Open Discussion on Calvinism, 3/13/2024, 8:30PM, EST

All right, so I'm still getting this set up Because I need to have the live

URLs available for people to To go to I don't expect anybody ready to come in here right away and Let's see, so There we go.

Do you want Facebook? I'm going to put the Facebook link up what this is is

There we go. So I have forums at calm org and So getting set up here a little bit so Forums calm org is what it is

And what I do occasionally is go in there and post talk about things Try and get some good conversations going

I'm not as active in there as I could be because I've got so many things I'm doing but I noticed in the forums that there were

That there were discussions going on about reformed theology and I know that there are a lot of anti -calvinists that were there everybody and so if I put ideas

I put up a post and I put up there that if they want to join me they can come in and I can have a discussion on Reformed theology, so I open

I said I'd do it at 830 Eastern Time, which for me is in another four minutes So I did this and I'm just hoping that people will come in from the forums

One of the reasons is because I've noticed how many people Hate Calvinism condemn

Calvinism and don't seem to really understand it very well I think some have better understandings of it than others

But I'm pretty convinced that the average person just doesn't understand it

Nothing is all that complicated and I have come to believe that a lot of the

Anti -calvinists really ignore a lot of Scripture and don't take it seriously and What I've been saying lately is

I think a lot of Christians what they do is they'll read a verse and then they stop That's what it means.

That's it. No other interpretations and this is why you Calvinists are wrong. And so I can give examples of that but I've been

I've been more aware of it lately So I went on to the forums on CARM this morning and I posted a thread

Open discussion on Calvinism for tonight now. I've been thinking about doing it for a few days Maybe give it a few days head start, but I've done this before on the forums and in other venues

Where I've said I'll open up a room just like I've done now Provide the link so you can come in and participate just like I've done now

And then nobody shows up Or maybe one maybe two people will show up and they're they're people

I already know or who follow what I say and do you know and and It's not that big a deal, you know

And I'm always looking for the Antis to come in and have a polite conversation Nothing mean and obstreperous, but just you know, well, what do you think and why we go to look at the scriptures?

so I've not Seen that occur that I remember And I'm if I you know, someone knows counter to this that I've done something

I'm just telling you I just don't remember That it's ever been the case that anybody's come in and really had a good discussion with me when

I've opened up a room like this I only do it once every six months so Where's latent flowers when you need them that is so true and So, let me just kind of muse about a few things here related to karma and latent flowers

Calvinism anti -calvinism And some other stuff because I'm just gonna fill the time

I'll give it 10 -15 minutes if none of the Antis come in. I'll just shut it down and not a big deal Now, you know just wasted 10 -15 minutes.

Not a big deal so I Believe that Man -centered theology will lead to further heresies and I remember talking once to latent flowers.

I have his cell number. We haven't talked in a long time, but I could call him and And I've you know,

I remember once we had a conversation in Philippians 129 where it says To you it has been granted to believe and he said no it what it means is he's been granted you the opportunity to believe

No, I never never forgot that because I said well, that's not what it says and he said well, that's what it means

And it was really interesting because if that's what it means and how come it's not what it says And it doesn't really matter at this point what

I say When I show him the aorist passive indicative has been granted and explained what it is

It doesn't really matter Because he's got a view and that's how the view is

I've noticed it's kind of attitude with a lot of people And I'm really kind of curious

Why is it that they hate? Calvinism so much and in fact just be saying this

Gives me an idea that I might want to do a survey You know what

I might just do that develop a survey with 10 in 20 questions and then

I mean, no, no, no one question. Why do you why do you? Why do you reject

Calvinism and Then have all kinds of options In fact if some of you are in here and you want to give me some of the reasons you've heard or that you have against Calvinism Write them out in the text there and I'll copy them and maybe

I'll develop a questionnaire then release it and then I can do A statistical analysis on it, you know, how many percentage analysis how many believe this?

I think that might be interesting Yeah, and stuff all I could do so I could do something like that What do

I think with the last debate of flowers and James White I watched about it I think a third or a half of it and in my opinion

James White was logical biblical to the point and he nailed it and I thought latent flowers was all over the place trying to Make things say what he hoped that the scripture would say

I thought he had a couple of good points though, and I forgot what they were. I mean, that's a good point you know,

I mean I'm being fair and But it was like that's a good good question

I got to go back and listen to it find the question and you know deal with questions like that because sometimes people will ask

Really good questions. I say that's a good question and then I'll go through an answer possible answer But for the most part

I didn't think latent flowers did very well In light of all of this one of the things

I've been thinking about doing And I don't know if I want to I want to but don't if I'm going to is because well

I am getting older I'm 67 and I'm getting tired and I don't have the energy

I used to have I Say it but I'm not in my 30s anymore where I could work for 10 hours on one breath

You know one drink of water and could be fine And so what

I've been thinking about doing is going to flowers sites and other anti -calvinist sites taking excerpts and then doing a commentary series on what they teach and deal with it biblically what

I think is biblically and You see this is why I think they're making a mistake here

I think they fail to understand this and that's what I'm thinking about doing so If I to do that I would ask people to Go find stuff or listen to videos and then say

Matt Here's the URL and you know in 22 minutes and 15 seconds You've got to listen to the guy say this and then

I go right to it Okay, if that's what he said, then I'll back up and listen to the context this way.

