Open Q&A

Can you show me because we're going to use some hermeneutics. Can you show me anywhere in the Old Testament where that word perpetual is not perpetual? Because, again, I understand you're appealing again.

Sure. No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. Where any of God's laws. Hold on. Hold on. Wait a minute. I thought I was going to get to have a talk. You asked a question. Hang on a second, sir. Be quiet. OK, well, there you go.

I will mute you because it's not your show. You asked a question. I'm going to give you the answer. Genesis six for the word Olam is used referring to those who are of old Deuteronomy. I'll just rattle off all the ones where it's used, not referring to perpetual Genesis six for Deuteronomy, 32, seven, Joshua, 24 to first Samuel, 27, eight Job, 22, 15 Psalm 24, 24, 724, 925, 641, 13 77, 990, verse two, 103, verse 17, 106, verse 48, 119, 52, 143, 30, verse three, Proverbs 8, 23, Proverbs 22, 28, Proverbs 23, 10 and Ecclesiastes 110.

Should I go on for more? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. One, two, three.

Opening the Show and Revisiting a Heated Exchange

Welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the Bible. Meet your hosts from Striving for Eternity Ministries. Andrew Rappaport, Dr. Anthony Silvestro and Pastor Justin Pierce.

We are live Apologetics Live here to answer your challenging questions, whatever you have about God and the Bible, we can answer it. This is a ministry of striving for eternity. So I see Chris Huff saying the opening.

Wow, Chris, that opening was a classic. That was when we had the author of Torahism, R .L. Sussberg, on and he we had, well, I forget what his name was, something Batman, the Sunday School Batman or something like that.

And he was it was just great. We are going to do some hermeneutics here. And then he kind of ignores the hermeneutics. So, yeah, give me just one verse. OK, I think I gave him a litany of verses. Oh, so, Captain, Captain Black Eagle says, I got a question.

Just let me know when. Well, when is when you come in? Just go to ApologeticsLive .com and join there. That is the best place to go. We're going to deal with this is open Q &A. I have no other co-hosts with me.

Everybody is out of town or busy or whatnot. And so I am solo, which means I want you guys to join me. I want you guys to come on in and join me in the discussion. So go to ApologeticsLive .com. From there, you scroll down, you'll be able to see the watch it from there, which we encourage you to do.

But you can scroll underneath that and actually click the little duck icon. And then you'd be able to actually join us. And if you can join in the discussion, we will be happy to take your questions. I may not get all the questions that are in the chat because I don't have anyone else as a co-host.

Typically, give you guys a little behind the scenes what we do. The reason we have a couple of us co-hosts is because while one person is talking, the others are looking through the chat and we mark off different things to to have in discussion.

Let me bring in my brother, Chris Huff, who's here. Thank you, sir, for joining. You're welcome, buddy.

I didn't want you to be all by yourself. Yeah. You like that opening, huh? Oh, man, that that was hilarious.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, that was it was a classic. I just I couldn't believe I was like, oh, I got to I got to keep this.

I'm glad you did, man. I'm glad you did.

Oh, but what we're going to do tonight, and I see that Ron just joined. So we're going to I'm going to bring him in, ask his question. But what I plan to do in light of questions is I hope others do come in and have questions.

But some of you may remember the name R .A. Fuentes. Well, he's back at it. He's done another debate on Calvinism. Wait, wait for it. Wait for it. Last time he debated me, it went miserably for him. But he debated me on the topic that Calvinism was dangerous, useless and dangerous.

Well, that just wasn't enough. He debated a brother, John Myers. And the topic was, is Calvinism demonic and heretical? Oh, this is a good one, folks. We're going to play through clips of it now. Granted, I didn't know that John actually took a copy of it and put it up on YouTube.

And so you could watch that. Actually, let me grab that link and I'll put it in the chat so everyone can watch John's video. But I did not have John's video at the time, and so I couldn't grab clips. So all I had was to basically look at the YouTube, the Facebook.

So I have I have times listed. And so I couldn't switch over to his because I got to keep it with the times that were recorded because there was like 15 minutes of, gee, we don't know how to use StreamYard.

We don't we have a moderator that doesn't even can't even connect. I mean, it was he tries to present himself as like this professional, and it was really bad in many ways that we'll get into. So so we're going to look at that.

But let me first bring Ron in. Captain Black Eagle. Welcome, sir. What questions do you have for us tonight? Do I sound OK? Loud and clear, brother. Better than me, so don't worry.

