Keep sharing good news without ads.
Slick vs Kabane Debate Aftershow, imputation, 8/7/2021
Ah, oh, man, there's so, oh, yes, so I feel like Sam Shimon. He blew it to just one little thing. You got it wrong. So there we go. My bad, everybody. Yeah, sorry. Now I can focus. OK, Justin, I always ask your your question again.
This is the point I'm trying to make. Is that like like through one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, that Adam wasn't just declared legally a sinner, but internally he was made a sinner and that through one man's disobedience, the many were made righteous, that we're not just declared righteous in the sight of God, that he actually intrinsically makes us righteous and holy.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Be careful here. I got to be careful. OK, the era of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox is very similar. Uh, when Adam sinned his gate. So can you see me on the camera here? I can see you. Yes. OK.
So I'm hearing clicks and sounds that bothers me. I have autism and those things make me not able to concentrate.
So I think it's the guy with the with the dog.
OK, Eastern Orthodox, Charlie, maybe it's Charlie. He just muted himself. It's just I have Asperger's, so it's just one of the things that hits me. So. OK, so when Adam sinned. Here he is in his nature and I'm hearing this clicking, what is that?
Are that that, Justin, is that you doing something or is that just a connection? I don't think it's me. There's a connection then. My connection. OK, well, no, it's sometimes sometimes there are issues that happen with and we get these.
You're not the only one. I don't remember if this happened before about two weeks ago. Talking to somebody got these clicking sounds. So I'll just have to push through it. But it's hard for me because of, you know, I have this autism thing going.
OK. OK. So when Adam fell, his nature was changed, but sin was reckoned to him. It became to his because he's the one who's guilty of his own sin. So it's to his account. But because we're in Adam, then sin entered the world through him.
Romans 512. And so therefore we fell in him. That's what Romans 519 says. When it says the air is passive indicative, it means it's a past action that he that Adam did, that the many were made sinners by what he did.
That's what's going on there. The many that are those in him were made sinners by what Adam did. Were made sinners. Now, how can you? That's what I say. That's I'm going to do. Now there's two senses which we can look at it.
One, they were made sinful. But the other one, they were made sinners. A sinner is someone who has broken that law. Now, wait a minute. How can we therefore be a sinner when we didn't even exist and do anything?
It's not our fault. Well, this gets in the doctrine of federal headship. So let me separate this for a little bit. Federal headship is a teaching that the male represents a descendants. Adam and Eve are in the garden.
She sinned first. She gave the fruit to Adam and then he sinned and sin entered the world through Adam, not through Eve. And Hebrews 7, 7 through 10, Levi paid tithes for Melchizedek while in the loins of his father Abraham.
So Abraham lived and he had a son, had a son, had a son, had a son, had a son, had Levi. And so Levi said to pay tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek. This is a term of federal headship. It says in Romans 5, 18, one verse prior, it says that through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men.
Condemnation is a legal standing to everybody. And so we know that what Paul's teaching is that Adam represented us. Now, in 1 Corinthians 15, 22, I'm going through this quickly, it says, in Adam, all die.
So we have this thing of in Adam being legal as well as the effect on our nature, that we have a legal imputation to us, we have a nature that we inherited from him that's sinful. So the federal headship issue takes both of those into account.
I believe, this is my opinion, the reason that this is the case is because Jesus would take our sins in his body on the cross, 1 Peter 2, 24, which Cobain couldn't, he didn't do well with that. He fumbled to that for quite a bit.
Can I ask a question on that?
Sorry, this is a big question that I had for you and it was kind of the big sticking point for me as an Eastern Orthodox coming from our framework. When you say that we inherit a sinful nature, can you flesh that out a bit?
Do you believe that our nature is made evil from the fall?
You said sinful not, and then you said in evil. And so what you did, you just switched terms, that makes the question a lot more difficult to answer. So, would I understand to be that the baby is born with a non-fallen nature, right?
That's right. Okay. We don't have fallen natures, yeah. Yeah, and that's heresy, flat out heresy. Because the Bible says we are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2, 3. By nature, in Adam, all die.
Now, are you familiar with federal headship? I'm not. I've heard you reference it a few times. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Well, what I would suggest, and I mean this lovingly, just go study. Go to my website and look up federal headship and do a study.
I'll explain more here, but I'm just saying go there, that way you can print it out, read it instead of having me 80 miles an hour dump this out at you. And there's more, there's scriptures, there's explanations.
And so when I do marriage counseling, for example, all right, I don't know, by any chance, are you married? I am. Okay. So you're married and I say, and I could say a lot more about this, but I'm just going to cut things down just to emphasize.
I'll say you are the head of your family and you represent the family to Christ. The head of Christ is God. The head of the man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. This thing of headship, which is an authority thing.
Yeah. I think I know where you're going with this. Okay. So I'll say to people in marriage, I'll say, look, I don't care if you like it or not, dude, you know, the guy I go, this is your responsibility.
This is where you are because you're the one who represents her and your family to God. That's how Adam was.
Yeah, we're children of Adam. Right. So we're children of Adam. And so we're liable for his sin and what he's done. Because of federal headship. Yeah, no, I know. Adam is the father of us all until we're born again in Christ.
So I think he still is the father of us all. But in addition, Christ only represented his people. Now, I'll show you something. Okay. Let me ask. This is a trick question. Okay. You ready? I'm asking you a trick question.
All right. Yeah. All right. So have you died? Have I died? Yeah. As an Orthodox, I would say I died in baptism. I was born again.
Okay. So I would disagree with that theologically. But you get the idea. You've died, right? Okay. Now, the Bible says that our old self was crucified with Christ. That's when it says we died, when he was crucified.
That's what it says. Romans 6, 6, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him. Well, when was he crucified? 2000 years ago. So that's what it says. This doesn't fit anybody's theology about you die in baptism.
They don't understand what that means. And I could teach on baptism quite a bit. So we were crucified with him because he represented us. And it says we died with Christ. So if I were to say we died with Christ, that's what it says in Romans 6, 8.
