think about. Okay, please uh, and i'm trying to put it together for what you said i'm gonna be able to do it, right but There's a doctrine of god called aseity

Is aseity for those who don't know aseity is his eternal self -sufficiency and independence All right

So if we have what god has what's called communicable and non -communicable attributes Communicable attributes he loves we can love he hates we can hate the incommunicable

Are he's everywhere. We're not that we can't okay participate in that. He's all wise.

We don't have that He's all knowledgeable. You don't have that So there's attributes that he has that we can participate in or be communicated to us

And they're the ones that belong to him alone The ones that belong to him alone Okay, those incommunicable attributes the attributes that belong to him alone

Now, let me take a side step Would be for example omniscience omnipotence, etc

Okay, roman catholicism and I don't want to discuss catholicism. This is an illustration i'll come back Roman catholicism.

They say mary can hear all prayers of all people in uh Thought spoken multiple languages all over the world simultaneously

Yeah, that is attributing the incommunicable attribute of god to a thing. That's idolatry with you with me, right?

Okay All right now Free will here's a question that we had to discuss with the issue of free will this is the kind of discussion

I want to have with layton, but he's not into these kind of things Okay, if we're going to say that free will is autonomous

That's why I was asking him about this earlier if will is autonomous in that it's independent of god But he wasn't defining it that way.

Okay, good Yeah, what do we do when someone says that the free will choice of a person is completely?

Autonomous in the sense that it's only by his will Not by god's decree not by god's sovereignty not by god's wisdom

Not by god's presence, but it's all only and completely self -generated

And self -sustained in that human being. Yeah That is attributing to the creature that which belongs to god alone

That's one of the reasons I will reject the idea of uh

It's a hard libertarianism that gets to this level. Yeah, which is fair. Yeah, that's what they're doing

They're saying oh and i'm gonna exaggerate it Uh, but they don't say it this way, but i'm exaggerating to make the point is what they'll say is no

My free will choices originated with me. It's independent of anybody else. I'm the one who did it.

It belongs to me It's self -sustained in myself Then how is it not idolatry elevating the human will?

So it's a problem I that's actually a good I like the analogy I like the comparison and the point because it kind of comes like a left hook in a way that people wouldn't really expect

To think of it. So I I actually enjoy that. Um, I I guess where I would land is I don't think that one defining free will in general is just kind of an

I don't personally Enjoy the game because I feel like it gets into too much semantics and I try to stay away from that if I can but the the kind of realm

I fall into is that God could decree if he wanted to every little detail and I wouldn't have a problem with it

God can override quote -unquote free will and I don't think that that's a problem I mean, there's so many instances in the scripture where god sends lying spirits

So people will believe or he he says, um, you know in second thessalonians that because people didn't receive a lot of the truth

He sends delusion. So i'm well aware that god can kind of use methods to override and Uh impact or change free will to an extent so that never made me very uncomfortable but the part of confusion for me lied in the fact that What's to stop god from setting it up in a way where he remains sovereign but still allows man um the ability to choose

Certain things about if they want to have faith in him or not And he he was able to do that in a way that retains his attributes retains his sovereignty

Isn't saying everything derives from humans because they didn't choose to set it up that way he did But it still allows them to have an element of that that free will quote -unquote

I'm, not sure if that made sense or not. Yeah, but I would see oh, can you hear me? Okay, I just my my headset went out.

No, I hear you. Great actually, okay so, um I should use this

Anyway Um The the issue that I look at ultimately and this is what

I want to get to all the ultimate issue I think that people who hold a libertarian free will trying to impose upon god a certain value based upon what freedom requires

And I don't think yeah, and that's probably fair. That's probably fair because um Romans nine comes up.