Sounds great. OK, back before Roe versus Wade debate, there was a guy that was coming into a Christian group and he kept wanting to debate Christianity, even though he said he was a Christian, which is, you know, always questionable to me when somebody says that a lot of people say that.

Here's what he gave as his problem with the abortion. OK. OK. Uh, if you commit one sin, you are guilty of all sins. Christ's death took us from being under the law. Therefore, if all sin is the same, then once said, we are free of the penalty of sin.

I don't really believe that's true.

Well, he you may not pick up. There was a logical fallacy in there. Yep. Well, a couple maybe. But he said, at least the way you read it, right, that if you're if all sins are the same. Well, where did he get that?

That's what I asked him straight off. I said, have you read numbers in Deuteronomy to find out that each sin has a different, completely different?

Well, I you know where you go, go to Hebrews, because Hebrews six and Hebrews 10 are passages that we look at that. Who is it that has the greatest judgment? The greatest sin is those who actually know the gospel and reject it.

The more knowledge you have of the gospel and the rejection of it, that has a greater consequence to it.

So it's funny you say that, Andrew, because I'm sitting here actually studying for studying for a couple of things that are going to be coming out next week on matter of theology, and I'm studying second Peter and Peter talks about.

Once you've been granted the precious and magnificent promises of Christ, been granted Christ himself as a gift, that that gift, that knowledge has been bestowed upon you. If you fall, if you escape, as seemingly having escaped the defilement, the corruption of the world, but then fall back into it, that the punishment upon you is is worse.

And in fact, Peter said in verse 21 of chapter two, for it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than having known it to turn away from the holy commandment handed on them.

I agree. And I mean, that's why Hebrews six, Hebrews 10, I mean, Hebrews six says it is impossible for a person who wants tasted of the truth and walks away to know it. That's right. So I like, I got to put this, you know, your podcast you do is matter of theology.

Here's your co-host weighing in and goes, wait, what are we talking about on matter of theology? He knows, I already told him. Well, Drew, you just found out you better be studying. He better, he better jump on Hebrews six passage and be ready for it.

But I mean, so, so right off the bat, there, there is some logical fallacies there because one is not that he never supported the claim that all sins are the same, uh, yes, any sin, no matter what sin it is, it gives us the eternal damnation.

But it sounded, and I mean, maybe you'd have to reread it, but it sounded to me like he was saying, though, if Christ died for any sin, he dies for every sin, which would be universalism.

And again, that's how did he put that? Read that last part again. If you have commit any sin, you, you know, all sins are the same. It's not, uh, you know, he wasn't talking salvation because quite frankly, he didn't want to talk to that right after that.

Let me go back and read it again.

Yeah. Cause you, you'd mentioned that part. And then afterwards, it sounded like he, that what he said was if Christ died for any sin, he died for all of them.

Christ's death took us from being under the law. Therefore, if all sin is the same, then once saved, we are free of the penalty of sin, which I do not believe is true at all. I think God, especially before you die, can still bring, as he did to David, can still bring a curse upon you.

Well, he brings, I mean, the scripture is clear. He, he chastises those he loves.

Correct. And there are consequences to our actions. There are consequences to our sin. And so while eternally, eternally, uh, if we are in Christ and we truly possess faith in Christ, then the eternal judgment, the, the, the wrath that we would experience the wrath of God in hell eternally, yes, that has been paid for, but there are still consequences and we still will be held accountable for every thought, word, and deed, uh, done living this life on this planet, especially after we know the truth.

Yeah. He was trying to argue that, you know, if you steal a pencil, that's a sin, but if you murder somebody, that's sin too. They're both the same.

I'm like, no, they're not both. Well, they're, they're both a sin and they both have an eternal consequence. They're both, they're not both the same. However, just, you know, like there is this notion that it sounds like he's implying that if you're, if Christ died, then the law is done with.

And since we're post Christ, there's no law for us.

That's that's the borderline antinomianism right there. Yeah. Yeah.

And on antinomianism for folks that don't know is the idea, no law. So it's an anti-law that there's, in other words, that's the belief that we can live any way we want in Christ because there's no law anymore.

And the law is still written on our hearts. I mean, the, the, we still have, and you can look and look in the new Testament, nine of the 10 commandments are reiterated in the new Testament. Right. Okay.

So if it was done away with that, that makes no sense that he would, that we have scripture reiterating the same commandments that we look at, I mean, it's, so there's a, and, but this is good for folks to pick up though, Rob, because here's the thing that you end up seeing.