When did Christ die? It's 2000 years ago. And yet it says we died with Christ. Well, how does that work? If people say it's by baptism that we died with Christ, that's not what it says. It says we were crucified with him.
That's 2000 years ago. We died with Christ. That's 2000 years ago. It only makes sense in federal headship. Now, when I asked you the trick question, I said, have we died? You know, I said it's a trick question.
So here's another little something. You never find in scripture any place where it says the unbelievers died with Christ or the unbelievers died to self, died to sin. It's always the believer who's died to self, died to the world, died to sin.
You know, things like that. Okay. You with me? Yeah. Now I'm going to read a verse slowly because I want to make sure you get it. First, 2 Corinthians 5, 14. Okay. Says this. The love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.
Who's the all who died? Is it those in hell?
Sorry, he died. I'm just reading it again. And he died for all. And those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again.
So he died for all that's on their behalf. Yeah, that's all of mankind. Those are all the children of Adam. No, but you're not getting what I'm saying. And this is typical. It happens. I have to teach Christians, Armenians, Calvinists this.
I said, I tell them, no, it's not accurate because the Bible says that when we've died, it's only in relationship to the believer. We've died with Christ. We have died to the elementary principles of the world.
We have died to sin. That's not referenced of the unbeliever. There's actually patterns that the Bible uses, that God uses. And I show people some of these patterns. And I say, when we go through this slowly, I go, look at this verse, everybody go here.
Look at there. Look at there. Look at there. It's never an unbeliever has died to sin. You don't find that. So when he says he died for all, therefore all died, the pattern of scripture is that the all who died is only the believer, the ones who trusted in Christ.
Well, so this is why I asked you about the nature question, because we don't believe that the fall has permanently altered human nature, because what that would mean is that evil has ontological being, ontological status, meaning that it exists as itself.
Which would then mean that God created evil. So if evil has an ontological being, an ontological status, and if God is the only one who can create natures, that would mean that God created evil nature and that would make God the author of evil.
No, no, no, no.
You don't get it. Yeah. That's a common question and misunderstanding theologically and logically. All right. Let me take a note here. I can address this. God created evil in us. That is a, in my opinion, it's a profound lack of understanding on what the issues really are here.
I'm going to put this in here. If anybody wants to come into this room, they can come in. So when you said evil has an ontological existence and evil in itself, that's impossible. And logically it doesn't work either.
Evil is not some ethereal kind of something that Lucifer bumped into and like the blob in the old 50s movie. Now it became something on him. We don't say that. What we say is that Satan himself became the opposer of God, the opposer of brethren.
And in his nature, he's evil. Wouldn't you agree that he is in his nature evil?
No, that would mean that God created an evil angel.
You, okay, let's back up. God created Lucifer good. Would you agree? Yes. Then Lucifer rebelled, right? Right. And then after his rebellion, he became evil. That's right.
But his nature is not what's evil. This is what the orthodox distinguish between nature, which is abstract in general and specific or personal. I get you. Atheists do this too. So personally, you can enter a mode where you exercise your will contrary to your nature.
That's what evil is in orthodoxy. No, no, no, no. That's ridiculous. It doesn't work. You cannot. Okay. Let me ask you a question here. Watch this. Okay. Can you define what free will is? So I didn't mention free will, but we have a will.
It's okay. We have a will that's tied to our nature.
So as you define free will, I'm going to show you something.
Okay. So what we do have is we have the ability to act contrary to nature. That's what we might call free will. Can.
Okay. So free will is the ability to act. Am I right? To act contrary to our nature. That's right. For our purpose. Okay. So that's illogical. All right. And I'll show you why. And it's also unbiblical.
Can God act contrary to his own nature? No. Then God doesn't have free will by your definition.
Well, it's like asking, can God lift a rock that's too heavy for him to lift? No, he can't. No, he can't.
Because it's a non-sequitur to begin with. It violates the laws of logic. So I'm just saying that what you're doing here and what Aether and Orthodox are doing, I'm getting more and more of this impression is they're trying to be philosophical and don't know what they're doing.
They don't know how to do it. And so let me help you out. To say that you act in a manner contrary to your nature is logically impossible.
Well, do you believe that God created the world and the world was good before the fall? No, you don't understand. And you understand. You understand.
Focus, focus, focus. You said free will is the ability to act contrary to our nature. That means God, by that definition, does not have free will. So that definition is not sufficient. God is a standard of what's right, not us.
And what you were doing inadvertently was being a humanist. Humanism, I'm not just calling you personally. Humanism is alive and well in the Christian church and the Protestant churches also. Humanism is saying that the man is the standard of right and wrong.
I can act contrary to my nature. My nature is good. And so that's what it is. And that's a faulty understanding. Period. It's illogical. It makes no sense. All right. And so when we say, well, what is what's God's standard?
Because God says in 1 Peter 1 16, be holy for I am holy because he's the standard of righteousness. So we have to go with him. And I wish I could just teach on the Trinity for like three days. And then and I wish you were listening in that and I could go into this as it's really deep.
But anyway, I won't do that now. So that definition of free will doesn't work.
But that's an elaborate one thing. I didn't say that's my definition of free will. I just said we have the freedom or the ability to operate against our nature. But the church fathers are very clear that true free will is to operate according to our nature.
So our ability to act against our nature is not a benefit that we get. That's not true freedom. That is a stimulated freedom that is a result of the fall.
First of all, when you go to the church fathers, I automatically take the respect level down for the speaker down a level. All right. I do. The church fathers, I've read through a lot of them. You know what?
That's fine. And I could ask you all kinds of difficult questions you can't answer. What's the right church father? How do you know it's the right church father? Oh, the church says this. How do you know it's the right one?
And it just gets into be a morass of difficulty. But you said, and I wrote it down, free will is the ability to act contrary to our nature. All you got to do is say, you're right. It's not a good definition.
Let's move on. That's all you got to do. And so I'm just helping you out that we can only act in a manner that's consistent with what we are. You cannot act in a manner against what you are. So if I'm human, I have the ability to do right and wrong.