Who are you who are you to talk back to god in order for people to deal with romans nine? They have to do all kinds of crap to it

Make it really go against what it actually says because they want their freedom And I see

I I would agree. I would definitely agree that a lot of the mainstream arguments that are not calvinism seem, very

Uh, uh combobulated and incoherent most of the time and trying to twist it in a direction that just is uncomfortable

I've always that's one of the reasons I was Calvinist for as long as I was is because no one had a really adequate framework for romans nine so I would agree that there's almost this sense of trying to Go into the bible with preconceived definitions and trying to force that in there with a lot of the libertarian type of view

So I I think the criticism is is valid in a lot of ways I just think that I could use the same argument in the sense that God chose to set it up in a way where he's completely sovereign

But he lets man have free will and when you question that who are you oman to question that I could do that exact same

Type of reasoning and I just find it unhelpful in a large way But if he gave someone free will then we wouldn't have

The necessity of him of him having to grant that we believe And granting us repentance and causing again things like that actually so that actually is what he

Sovereignly chose to do is grant people to have the ability to have faith or not To grant them to choose if they're gonna have faith or not, then he's sovereign

Who's to be saved and who's not to be saved? Sorry, what was that? Then he's sovereignly electing and choosing who's to be saved and not be saved not based upon what they would humble themselves about So there that would certainly refute that whole argument

Um, so so the uh, the way he he's ordained it is with the proclamation of the gospel

He's giving that option at that point to many people, uh, and then they have the option

Uh to choose to humble themselves or not at that point Um, so yeah in a sense god does pick and choose because not everyone hears the gospel

I mean there is a sense in which that is accurate Yeah, and that's another thing is to bring up is uh, which

I've thought about but we didn't get to is uh, The issue of if you know, why doesn't not everybody hear the gospel? They don't yeah

Ordain that people not hear the gospel. Sorry Buddy, yeah And then there's a very true and things like this

You know, you said something about you know, you're a calvinist or this and that what i'll say And we can have others so they want to ask questions for a little bit, please.

I feel bad What i'll say is the reason i'm a calvinist is because it answers most of the questions, yeah, which is fair That's why

I was there as well I agree. That's a good point No, I like that. I like that i'll finish now

But I like that you said that because that's that's exactly kind of where I was as well as it Doesn't answer all the questions But I I kind of bought into it for a time because it answered more questions than anyone else was able to answer for me

Uh, so I like that. I'll stop talking. I hogged up a lot of time I'm, sure other people have some stuff they want to talk about. Okay.

Well, no problem. It's nice talking to you apostate. Go ahead Thank you so much All right, anybody else want to ask a question

Yeah, i'm uh, I I wanted to bring up um It seems like in a lot of these engagements with the with layton's camp that they refuse to Acknowledge, um how we view compatibilism

It it seems like They force upon us a hard determinist a view of god's decree that were that were robots and they refused to accept the fact that we

We see compatible that we're compatibilist in that That's what the scripture says that god has decreed all things and he is in control of all things.

He does as he as he pleases But yet we still make choices And we're still responsible for those choices like that that's our position but they say no no, no if he's decreed all things you have to he you know, he has to You know determine every single thing that you do thereby negating your responsibility in the matter and and That's where it seems like there's a lot of conflict

They don't there's a problem with that kind of reasoning because something's determined doesn't mean you're not responsible And and here's an illustration

Uh, there's three cupboards in my kitchen and There's glasses to drink out of In those cupboards, but I don't want you to use

Certain ones so I nail them shut the two out of three cupboards. I nail shut So then

I you know, you say go get a glass of water. You can only open one i've Determined that you only open one out of those three, but I haven't violated your free will

Oh So we can god can Determine certain things to occur But doesn't mean he's violated the free will and this is one of the things that I find the critics of reform theology in this area fail to consider

Because god can certainly bring about circumstances to bring about whatever he desires because he says he does

It works all things after the counsel of his will So if I just says I can nail two out of three doors shut

Which means you can only go through one of them I have violated your free will by by causing you

To go through one door or to use one door I could yeah, I mean it

It's literally all over the old testament I don't you don't even have to go to the new testament for that where we're god is is constantly doing that and it's uh, yeah, it just it just seems

I don't understand why they Don't Force that position on us and then call our view of god evil because of that because they don't understand

They don't think it's through Because if god decrees everything like the death of my son

Okay, does he decree? Yes, he did But does it mean he sat in there and caused it maybe he did and if he did he has the right to do it and if he

Didn't he allowed to happen by his sovereign will because that's the nature of sin in the world its effect

Well, then that's what it is, too. But both of them are by the will of god So, you know

I can trust him but in arminianism in the free will thing. Well, why does it happen?

Well, because god knows it's going to happen Okay. Well in the reformed faith too.