This is a way of arguing that you see from people where they, they make a statement and then it's, it seems like it's being proven out by the things that were said before, but then it's just a claim and the claim is so the two claims, one, that all sins are the same to that.

There's no law anymore. Those are two claims he never actually supported in, in what you read.

Right. Well, not to mention, he's not addressing the issue, the, the issue when it comes to the, the, the matter of abortion is it's it's elective abortion is murder. Period. Period. He's he's it's kind of a deflection measure.

I don't know this guy. I don't know the, all the context of what he's saying, but it, it sounds a lot like deflection, a little bit of manipulation.

Oh, there's a lot of manipulation within, and that's why I didn't even like that group in general, because even the, uh, moderators from that group are progressive Christians and they are very irritating.

No such thing. I know there's no progress in it and there's no Christian in it.

Yeah. It, well, it's, it's, it's progressive. No Christian.

Yeah. They were trying to say if they were, uh, non-denominational assemblies around the world. It's not non-denomination. It's their denomination. Yeah.

Yeah. It's, it's a demonic in a nicer tone because it's, that's where it leads to. Right. I mean, that's the progressive Christianity. That's where it's leading. It's, it's to take someone from a solid biblical teaching and lead them into the world.

That's all that's the progression. Why would we want to progress from truth and eternal life into sin and death?

Yeah. The only progression in a Christian's life should be the mortification of their sin and growing in holiness, according to the scriptures. John Owens wrote a book on that. He has Thomas Watson.

Yeah. Yeah. Some great reading. If you, if you really want to, you know, I will admit reading John Owens is not easy, but he's got a whole chapter on indwelling sin and mortification of sin. If you can't read those, if it's too much, then I'll at least recommend this.

Get a book, uh, it's called the enemy within by Chris Lungartner. And that is kind of the cliff. And he says, it's the cliff notes version of those two volumes by John Owens. And clearly, clearly there's some things in there that are his own and not from Owens because he talks about at one point, I still remember this, but he says, you know, we come to God and pray.

Why is it that five minutes in prayer and we're sound asleep, but we can stay up for an hour and a half and watch a Tom Cruise movie. So John Owens didn't write that because, well, that's before Paul washers talked about that.

He's, he's talked about how it's, you know, if you sit down to try to binge watch something on prime or Netflix, it's easy to do, but you sit down and try to spend that amount of time in prayer and Bible study, your body will rebel against that because the flesh is at war with, with, with the spirit.

Um, you know, it's interesting with that though, is when, when I was in college. And I was in the charismatic movement and we would sit there and literally stay up all night in prayer, but it wasn't really prayer literally for hours, binding Satan.

Speaking guys at an awful job because he, yeah, he kept getting out, right.

But, but it was interesting because I realized like we, we would, we could spend hours and hours and hours doing nothing spiritual. Speaking gibberish, talking to Satan. It's that, that's not even profitable.

And then you end up having, when you're, you come out of that nonsense into truth and it's like, Oh, Oh yeah. And now, now all of a sudden your flesh is rebelling against it. Right. Right. Flesh didn't rebel when it was nonsense.

Sitting and spending an hour in gibberish, the flesh is like, cool. Keep, keep it up. You're right, right. You'll fight there. Yep. Uh, so Ron, any other questions you have for us?

Uh, no, that was a good, I had not even thought about Hebrews. I should have, but I just went straight back to Numbers and Deuteronomy. I'm like, well, there is a consequence for everything you do, even if you are saved already, because you still are going to be weak and you're going to sin at some point, there's a consequence for it.

That's right.

God doesn't play games. Hey, we're going to throw John in here because, you know, we always see John do stuff in the background here, there, here he is. He's eating, you know, yeah, he's eating the chicken that it's, it's summertime.

We're, we should start seeing the chickens again. But, uh, but, uh, the thing, the reason I went to Hebrews though, Ron, and this might be to draw you in and the first Peter is a good one as well is because what you do is you turn to a person like that and say, you know, the gospel, I've shared it with you.

You're, you no longer have excuse. So you are under a greater judgment than the murderer in God's eyes, right? You knew the truth and rejected it. Yep. Yep. You know, so it gets, it at least redirects the conversation back to the gospel.

It's the difference between second degree murder and first degree murder. Yeah. Yeah. You can think of it that way.

All right. I'll get you backstage. And if you have more questions, just pop it in the private chat and we'll, uh, we'll, um, bring you back in. I'm almost tempted to pop John back in while he's popping food in his mouth.