God does not have the ability to do right and wrong. He can only do what's right. Now you stop me when you disagree. Because I disagree.
So God can do something wrong? Let me ask you a question. In the eschaton after the resurrection and the kingdom of heaven, can we do what's wrong?
Wait, are you saying God can do what's wrong?
No, God cannot. It's impossible for God to do what's wrong. Okay.
Now you're asking a different question on a different situation, a different topic. So you need to be careful. All right. Don't jump ahead. A lot of people just, they take one thing and they don't understand the nuance and they go in.
During a debate, I was telling Cobain that he, you know, I was trying to hint very politely that he's not understanding the terminology he's using and the way he's using it. And I tried to tell him he's, you know, without being condescending that he needs to work on that.
And he does. My only point is being a human by nature does not mean that you can do what's wrong. This is a temporary result of the fall.
Look, you're not listening. What is free will? We have to define it before we can say what can happen and can happen then and there.
I'm trying to answer you according to your categories because the fathers don't talk about. There's will, natural will, and there's hypostatic will at the individual personal level. We were created for our will to be aligned with our nature.
As a result of the fall, there can be now a misalignment between our will and our nature. But this is a temporary status that will be resolved in the eschaton after the resurrection.
Yeah, it's EO equivocation and lack of clarity.
It's well, the only problem that I have with your position is if our nature, what we are ontologically, our being is evil. And if God is the only creator, which I believe we affirm, then you may God the author of evil.
No, no, you don't understand. Again, you don't understand. Do you know what?
Okay. Do you know what ultimate if proximate and efficient causation is? I do not. Okay. So Adam and Eve are in the garden. God is the one who's the ultimate cause of Adam's sins. What that means is that God is when it created the universe and created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden.
He's the ultimate cause because it wouldn't exist without him ultimately creating everything. Proximate causation. God allowed the serpent to come in to tempt. God knew it was going to happen. So God specifically allowed the evil one to go into the garden and speak to Eve.
All God had to do is go and stop it. And he chose not to. So God is now the proximate cause. He is the one who arranged everything right in that condition, but he's not the efficient cause because Eve and Adam, both of their own volition shows to rebel.
So when we talk about causation and people say, well, you're making God the author of evil. No, we're not. You can. He's the ultimate cause of evil. He's approximate cause of evil, but he's not the efficient cause of evil.
And so this is why I asked him to debate if he knew what these distinctions were. He said, yes. Unfortunately, if I were to go into that level, the audience mostly just doesn't understand. I don't want to go into that too much.
The fact is that we're not making God the author of evil. And what I see a lot of people fail to understand is that God made Satan good and in his nature, he was able to sin. It doesn't say he was perfect.
It doesn't say he was holy. It just says he made everything good. And goodness does not mean they can't sin. Adam was good, and yet he sinned. Satan was what Lucifer was good, but yet he could sin. And when he did, he became evil.
God didn't make him evil. It's what happened to him in his rebellion against God. And the Bible doesn't say how that happened ontologically. It just says this is what happened. And this relates to the issue of when you're born again.
Because born again is an internal change where God indwells us, John 14, 23. And we can get into this stuff about John 3 and born again the whole bit. And he causes us to be born again, 1 Peter 1, 3. And we're born again, not of our own will, John 1, 13.
So here's a question. Born again is another term for regeneration, something that God does to us inside of us. If we lose our salvation, does God then make us unregenerate? Does he make us unborn again?
So we're in and out, and God is actively making you regenerate, making you unregenerate, back and forth, back and forth? Of course not.
So it's ridiculous. At the hypostatic individual level, we have the ability to participate in that mode of salvation that Christ accomplished on the cross. Mode of salvation? Yeah.
Wait a minute. Participate in a mode of salvation. This is right out of New Age phraseology. Let me just explain.
When you interact... It's meaningless. Let me just tell you what the Orthodox believe, because I've seen when you interact with them, there's this disconnect at this level. And you can't make progress because you're not sure what the Orthodox are saying.
Let me just tell you what they believe. So you asked the question a lot about Colossians when God died for all, right? You asked, how could he die for all? And why isn't everyone in heaven, right? The Orthodox affirm that God died for all, that Christ on the cross died for all.
And what they mean by that is Christ re-established a mode of human nature that can be free of sin, okay? But he doesn't impose that mode on every individual. The individual through participation has to actualize that potential.
And through faith, the individual enters that mode, which is a relationship with Christ by the Holy Spirit. So what happened on the cross is potency. It's a potentiality that's not imposed on every single individual.
So let me get this straight. Orthodox affirm that Jesus died for all. He re-established a mode of human nature that is free from sin, but doesn't impose that mode on every individual, but the person has to actualize that mode, right?
It's a potentiality in our nature that previously we lost by the fall. Christ, by becoming human and living a perfect life, that's free from sin, re-establishes that mode. It tears down the barrier of sin on the cross.
That mode is not imposed on us. Again, it's a potentiality that we have to actualize through participation. Okay. All right.
So that's what you're saying. And I want to just make sure I'm going to write. I'm going to put this on my notes. Okay. East North Terms. I'm just going to put this right here. All right. Okay. I'm going to keep my notes here.
All right. Now, you know what the New Age movement is? I do, yeah. Okay. I used to teach on it a great deal years ago. It's making a comeback. I could take what you said, just alter a couple of things.
The Orthodox, I wouldn't say Orthodox. I'd say mankind affirms that Jesus died for all, re-established a mode of human nature that is free from sin, but doesn't impose that mode on every individual. But the person has to actualize that mode.
It is a potentiality in the nature that is lost in the fall. And I would say the Christ consciousness re-establishes that mode. I could put that right, just like that in a New Age conference. And they would say, yes.
Now, why am I bringing this up? Because these terms are not biblical terms defined in biblical context. See, look, say he died for all. For example, all right. I can show you in the scriptures where all does not mean every individual and who Christ died for.
In 1 Samuel 3, 14, God said that the iniquities of Eli's house will not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. That's what God said. So he could not have died for all. Right there, could not die for every individual.