That's that's also the case But why does he know it's going to happen? Is it because god sits back and the dice are rolling down the hill and he knows every bounce because that's the way things are

No, but because he's decreed that all things will occur because nothing can occur without his permission Think about this.

There's an infinite number of possible things that god could have potentially created in the universe But he only chose to do one set of line one set of actualities out of an infinite set of potentialities this means every single detail in our universe in this entire history is

Desired and designed by god to be what it is Every atom's location because god knows all things.

He knows every atom location right now in every place of the universe Could he have made that my snap of the finger happened?

Now instead of 10 seconds ago. Yes, but he chose not to Because he can decree whatever he desires.

This is the nature of god What I like about reformed theology is it elevates god to that kind of level

Where there were the non -reformed people in my opinion don't do that They don't like they don't seem to deal with this issue of the sovereignty of god the majesty of god the holiness of incredibleness of god's existence

He decreased every atom's location And there's could have been a kabillion

Different views or possibilities in the universe that he potentially could have created But he chose only one that means every single detail in this universe.

He chose to be there for a reason How does anybody get out of that they can't without violating scripture

This to me is beautiful and it's true Well, and the fact that he actively holds everything together currently.

It's not just like a deist view where he just creates his steps back, but but uh, it's it seems like You're if that's the view you want to hold you're left with They basically they atheists are arguments regarding um, yeah, you know, uh

Theodicy, right? Um, you're left. We don't have a problem of evil Right.

Well, you're left. We don't have a problem of evil. They have excuse me. They have a problem of evil I mean to reverse it, but that's another topic.

Go ahead Yeah Well, I was just gonna say you're you're left with a god that either sees these things this evil go go on And it's incapable of doing anything about it or a god that is indifferent towards it right, but they will come back and say no, no, no, he he he doesn't act on those things because he

Has to have free will You know because everybody has to have free will or they import Um that this whole thing where well god's got to have people that love him back

For it to be authentic they have to choose to do that and it's like But god doesn't need any anything.

He doesn't need our our love. He doesn't need us to love him No, he doesn't so I I don't know.

Anyways, I I just I don't like the dishonest reference and representation where you know they they force the hard deterministic view and and then right it just dismissed the causation views when

I mean literally we're just coming to these conclusions from scripture Yeah, there's mystery to compatibilism, but there's mystery to the trinity and that's not a problem

And the fact that jesus could do nothing of his own initiative and that means that everything that he was doing Was decreed by god and determined by god the father

That's compatibilism. Absolutely. That's compatibilism Yeah, they couldn't they couldn't handle that one and I haven't heard anybody who affirms libertarianism be able to handle that Okay in 15 minutes i'm quitting for sure because it'll be 11 o 'clock my time so Any comments or questions anybody else want to say anything?

Somebody else jump in If not, hey, uh matt meet john John, thanks.

Yep. Yeah, man So I was going to point out that um Layton is always the kind of guy who never wants to um

Uh Basically uh state his side of what he believes he always

I don't know if you notice but he always seems to just claim what calvinist believes and so that's one thing i've always uh

Picked up on is that he'll never never make any claims for his his faith

Or you know or his position But it's always well calvinist believe this or calvinist believe that And it's like he never wants to to to define his position

What do we call that? We call that the dilahanti dodge. Yeah Yeah, exactly

Matt It's not exactly that that has evolved into that's what it means the dilahanti dodge In that the dilahanti matt dilahanti would not really say what he believed

So that because the idea is if someone else believes that you can cross examine it you can pick it apart This is what one of the reasons

I was trying to say. Well, what do you believe about free will? What is this about free will how do you account for this trying to get down to what he believes?

But he's he doesn't want to do that Yeah, yeah go back to the video that he always does.

I mean or what he says You'll you'll notice that right off the bat I mean, he'll always say he'll always make the claim of what calvinists believe as if he you know, what's the word terry in in in the calvin

I need to talk to him about but I think what he's doing against calvinism. I think it's a mistake

Not because i'm a calvinist, but I think what he's doing is causing division in the body of christ

I would agree His whole ministry evolves around debunking, uh calvinism

And why it should be not about something that is rich and is is

Profound history that a lot of brilliant people have held to and are godly people and he's trying to refute it

Why isn't he trying to refute mormonism or catholicism or things that lead people to hell?