But John has just all, you know, we're going to wait to see for folks who are not, if this is the first time you've watched the show, we have some regulars. John's a regular and he usually, he doesn't go, he doesn't have his name as John, um, you know, you know, he says, dude, you're so mean.

So, so when we, when we take, you see, if I take this off and you see, it says Andrew rapper, Chris Huff is our names. Uh, John usually has something more creative. And so right now it's just John because he's waiting for a fun topic to change his name too, and that gets him back in here.

So let's, let's bring this up, Chris. You'll have a lot of fun with this as well. Uh, we're just going to play different clips of this. This is a debate. Are you haven't seen this? You, yeah, you haven't seen this.

Um, and, and folks here, I'll give you guys all a challenge right now. I don't even know what you use for your search engines. Go out to your search engine right now. Bring up another browser window. Here's what I want you to do.

Type in R a space Fuentes, just put that in. Why? Because I, when we had the debate with him, I said, because he wanted credibility, he wanted to, to, he was going to show. And if there's any of my Filipino friends out there, please share this right now.

Uh, I didn't want to do this. I didn't want to announce we were going to do this because I didn't want him to block me from the page, uh, before we, you know, and then we couldn't have the video, uh, had I known that John had a copy, I would have just used that and not word, and then I would have promoted it.

So, so share this, uh, so that folks in the Philippines see this. Cause Ari Fuentes is a real problem out there. We're going to see his debate style. If you haven't seen the debate I did with him, go check that out.

But in your search engine, if you did the search for R a Fuentes, the number one, I don't even know what your search engine is. The number one search, uh, thing that came up was striving for eternity.

Exactly. As I told him it would, you, you did that, Chris.

Yes. I can confirm, uh, that, that is, that is the truth. What was number two? Was that one of his, or was that, uh, number one, Ari Fuentes apologetics exposed striving for eternity .com. Number two, why in the world are you debating Ari Fuentes striving for eternity .org and then number three, Ari Fuentes apologetics on Facebook.

So there you go. So we promised him that with the, the power of the internet, with the way we are, the size and the traffic we generate that anyone searching for him would find us before him. And, and that has, there was a point where you had to get like six or seven articles down before you got to his own stuff because there were, there were, you know, uh, Justin, Pastor Justin wrote some articles and we had, uh, Josiah wrote some articles and I wrote an article and so they all were coming up before him.

And so we, we promised him he wasn't going to get the credibility. We're going to see some of the same behavior here. Now it is kind of interesting as debates go, let me bring in your cohost here. There he is down there at the bottom.

Hey buddy. Howdy. There's Mr. Drew. I know you'll have fun with this as well, Mr. Drew, but as we look at this, um, I want you to notice a couple of things, just debate, all right, when we do a debate, when you do a debate, the real key in the debate is, is in the cross-examination cross-examination is, is like one of the most important parts of a debate because that's where the two people can, can go.

Basically ask any question of each other. Now I will admit I didn't get through that. This is like three hours and 22 minutes long. Uh, 22 minutes of it was just him explaining that, you know, like trying to figure out how to use the technology.

But, uh, so I haven't gone through the questions from the audience, so I'm just looking at the debate just from the debate itself that we'll play clips of. But here's the thing that's interesting. When, whenever someone does a, that wants to do a serious debate, what they're going to look for is as much cross-examination as possible, typical debates.

If you see any of the debates that we've done here on this channel, it's an opening on each side followed by rebuttal of each. What are you doing? You're, you're doing a rebuttal of the opening and then at least one very long or two shorter rounds of cross-examination.

I prefer two rounds of cross-examination so that things that come up when the other person is crossing that you can now bring up in a second, but the cross-examination is the key of any debate. And then the closings.

Now your, your opponent is really exposed. Correct.

That's where you're getting to the heart of the issue. And when I'd set up the debate with Ari Fuentes and, and by the way, I will note, you guys can listen to the way that I refer to this gentleman. If you, any of my Filipino friends out there, you can put in the chat and you'll know how he refers to me.

He refers to me as rapper because he shows nothing but disrespect. He, he refuses to refer, to refer me by name. It's one of the things you end up seeing where he tries to say, I'm glad he's in a, in a jacket and tie.

And one of the things he pinned the comment, I wonder if I, or he had the comment on here asking that for Calvinist to please be polite, I thought it was a really funny comment considering he shows nothing but disrespect in ever since our debate.

But that aside, uh, when we set up the debate, he didn't even, he said he's done a hundred debates, but he didn't even understand the difference between rebuttals and cross-examination. Uh, and he wanted, he, he wanted to the rebuttal time for, to be longer so we could ask questions.