Right there is proof. Because he said so in 1 Samuel 3, 14. And he said he re-established a mode of human nature that is free from sin. Show me that in scripture. Show me where he re-established a mode of human nature, a mode of human nature.
Show me that in scripture. Because the Bible says we are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2, 3. It's not there. It's mumbo-jumbo from the Eastern Orthodox. Show it to me in the Bible.
Well, that's the whole point of baptism, right? So that's why for you to participate in Christ's work on the cross, you have to die again and you have to be born in Christ. Okay, so that's the answer to my question.
Hypothesis. So when I say mode of human nature, all I'm saying is the individual personal level, not the general natural level.
So where does it say anywhere in the Bible that a person's nature is somehow re-established in a mode of freedom from sin?
Down to the kingdom of heaven, you must be born again. That does not say. You must be born of water and spirit. You're reading it. You're reading it in the text. What does the water mean there? Baptism.
How do you know? Well, the context in Acts is water baptism. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Okay, I asked you. And John, you just did the same thing that I told Cabane don't do. We ask a verse, you first look at it. Don't jump someplace else. Because when you do that, I'm going to tell you flat out, it's what the cults do.
To keep their theology. That's what they do. So go to John, look in the context of John. Unless one is born of water and the spirit. What does the word water refer to?
I take it to be baptism. Because of the context of how baptism is understood in other passages in the Bible. Okay. So if you have a different approach, I'm happy to hear it. All right, great.
What baptism is he talking about? If that's the case, which baptism is it? Baptism of John?
Baptism of Jesus? What baptism? He's talking about the sacrament that he's going to institute.
Well, the sacrament he's going to institute, what is that?
So he did it in his baptism. So when Christ was baptized, it wasn't for his own sin. Because obviously Christ is without sin. What he did was he baptized the waters for our sin. So in that act, he instituted as part of the divine economy of salvation, a key sacrament.
Okay. Yeah. You're just, all you're doing is reciting EO stuff. That's all you're doing. Well, yeah. Look at the text. Look at the text. Look at the text. Show it to me from the text. We'll go to other baptism verses.
I can do that too. I know the topic well. Show me from the text. What's the context? Because the context is the baptism of John, if anything. And I don't know if you know this, but there's a baptism of conversion that the Jews would undergo where the water was applied.
And here's a question. I'm assuming you believe in sprinkling and pouring, right? I don't. No, only immersion. Only immersion. Okay. Let me just show you something. Here's all kinds of stuff. Okay. I'm getting less and less convinced that baptism means immersion.
Now, that's my opinion. You know, I'm open to being changed. Okay. But I'm studying stuff. Now, it says here in John 3, and I'll show you why Jesus was baptized and how he was baptized, and I'll show it to you.
But Jesus answered and said to him, truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said, can a man be born when he's old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again, right?
Jesus says, truly, you have to be born of water and the spirit. Otherwise, you can't enter the kingdom of God. And then Jesus says, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and the spirit is spirit. Yeah.
So, Nicodemus is saying entering the womb, and Jesus even says that's born of the flesh is flesh. What's the water context?
You're going to have to help me out here. The womb. But he's right. But Nicodemus is thinking the womb, but Christ is not talking about the womb.
Then why did Jesus say it's born of the flesh is flesh? Because Nicodemus was born of the flesh, wasn't he?
Because he's thinking of birth from Adam, and Christ is speaking about the rebirth in the Holy Spirit through baptism.
No, baptism doesn't save us, 1 Peter 3, 21. Okay. I'll show you some stuff. Why was Jesus baptized? I mean, why was Jesus baptized?
Oh, hey, I do this all day. Why was Jesus baptized? Well, as I said previously, Jesus was baptized not for his sin, because obviously he had none. He was born without sin on our behalf.
No, hey, I didn't ask anybody else. Please understand that when I'm talking to somebody, if someone else jumps in and gives an answer, I really don't like that. I want the person to struggle against their ignorance about the word of God.
I don't need someone jumping in. I know the answer already. Please don't jump in and help me out. I don't like that. Okay. Just letting you guys know. Now, why was Jesus baptized?
Right. Again, what we believe is he's baptized not because he needs to be cleansed from sin. He's God without sin, but he baptizes the waters. It's going back to imagery in Genesis with the flood.
Jesus answered John the Baptist when John said, look, you're going to baptize me. And Jesus says, permitted at this time for this way is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Why was Jesus baptized?
What do you mean? So how do you interpret fulfill all righteousness?
Okay. First of all, why was Jesus baptized? What does it say? It says to fulfill all righteousness. So that's what Jesus said, right? What do you think it means when it says to fulfill something? What do you think it means?
To accomplish. No, it doesn't say to accomplish. It says to fulfill. What did Jesus do? Did he not fulfill Old Testament scripture? He did fulfill prophecy. All right. Did you know that in order to enter the priesthood?
Do you know Jesus was a priest, right? Yeah, that's right. After the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 6, 27, 25. Now, in order to enter into the priesthood, according to Leviticus 8, Numbers 4, Exodus 29, a man needed to be 30 years of age.
Jesus was 30, a verbal blessing given. This is my beloved son, whom I'm well pleased, right? I had anointed with oil. Okay. I can show you the references. I got an article on calm and sprinkled with water.
Numbers 8, 7. Now, think about this before you answer anything. It says, if you go to Acts 1, just think about this. Okay. Acts 1 and verse 5, and I'll just, I can, whatever. John baptized with water, but you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
What does it mean to be baptized with the Holy Spirit? For us, that means to be chrismated. Nope. It means the Holy Spirit is poured out on you because it's a prophecy that's fulfilled here in Acts chapter 2, verses 17 and 18, which is Peter quotes from Joel 2, 28, 29, where God says he will pour his spirit forth.
It's not to be chrismated. Stop thinking EO, think scripture, scripture, because this is what you got to do. If it says John baptized with water, does it mean immersed in water? Does it mean immersed?