This is And I I it's just a it's a bother to me you have never seen me

Do a video or an article arminianism is bad. This is why I don't do that kind of stuff.

I'm not going to bring division in the body of christ Because I got more important things to do than to focus on ministry and focus my life

On refuting a particular theological aspect and that's what I do now. I will confess

I just released 180 articles against annihilationism that took me days to build a thing but I'm done with that and i'm moving on.

It's not my life's work to do that It was a refutation of something that leads to heresy and some other things now

He may say well, he's a heresy as well But come on, there are lots of people who can answer him far better than I can who have answered him better Who've refuted him and things and he still continues in these things

Now, I want to see what he's going to do with the uh, compatibilist issue of jesus I think it's a very powerful argument on the issue of free will and why does one believe another one does not

You know, that's something I think would be worth focusing on But why is it he's got to do so much against calvinism cause division cause division cause division

I think it's a problem. I do. I think it's a problem. I I think I I believe honestly

It's because I think he believes that he is trying to give hope or another option for those people who might be depressed or discouraged or somehow just um

Brought down by the calvinistic view because they don't understand it properly Because of misrepresentation

If anything you could say look this is the proper view of what it is And like the guy who I just had a discussion with he is he's not a calvinist

Okay I wasn't trying to convert him. You know, I did try and get here's this one thing.

It's tough That's why I believe in this But I wasn't trying to you know convert i'm not going to write an article and and say his position is wrong

Let's go against it. I mean I go to calvary chapel And i've said to people

I will not speak against what the pastor calvary chapel is doing I am not there to work against against what god is doing with that person

I'm, not going to try and convert anybody to calvinism So god, for example is working through me and he's ordained that I be a calvinist

Because this is what I honestly believe is true If he's trying to convert me against calvinism, is he trying to convert me against what god has ordained?

Yeah, it's a play on words there because you know Well, then I could reverse the same same thing with back with him

But my response to him is a defense of the attack on calvinism. I know he attacks it

And so that's why I uh, let's have a discussion on it I want it represented a little bit more accurately and hopefully that happens tonight

Yeah, and seeing that's one of the things I I I'm pretty sure i've heard him say Who the why he originally abandoned calvinism?

had to do with a woman, uh in a grieved emotional state asking about the state of a of her baby who

Who lost its life? And and that started his journey this way, but even on his podcast.

He's emotional Yeah, he's he's released testimonies for people who quote unquote came out of calvinism like they're leaving mormonism or something

Well, you know what to be fair a lot of calvinists are wackos

You know and they got this hardness to them and there's no love and it's all about doctrine and and if you know

Like, you know, I had to defend layton. Well, if you don't believe in calvinism, you're not a true christian what That's there and people suffer because of this stuff.

I mean I stand against that as well And I speak against calvinists who behave in such foolish ways

Yeah, it seems like the ones that will uh, you know in the same way that they'll say. No, you're a hard determinist some of the same

Well, well They'll say that about us Some calvinists will say well, you're an open theist

Even if they're not but just because you know We see that the logical conclusion if you're going to be consistent is that and so but that doesn't mean that they are you know, so in the same way they're kind of Jerks on both sides

Right, so there's problems Why cause why devote your energy to dividing the body?

Even if you think it's right, I believe Arminianism is increase it weakens the doctrinal sovereignty of god.

I believe it causes problems You don't see me doing videos and articles against it because They're still saved

I want people who are not Saved to become christians I'm going to preach that word and I want to equip christians in the truth so that they can do the work of the ministry man

Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Oh, well, I was gonna say I have uh, seen some products of the flowerites, you know, um,

People who are followers of layton and the product of that does breed division

I've had some really close friends of mine who Was a follower of layton

Followed his stuff. I started listening to layton too just to see what his arguments were And you know, he seems like a really swell guy, you know at first he's real chummy all my family's cow

I've got family members that are calvinists. I got friends and This is in -house debate and then it's all nice and fun and then all of a sudden he pulled it out

You know, uh, but it can happen in reverse with the calvinist too true true, you know, so it works both ways because you know some calvinists can just geez just Asinine well,

I was referring to the cause of division like I was springboarding off of what you were saying. I've i've seen some people, uh have those twisted views and Misrepresenting calvinism, uh, and it's just really sad.