And it was like, you were teaching him about debate as the debate was going on. I mean, I watched the whole thing from start to finish and I go, this guy's never debated. Cause he doesn't, he doesn't know how to do it.

Yeah.

That, that, that became abundantly clear, uh, in the debate itself, but you're going to see that in here as well. So what they did, the way they set it up was two rounds of rebuttals. Now, this is something in all my debates that I've done and all the debates I've watched.

I have never seen anybody do two rounds of rebuttals. What's the rebuttal. The rebuttal is a rebuttal to the opening statement. Why do you have to rebut that again? What you're really doing is extending the, the time of monologue and avoiding dialogue.

And the whole reason that John Myers did this debate, he really didn't want to have to do a debate. He was trying to reach out to Mr. Fuentes, but, but Mr. Fuentes refused. He said he would not talk to him.

He said, ever since the rapper, I won't, I won't do anything that, unless it's on my channel for a formal debate. So he wouldn't have a conversation. And, and I, I told, you know, Mr. Myers that that exposes that all Mr. Fuentes wants is, is a platform.

He just wants to grow a platform. So we will be happy to expose what he's doing and expose that.

That's all he's looking for is all that you pointed that out in your debate with him, because he, he initially also went after Dr. White and Dr. White didn't want anything to do with them. And then the reason you debated him was to expose him.

Correct. Which we did.

Yeah. That's bad. When, when Dr. White won't debate someone like this, but we'll, Steven Anderson, that, that tells you anything.

Dr. White, he, he wrote, he wrote to Andrew and said, I'm not going to debate him. This is why. And Andrew said, okay, well, I'm going to expose that. And he did.

Yeah. I mean, and, and that's what happened is, you know, look, James White was absolutely correct. And we expose that. Mr. Fuentes should not be debating Calvinism because he does not understand the topic.

You should never do a debate when you don't understand the topic. I mean, rule one of debating. Uh, we're going to expose that here as well, uh, because he's going to, he's going to expose that he shouldn't be debating here.

Um, captain black Eagle says I used to judge college level debates. Andrew is very respectful and clear. Um, and so Mark says possibly because his own page is so that's why he could take advantage. And what, what I think Mark is trying to say is he wants it on his own channel where he can control the mic.

Um, it, it was, uh, he was not happy, uh, in our debate that he couldn't control the mic and be able to stop me from exposing his behavior. And. You know, but he was able to, as you guys remember, if you watch the debate, he kept asking for the closing prayer, but when we got to prayer, he didn't want to pay attention and he says, oh, I just was taking my earbuds out cause I was answering something, but he knew exactly when we said, amen, amazing.

Wow. Yeah. So, uh, let, let's play for some of this, this first one. Uh, he is going to, so remember the topic is, is Calvinism demonic and heretical, and he's going to bring out Galatians one, and he's going to try to show and that Galatians one proves his point.

Galatians one proves Calvinism is both demonic and heretical. I see, I see Chris opening to, to Galatians one. So I'll have you maybe read that when we get done listening to Mr. Fuentes and see whether at any point this addresses anything related to Calvinism.

Let's see.

My, uh, the verses. So in Galatians chapter one, verse, uh, just a one, two, I mean, a Galatians one, six to nine. So we believe that there are, there's the only gospel there.

And I forgot that I listened at high speed and you guys probably don't.

No, I'm from the South, dude. We do everything slow.

Yeah. I forgot. You know, people make fun of me cause I listened to podcasts at triple speed. And, uh, people are like, how do you hear what's going on? It's so that I concentrate better. I, unfortunately, Facebook, I can only do double speed.

YouTube. I can do more. I, uh, YouTube, I listen at, at four speed or five speed because I actually have an app that's on there to speed it up even more, but sorry about that. Yeah. I actually have a thing to help me read, you know, for it's called speechify.

Great. If you want to, that's great. Yeah. I read along with it and you can speed it up. And so when I'm reading, it's usually about four and a half times normal, but it helps me to concentrate. I know I'm strange.

I'm weird. Everyone tells me. Uh, but pastor Aaron Stogner found out the way to really infuriate me. We are listening. I think it was Phil Johnson or, or Todd Freel, and he did it half speed. No, no, that was too slow.

It was driving me crazy. He was having a blast. He's driving in the car going and just putting, he's putting on, he's putting on like wretched or something and it was on half speed and I'm like, just turn it off.