Yes, that's my understanding. And you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Does that mean immersed with the Holy Spirit? No, but so the Holy Spirit, immersed with the Holy Spirit part is the second part of baptism.
Okay.
What does it say here in the text? I'm asking specifically about the text. What you do and what Catholics do and what Muslims do is you don't listen. You just jump into something else. Listen, focus. If the word baptized here in water means immersion, why does the word baptized in the very same breath not mean immersion?
It does mean immersion, just with oil.
No, immersion with the Holy Spirit. No, the way it's prophesied in the Bible is by pouring.
Okay, but that's the connection that you're making.
And no, this is what Peter says in Acts 2, 17. All right, so let me just elaborate. This is what was spoken on through Joel the prophet, that I'll pour forth my spirit on all mankind. They were speaking in tongues.
The pouring forth of the spirit is the movement of the charismatic gifts. Yes, that's right.
That's exactly right. And that's where I'm going with this. So if you could just give me a minute just to explain what I mean here. Okay. So for Orthodoxy, what was true for Catholicism until relatively recent, there was two parts of baptism.
The first part was a triple immersion in the water, where you died with Christ and was born again in water, where you were cleansed of your sin, including original sin. The second part that happened immediately after that is you're sealed with the mark of the Holy Spirit and anointed with oil.
Because the Holy Spirit will not dwell within you unless you are born again and regenerated by the water. So it's a two-step process where you're born again with a new, regenerate nature, free of original sin.
And the second part is the Holy Spirit indwells within you, and then you are given the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And this comes after baptism, right? Immediately. It happens simultaneously. Can it happen before?
Can you get the gifts before baptism? No, the baptism temporally happens first. Logically, it happens first, but the ritual is together. All right.
So I'm going to correct you from Scripture. As you know, I've already showed you that John baptized with water, you'd be baptized with the Holy Spirit. That's now verse eight of Acts 1. You'll receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.
In Acts chapter 2, we have the movement of the Holy Spirit that comes upon with a violent, I meant violent. Well, it actually says violent, rushing wind. How about that? And in Acts 2 .2, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, began speaking with tongues, right?
Okay. As the Spirit led. So they're speaking in tongues, right? And then people ask later, well, and then Peter says, this is what's fulfilled through Joel, the pouring forth of the Spirit, right? Then in Acts 2 .38, it says, because I'll go a couple of verses before.
One, yeah, verse 36. It says, therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made them both Lord and Christ. This Jesus whom you crucified, verse 37. Now, when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart.
And they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, brethren, what shall we do? Peter said to them, repent. And each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
That's the proper order, right? So the proper order, the gift of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, charismatic stuff, right? Yeah. And that's only after baptism, right? Yeah. Okay. Now we go to Acts 10, 44.
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who are listening to the message and the uncircumcised believers came with Peter and were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.
And then Peter answered, surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did. Kenny, wait a minute. How did they receive this gift of the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues without being baptized?
So my understanding of that passage is that the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, the apostles and the disciples are speaking in tongues and the foreigners are seeing the apostles speaking in tongues and they're amazed.
And that's what's drawing them to be baptized.
While Peter was still speaking these words, obviously you haven't read the text. The Holy Spirit fell upon those who are listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
See, here's the problem you've got. You have EO colored glasses and you see everything through EO. You wanna go to the church fathers, you wanna say, this is how it's going. If I ask you, show me that in scripture, you can't show me most of what you teach in scripture.
You don't know. And I just, not to try and trap you, make you look bad, but the reason I don't want people to jump in because this is what I do with people. I know where I'm going. And I want you to commit to something according to EO theology and scripture contradicts it.
What are you gonna do? What you're gonna do now is interpret the scriptures in light of EO theology. Even though the scriptures say that it was poured out upon, the Spirit poured upon the Gentiles, they were speaking in tongues.
And then Peter said, no one can refuse water for them to be baptized.
Who have received the Holy Spirit. So we wouldn't doubt that the Holy Spirit can act. It's not the case that the Holy Spirit requires the participant to be baptized to have any relation with that individual.
Holy Spirit can come upon any individual and draw them to be baptized, draw them into the church. But the Holy Spirit dwells within them in a very particular and specific way through the sacrament of baptism and then chrismation.
So even if you're interpreting, I have to, I don't have the text in front of me and I have to acknowledge I'm not a scholar. Yeah. Right. So I'm not, I have to, if I had some time, was that I could, no, I'm not gonna understand it.
That's 1044 and following to the end of the chapter.
But we wouldn't deny that the Holy Spirit can come to an individual or group of individuals, even if they're not baptized and call them to be baptized. I mean, the Holy Spirit is what generates our faith.
The Holy Spirit is what brings us to the Can you show me that in the scripture, the Holy Spirit generates our faith? I'm sure. You don't believe that the Holy Spirit generates faith? Show me the scripture that says it.
I don't have the Bible memorized.
I can look it up. Please do. You know, and you'll find that if you were to start saying, where does it say that in the Bible? What E .O. teaches, you're gonna find out that a lot of it is just not there.
But they might do something like, well, being washed with the water, or excuse me, you know, usually born of water and the spirit, and water has to be baptism. Think about it. The water context is about the womb.
That's a possibility. It's a legitimate interpretation. And the other thing is the baptism that's there is not the baptism of Jesus, but the baptism of John. That's the baptism that he would have been aware of.
See, just don't assume so much E .O. stuff.
Yeah, I didn't come here to, I just wanted to, you know, shed some light on what, you know, what the Orthodox position actually is. Because I feel like in the debate with Cobain, there wasn't a lot of movement.
Well, I want to have a discussion with a couple, three E .O. guys simultaneously, where I can ask some very detailed questions, because I can ask very detailed questions. It's how I think. And not to be difficult, but I just do it.
It's how I put things together, you know? And so maybe Cobain and I could do that. All right. Let's see if anybody else wants to say anything. Justin, sorry, jumped on you, buddy. Okay. No, it's okay.