It's I believe when you said he's You you think it's a problem that you see he's creating division

Uh, I unmuted it because I was like wow i've i've been noticing the same thing recently as well

Yeah, well layton's a great guy and um, but um, I think if he's gonna really want to do what's right before god

I think my opinion is that Devote the energy to expanding the kingdom of god not dividing it and um

Yeah, calvinism is growing And it is growing Because people see the scriptures i'm not saying if you're if you're smart and you see the script you'll be a calvinist, but it's growing uh

Why cause division? Why why do that? It's it's just a personal thing with me.

Um, I don't understand that Because I want the body of christ to be edified and like I said,

I go to calvary chapel and they are not calvinist That's okay They love the lord and I leave it alone because if I just start writing articles against calvary chapel for whatever reasons

Well by the nature of it, I would be causing division even if I said well, they're preaching heresies

But they're still saved. Yes You know, I teach god's sovereignty today. Well, not really well, it's important.

Let's cause division over death. I just Yeah You know One thing one thing that just drives me crazy though about layton and hopefully he'll be watching this later or whatever is is the fact that He may, you know make the claim that yes,

I I love calvinist I have no problem with calvinism as far as you know, people being a calvinistic view, but When it comes to his his followers

They are ruthless and they will just hammer you and make you feel like you're only, you know, two inches tall

And they they you know, they'll just make you feel like just like garbage And but here's the thing

I don't think Never will ever correct them layton will never correct them.

He'll never say Yeah I've never seen him say, you know, hey knock it off.

You know, these are our brothers and sisters in christ He never has never ever ever been correct.

He never corrected Followers, you know, I got people who are they call them slickites people who follow what I say and And it really concerns me a great deal if anyone is behaved like me

Because like don't do that. Don't do that They'll behave like jesus, you know and if anybody says i've had a couple people over the years say

Matt because you were so strong in this area. I just rip into that guy like oh no That's not what

I want, you know and uh So I don't see layton as being that kind of a guy who would approve of any kind of negativity like that He's a great guy.

He really is And uh, I just don't see that in him. I think it's the fault of the followers who sometimes misrepresent

What the person they like? is and then take certain aspects I've called out on him on that a couple times and he ended up just blocking me because Every time

I say layton, you know, how come you're allowing this to happen in your group, you know, social reality 101 and you know, he just He doesn't see a problem with it.

I guess I don't know. Well, that's what you get to ask him um, I don't know what's going on what what you perceive what he perceives might be different, but you know in my

Life for groups that I run I tell I I tell people don't accuse people of of motives that are bad motives uh

Attack the doctrine not the individual. Um, and I don't care who they are uh

Would I agree with them or disagree with them if they say, you know, you're just an idiot stupid jerk. I'm gonna don't do that and uh

Just don't do that, you know So it needs to be the issue not the person Yeah, anybody else?

regardless of regardless of his intentions What is happening in the end and and in his great focus on this issue?

Is is that it's coming across as the this is the greatest current threat to the church

The current the greatest what? The greatest current threat to the church to our church.

What is in this? well That that is the fruit coming from who's saying?

Like I Know that that is that that's the message that's coming across If that's the case that needs to be soundly rebuked because that is by all this he wouldn't say that okay, but but but having

The platform he does and and that being the main topic um, like you're saying why not mormonism why not, uh, the

Charismatic mania the nar that kind of stuff infiltrate in our churches now. Yeah Why are we

Addressing just even Christology people not even knowing you know the basics and so but it's being treated like it's a it's a cult that's infiltrated the

The church now it's insane Yeah. Um Yeah yeah, well

I could comment but It's 11 o 'clock and but not just for uh

Yeah a long time four hours so I'm just gonna shut the room down.

Okay, and uh Tomorrow night i'll be doing. Uh this again with uh apologetics live

And uh, you guys want to talk about it tomorrow more tomorrow if you guys want or whatever, okay You guys made my job easy

Yeah, well laden's a good guy he is I know I posted that too I like him even though we don't agree but that's okay

Yeah, yeah, and it's okay for both of us. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. All right guys i'm gonna shut it down.