I can see doing that with Phil because Phil uses a lot of words, um, like Abner chow, uh, but Todd Friel, golly, no. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. So let me play this again. Or given, uh, we're given a, uh, uh, let me just share my screen so that I can share my, uh, my, uh, my, uh, the verses. Okay. So in Galatians chapter one, verse, uh, just, uh, one, two, I mean, uh, Galatians one, six to nine.

So, uh, we believe that there are, uh, there, there's the only gospel there. And there are people that would pervert the gospel of Christ, the same author.

Okay. Now let me just stop there before he does a jump. Uh, Chris, you, you have that passage up there. I do.

And can you read that for us? Absolutely. Uh, Paul, Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy spirit says, I'm.

Going to read it. One thing I want to ask you, you, you are a Calvinist, right? Absolutely. Okay. Cause I'm going to, I'm going to ask you another question after you finished reading it. So go ahead. Okay.

All right. Uh, I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which is really not another, only there are some who are disturbing you and want you to distort the gospel of Christ, but even if we, or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed as we have said before.

So I say again, now, if any man is proclaiming to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed.

So that mentions Calvinism, right? Negative. Okay. So the question is, he's saying the gospel we have preached to you. Now, I think we would agree with Mr. Fuentes that any gospel that's contradictory to the biblical gospel that we see that Paul preaches would be anathema, would be accursed.

We would agree with that. So let us see what he's going to say is the gospel. And Chris, as he goes to this next passage, I want you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with what the passage says as a Calvinist.

So let's go. Okay.

Declared the gospel to us in first Corinthians chapter 15, verse number one, two, four, or five, that it says here, for I delivered unto you. First of all, that, which I also received how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures, that's the, that's the gospel that we know of here, only in the scriptures.

All right. So let me ask you, Chris, Drew, you, you, you would also your Calvinist. Yes. Okay. So if we could, if we could turn to that passage there, Chris, if you could read that one, actually, maybe Drew, if you have that passage, you could, you could read that one since Chris already read one and see, you know, is this as a Calvinist, is this the gospel that you believe?

What was it? First Corinthians 15 through four, three and four, three, three. All right. This is one through four, one through four.

Yeah. Okay. One through four. This is what Paul says. Paul says, now I make known to you, brethren. And I am out of the NASB 90, 95. I know Chris is out of the LSB. Okay. We just want to make the distinction there.

Um, now I make known to you, wait, wait, wait, wait.

You're in the new Arminian standard Bible. I'm in the Lord's standard Bible.

Oh, is that what it is? It's the Lord's. You know what? Okay. Look, I'm going to bring up the base text for the LSB. So I don't even want to, now before I was so rudely interrupted, Paul, he says, now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel, which I preached to you, which also you received in which you also, in which also you stand verse two, by which also you are saved.

If you hold fast the word, which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain, verse three, for I delivered to you as a first importance, what I also received that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures.

And that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day, according to the scriptures.

Okay. So let me, let me ask you gentlemen, uh, there's three things that we see here. Uh, as Calvinists, uh, do you believe that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures? Yes. Yes. Uh, do you gentlemen, as Calvinists believe that Christ was buried?

Yes. Yes. Hmm. Do you gentlemen believe that Christ as Calvinists, do you believe that Christ was raised on the third day? Accordance with the scriptures? Yes. Huh. That's really strange because he just said that that makes us heretical.

I, you know, now what you end up seeing is, and this is the thing that you have with, with Mr. Fuentes, this is his debate style. He doesn't actually engage with, with anything that's said, whether it be in scripture or by his opponents.

He has a monologue that he just kind of goes with. And so what you end up seeing is it doesn't have to be coherent.

Right. Well, not to mention the fact that he's, he's applying, he's applying and implying things from scripture that aren't true, aren't according to the scriptures, which is blasphemy of the very name of God.

Oh, oh, you just wait, you just wait for it. Oh, okay. It's going to get better and you're going to love it.

But, you know, Andrew, you say that you're talking about this idea that he's, he's using this monologue that's almost pre-prepared and he's not listening to what anyone's saying. Right. I mean, we saw that with Leighton Flowers and Dr. White and the famous Romans nine debate where he didn't engage anything Dr. White said.

Correct. But when you debated him, there were several times, correct me if I'm wrong, several times that Justin, Pastor Justin Pierce, basically stopped the debate to help him out, to say, Hey, this is what he's saying and you're not engaging with what he's actually saying, engage with, I mean, basically handing it to him and saying, you got to deal with what he's saying.