It's my fault. I shouldn't have interrupted. Yeah, you're eager. I should have gotten mad. I'm still working on being sanctified. It's a long way to go. Anyway. Okay. Which one are you gonna, okay. And by the way, Eastern Orthodox, thanks for being polite in our conversation.
I do appreciate that. Okay.
All right. I think for me, so. What's that? So I started looking into baptism, like recently a lot. And, you know, I was really against like baptismal regeneration and stuff. Like, I don't think the only way to be regenerated is through the word.
I think like the way I look at is like, yes, like faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word, which in context is the gospel, that who Jesus Christ is. And that, but that God uses the word to regenerate our souls.
And I also believe, though, that God can use water to do this. And hear me out. No. Because, don't hear me out.
No, no, no. He doesn't use water to make you regenerate.
Wait, listen, though, listen. Like Jesus, like he used like spit and he used mud, like the natural means to do a supernatural thing, to heal the person's eyes. And God used like, like a donkey to rebuke somebody.
So why can't God, and God used a human body to like. Okay. You know, to like, you know. You have to understand what baptism is. It uses like a natural thing. So like, can't God use water to do a supernatural thing and regenerate us?
Not that it's the only means, but one of the ways.
Well, can he? Is different than does he? And you, and you can say, well, can he? And you could theoretically argue. But I would say he does, though.
I would say, show me where he does. I would say one of the, like, I think one of the verses, which was, which is what you guys are just talking about. And obviously, yeah, we can't, which was on John, John three, which when Jesus says, unless you're born of water in the spirit.
And what's the water? Enter the kingdom of heaven. So you would say that it's the womb, but I would say.
Well, it's certainly not Christian Trinitarian baptism because that hadn't been instituted yet. So that's not it.
We have a question. So in the John three, after that doesn't he talk about baptism right after in John three? Well. So it's in the context of it. In John three, 22. Yeah, these things, Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea and they were spending time with them and baptizing.
Right. So they were baptizing. What were they baptizing in? In Jesus name?
What baptism was it? What is it? I don't know. I don't know. You can ask these questions. OK, yeah, I will. And so, you know, John was also baptizing because there was much water there. And now, OK, so baptism.
Now let's go to first Corinthians one, right? And and, you know, if baptism is necessary for salvation or part of salvation, why does Paul say in first Corinthians 114? I thank God I baptized none of you except Christmas and Gaius.
Right. I mean, come on, if baptism is the thing that we we need, then what you're saying is you're saved by faith and a ceremony. Well, I'm not saying that you necessarily need it. I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying they're saying. Yeah. But yeah, I don't know. I just say, like, I love the word and like whatever the word says, like I want to believe, you know, and be faithful to Scripture. But like as much as I can be in this for you, you know, and like as and I read it versus like Acts two thirty eight, like like when it says, yeah, and then it's because when I read it, it's like like Peter is proclaiming the gospel of who Jesus is, that, you know, you've killed God, like he and God has made him both Lord and Christ.
And then and then they ask him, like, men in breath and what shall we do? Like it's reminiscent of the jailer when he asks, Paul, what do I do to be saved? And then Paul doesn't. He tells them to be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.
So to me, that's to me, that's striking. You know, which verse you want to look at. We always I always look at one at a time. How about just Acts two thirty eight? Just that. OK, Peter said, repent and each of you baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Is that a formula for salvation? I don't know if it's a formula. OK, because faith isn't mentioned here.
And it's not in a Trinitarian context either. And the gift of the Holy Spirit is the movement of the charismatic gifts. So it's not about salvation, is it? I don't know. I know it's about being forgiven for your sins, though.
No, you take, as Charlie likes to say, you take an aspirin for your headache, not to get one. Baptized for the forgiveness of your sin because you're forgiven. Baptism is a covenant sign. Here, I'm going to show you something.
In fact, what I'll do is I'm going to do a screen share, which I mean, I'm going to show you my screen so you guys can see the scriptures. OK, and. Here we go, here we go. All right, and you see that?
OK, I forgot what I was going to look up. I just brain glitched. What was I doing? I think Corinthians. What about?
But that is raw or some pretty. You mentioned that you take an aspirin because you've already got a headache, not because you want to get one. I mean, an unbeliever that gets gets baptized only ends up on the other side as a wet unbeliever.
That's right, yeah, right. And so there you go. Thanks. This way you can see the scriptures.
I can just jump around and we can show you where they are. So it's there's no instance here that it's about salvation. All right, and it's in the name of Jesus. You go to Acts 4, 7 deals with the issue of authority, baptizing.
What does it mean? Does it mean to be immersed or sprinkled? And I can ask questions about this issue. And demonstrate. I'm pretty confident I can suggest very strongly that sprinkling and pouring.
Are the normative means of baptism. Yeah, I would say like Ezekiel 3626. Like I'll sprinkle you with clean water. Yeah, put a new spirit inside of you and cause you to walk in my statue. So I would say even Ezekiel 3626 is talking about baptism, you know?
Yeah, and the issue about,.
Oh, I remember I was going to do now was go here to Colossians 2. Before I do that, go to Romans 11. I'll show you something. Romans 4, 11. I think it's 4, 11. Yeah, and receive the sign of circumcision, a seal, the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised.
So circumcision is a seal of righteousness. OK, that's what it says, right? Now, I'm not going to spend a whole bunch of time in this because it gets a little more complicated. But circumcision is a sign.
It's a seal. Now look at this. Colossians 2, 11. And you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, having a removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in baptism in which you're also raised up with him through faith.
Now, when I see this, I don't have all the answers, OK? OK. There we go. When I see this, I go, why is Paul not equating but relating baptism to circumcision? It's just a question. I asked the question.
Because we know circumcision is a covenant sign, right? Now look at this. I'm going to show you something, all right? So here's something to think about. Galatians 5. Behold, I say to you, if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
You know, he goes on, you receive circumcision, you can't be saved, OK? If I wonder, if you say, or anybody says, you've got to be baptized in order to be saved, like circumcision, what the Judaizers were saying, are you guilty of the same thing?
Because what you're saying is, I need to go through a ceremony, circumcision is a ceremony, in order to be right with God. You see the danger here? It doesn't equate them, but it relates them. I believe baptism is a covenant sign.
And you enter into the covenant, because all signs have covenants. And if you look at how baptism is done, the object is anointed. Because if you go here, the high priest, Numbers 8, 7, you shall do for them, for their cleansing, sprinkle purifying water on them.
This is the issue that Jesus had to fulfill, the sprinkling of water. Furthermore, think about this. In Acts chapter 2, I'll go through this quickly, because there's a lot to talk about in this, but I won't get into it too much.
In Acts 2, 38, it talks about being baptized. And look, 3 ,000 people were added that day. I mean, 3 ,000 people were baptized. How many were doing the baptisms? It doesn't say, so we can't say for absolute sure, but here's some just quick thinking numbers.
If 12 disciples were doing the baptism by immersion, and they were in the upper room, then you have to have enough water, which is 8 .3 gallons per, or pounds per water. You have to have like 50 gallons.
Actually more than that, I've seen a 90 gallon aquarium, and you could get a person in there. You get to squeeze them in there. So let's just say that they needed 700 pounds of water brought into a room in order to immerse 3 ,000 people.
That means it's only one immersion at a time, up another room. Well, that doesn't make sense. So they have to go someplace. Let's say they went to the Jordan River. Okay. One person baptized in 3 ,000 people.
I forget it. They're not gonna be able to do that. Not in one day, because you have to lower them down in water, and then you got to pick them up. Lower them down at 3 ,000 times, dropping somebody may weigh 80 pounds and lifting them up when they're 85.
To do that for eight hours, you got a problem. It's just not adding up right. Let's say 12 disciples were doing it. Well, then you have to have a baptism every two minutes and 20 seconds. But then you do baptism every two minutes and 20 seconds for eight hours, your back's gonna give out.
I'm sorry, but that's it. And I've been to the Jordan River and it's cold. So wait a minute, how far out in the water were they? Up to their waist, so that their lifting is not that much. But then they get hypothermia.
Well, they don't get hypothermia, so they only up to their knees. Then you got to lift weight. It just doesn't make any sense. In fact, when you go and it says that John the Baptist is baptizing all of, was it say all of Samaria?
Let's see, all of, no, all of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, let's see, Jerusalem, because it says all of Jerusalem. And I got to remember this, the verse, because there's something interesting. Where does it say that?
Anyway, somebody could find it for me in text. It says all of Jerusalem and Judea was going out to John the Baptist to be baptized. Well, I did some research on the numbers and we can't say anything for absolute sure, but it looks like there's at least half a million people in the area at the time.
And all that area, some say 600 ,000. All right, well, it says all of Judea and Jerusalem is going out there. Well, obviously not every individual. So that means a lot of people are going out. But if we say 10 of 500 ,000 people, that wouldn't qualify for all of Jerusalem.
That's still 10 of 500 ,000, that's 50 ,000 people. How's one person gonna baptize 50 ,000 people? It makes sense to say that they were sprinkled, et cetera, et cetera.
It makes sense. I think that makes sense. I think it lines up with scripture and everything. I have no problem.
Look at this, 1 Peter 3, 21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. They always go here and they stop reading. They stop here. Say baptism now saves you. That's all they read. They don't read what was before and they don't read what's after.
Let's read what's before. Who once were disobedient. I'm gonna go in 10 minutes cause I can feel my brain going. Who were once disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah during the construction of the ark in which a few, that is eight persons were brought stifled through the water.
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. Corresponding to what? It's either the ark or the water. Baptism now saves you. What does it respond to? Correspond to baptism. Maybe the ark. The ark, I would agree.
The ark saved them. Water didn't save Noah. Water was a means of destruction. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. The ark, that's why Paul, that's why Peter goes, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal.
Baptism is this inward appeal that you go through a ceremony, you're trusting in God as a covenant sign. Just like anything that you do in a covenant. When my wife and I got married at my wedding ring, the wedding ring is a sign of what's internally occurring into me.
Baptism is that external sign. That's what I see that meaning there. You see? Acts 22, 16. Why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name, on his name. So what the Greek actually says is having, getting up, you wash away your sins, calling on his name.
The implication is get up and be baptized is that they would stand up to be baptized, not immersed in water. And to wash away his sins is calling on his name.
So would you say that baptism and then like calling on the name of the Lord are like intermingled? Like one in the same? Like when someone gets baptized, like they're calling on the name of the Lord, you know, in a way.
Would you say that like a public testimony kind of thing? What do you do? There's a yes and no to that, but let me run this by you. And I used to work at a hospital.
I'm 64. I've been around, done a lot of stuff. I used to work at a hospital. And I talked to our chaplain, who's a Christian, who happened to go to the very same church I went to. And this is after I graduated from seminary, right there in the area.
And I said to them, I said, hey, I got a question for you. Do people on their deathbed receive Christ? He goes, yep. Just very quickly. Yep. And I said, let me ask you some more questions. I said, do they, they got tubes in them.
They can't get baptized. They can't get out of bed. They can't do anything. And you lead them to the Lord. You know, you trust in the Lord and they just barely could say yes. And they die within minutes.
He said, yes, it happens. Now I'm going to ask people like that. Are they saved? There's no good works, no baptism. The thing is the Bible says, since I happen to be here, I'll go back. He called out, this is lights, the trembling, the earthquake had happened.
The gates of the jail were opened and et cetera. And he says, what do we do to be saved? He said, sir, what must we do to be saved? And they said, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You'll be saved. You and your household.
He didn't say get baptized. Specifically, Paul, the apostle is answering a question. What must I do to be saved? What does he say? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Specific. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul not include that?
But they, then it says they went, washed their wounds immediately. He was baptized. He and his whole household. Baptism is what you do when you're saved. Right. Because of this Romans 5 .1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, that's what it says, right?
Now over here, justification, Romans chapter four. That's when Cobain did not do well with this. Okay. For what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God. And it was credited to him as righteousness.
Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but what is due. So this word credited here is legitimized. The word here is legitimized. We get it from the word logic. All right. And the one who believes in him, who justifies the ungodly.
Dikia 'o, his faith is credited as righteousness. Okay. Dikia 'o, that's a position that you are in legally, justifies because it says he who believes in him, justifies the ungodly. His faith is credited as righteousness.
Justification is automatically right there, equated with imputation, with legality. It's not this Eastern Orthodox stuff about your nature change. You get in this and the awarding of the, the undoing the rupture of your relationship.
It's not what's going on here. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, credited to his account as righteousness. That's imputation. And to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but what is due?
Because it's not, because crediting here, legizimai also, what it's saying here, when it does not work. I mean, the one who does work, his wage isn't reckoned to him. It's what is, it's his, it's what's due.
This is different, but the one who does not work, but believes in him, who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. This is imputation. This is exactly what it is, with the issue of legality representation.
Now, to the one who does not work, but believes, his faith is credited as righteousness. Therefore, having been justified by faith, right? Justified, okay? Because that's what justification is. When we say that Abraham, before the Father, according to the flesh was found, if Abraham was justified by works, something to boast about, okay?
That's dikia 'o, okay? Justifies from dikia 'o, okay? Justified, dikia 'o. So, God justifies the ungodly, how? By his faith being credited as righteousness. Therefore, having been justified by faith. So, I ask these baptismal people, are we justified by faith?
According to Romans 5, 1, yes. Are we justified by faith when we have faith? And they'll say no, because you got to get baptized.
Well, then how are we justified by faith? They make no sense. I would say the two aren't at odds, though. Just because if you go to Galatians 5, I believe, doesn't Paul equate, he talks about justified through faith, and then all who've been baptized into Christ are put on Christ.
And then right before that, he says that. So, I don't think they're at odds.
No, but what does it mean to be baptized into?
Well, baptized into Christ. It's actually Galatians 3. So, what does it mean to be baptized into?
People ask me, they'll say that. They'll go, they'll say, you're baptized into Christ. You've clothed yourself with Christ, right? What does that mean when it says you've clothed yourself with Christ?
I think it's like putting on, like taking off the old nature, putting on the new. Like if I got old clothes on, I take off old clothes, put on new clothes.
Nope, it's not. And I'll show you why, okay? But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith, which was later to be revealed. Therefore, the law has become our tutor.
That word right there, tutor, is very significant. It leads us to Christ. What he is doing is, I'll show you where he's doing it. He does things like this in other places, Romans 7, 24, I believe it is.
Who will set me free from this body of death? The body of this death, the body of death. That was another way of killing somebody by chaining you to a corpse in a jail. And the corpse would decay, and the death of that corpse would move upon your body and you would die.
This is what he's alluding to, okay? So I'm just saying, Paul uses phraseology from the contemporary time. So a tutor, what was a tutor? A tutor was usually a slave, different kinds of slavery in the Bible, a slave who was trusted by the master of the home to teach his children in law, in logic, in philosophy, in various things.
And when the student, the child graduated, when the tutor said, he's ready, guess what they did? They would give him a cloak, thing that they would wear over. They'd be clothed with a cloak. The law had become a tutor to lead you to Christ.
It teaches you that you need Jesus. So that would be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, you're no longer under a tutor. You're no longer under that law. You have no law you have to keep.
Your sons have got to faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you were baptized into Christ, have clothed yourselves with Christ. And this clothe yourself with Christ as a reference to what the law does, that you're justified by faith.
And he's saying your baptism, because baptism is related to the issue of believing and stuff because it's a covenant sign. See, every covenant in the Bible has signs. Every one of them, I believe baptism was a covenant sign.
And what he's saying is you participate in the covenant sign and you could say, you've been clothed with Christ in this, in that you're graduating away from the law. It's not about salvation. Not by the baptism, because that's where justified by faith.
If we're justified by faith, then it's not when you get baptized because baptism only occurs. Oops, I clicked that button. Come on, get out of there. To those who are supposed to be believers, but that gets more stuff.
I got to get going. I'm getting right now. I had this for four hours pretty intensely. Okay, anybody else?
Sorry, sorry. Yeah, maybe next time you need to go to bed, bro.
Yeah, I'm going to go watch TV for an hour. That's how I go to bed.
I go to bed at two. Well, yeah, we all go to bed. We go to bed different ways, I understand. Yeah, so what'd you guys think though? Good debate, right? Good stuff, right?
I thought it was good. I thought it went well. I'm familiar with the orthodox position. So I wasn't too surprised at some of the things he said. I'm surprised that it was satisfactory for him to accept some of his positions in light of scripture.
But that's because he's an orthodox and I'm not, I suppose. I have many frustrations that we'll have to wait for another day. Let's just say that. Frustrations for who? Him or me? No, no, yeah, for the other side.
Okay. Questions unanswered that... There's lots of stuff. There's lots of stuff. I really, you know, that's what I did. I hammered really on the issue of justification and faith and, you know, imputation and stuff like that because that's what the whole debate was about.
And in my opinion, he did not handle it well. They're gonna say he did, but he didn't because I had to keep asking the same question. So many times he failed to answer the specifics. When people can't answer specifically, usually it means they don't know how to handle that idea related to the text.
Yeah, they don't understand the concept to begin with, so. Anyway, good night. Go to bed, bro, or watch your TV and go to bed.
Okay, I'm gonna get going. All right, well, thanks, Matt. You know, I have a large contingency of Orthodox in my family. And so I recognize the fact that he was avoiding using certain Orthodox terms that are buzzwords that would get him in trouble.
But he did that skillfully. And yeah, I thought it was good. I thought it went well. All right. Thank you, Matt. Vincent, wanna say anything really fast? Because everybody else has. Vincent, you got a minute before I go.
Oh, I thought it was okay. I'm not gonna lie. Thanks for the show. And that's it for me. Okay, we can talk on Discord sometime. All right, buddy, talk to you later. I'm out of here, everybody. See ya.
God bless. Well, am I alone now? What's going on? Everyone leave? Everyone's gone.