I can be efficient and I can Get more accomplished because sometimes what people will do will say listen that to our video and then you'll find something in there

You know, I appreciate that but I'm not always able to do that kind of a thing So it's just what it is.

I Need to spy in this material as you want to one group. Yeah Yeah, I'm gonna look and listen and I actually have an alias that I've been using for years

I have an email address for the alias. I'm not going to say who or what it is, but I've used it many times and It's just an alias so that people don't recognize who

I am and That I go into rooms and listen. I did this once I did it once when

I was in a debate with some Muslims a Muslim and this is five seven years ago

Maybe I don't know and I had my my computer set up here And then I had my laptop over here and I was logged in in my laptop under my alias and I was logged in here under my name

Matt slick and So the debate went on for a couple of hours and this was sitting there the whole time and I you know

Cordially blah blah blah. Okay time to go. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me and I'm out and so Then I you know shut it down and then went right over to my laptop

Turned it up and listen to the volume. Let's know what was being said and They the

Muslim remember this the Muslim said I never answered anything. I couldn't answer anything and that the

Muslim guy destroyed me in every step and I was shocked because Because the truth

I remember it so clearly the truth was I think he Answered one thing I challenged him on one maybe two and he was stumbling all over the place and every objection

He asked me I think for separate one. He I couldn't answer because it was time constraint couldn't get to it

But I was able to enter this and this and this and this you know It was I remember the deity of Christ as does the

Bible teaches. I know this topic so well and So I remember these guys were just so deceived it was it was obvious that I answered them

No, that's not what it says here says this is why this of it and he didn't respond to any of it and yet he Claimed victory. So this is what often happens with people who are on the opposing side

In fact when I was in a debate week and a half ago with Chris I can't remember his name now.

It's I'm bad with names the open theist and how Horrible he was and how mocking the people were

He couldn't answer my objections I cornered him many times I I showed him scriptures that Bolstered my position.

I asked him questions about the nature of the atonement extent of tome and imputation He couldn't answer him.

He didn't know what free will was didn't couldn't define various things and Likewise, I didn't go into thereafter show but some people watched it and said that they said that he trounced me in every way

This is always The way it is. Yeah, Laura says it's it was horrid and disgraceful and it was in fact

James White even commented on on it on how bad they were and Others did too and it caused a bit of a brouhaha so But you know what?

It really taught me something though I'm just rambling here I'm a strong personality.

I've been called an alpha male. I've been called this I've been called that and a few other things by my wife a few occasions but I see things in my mind

I see things clearly because I think it's because of my autism and You know because I've been studying and debating for decades

Well this here we go. And so when I see somebody teaching heresy, so that that's that's heresy

Or that makes you're a heretic if you teach that it's not me name -calling It's just saying that's it makes you a heretic if you're teaching this to me.

It's information You know if someone were to say that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead Well, that makes you a heretic that makes you a false teacher.

Oh, you can't say that now if I were to say Well, you're a false teacher. Maybe they let that go and so There's us.

There was so many complaints. I went on to the fact. I went over to the open theists venue and waded through the mire of their vitriolic swamp and The Hatred that they had for me the condemnation the mockery

But they really brought that up a lot that I called him a heretic and that they didn't like it

So I've been thinking about it. I'm always willing to be corrected and to modify So what I think

I'm gonna do next time is just say no That's a false teaching or that's not what the Bible teaches or that is a heresy

So they're calling that person a heretic, you know and see how that goes And so the following week

I had another debate with on my side was Andrew Rappaport and we debated against Monarchianists, they teach you only one person the

Godhead and so I was very polite very cordial the whole time and so Anyway, you watch

James White debate late in flowers. Yeah, I did most well not half of it Maybe I'm gonna watch some more but I was just this just now

I was watching a debate with him on Tully Tully on Is Jesus Yahweh?

I would love to debate that topic. Oh, I'd love to debate that topic It's one of the things is my favorite topics, you know, so one of the things

I've been thinking about is I'm gonna be more open to To the idea of doing formal debates in a church setting

Dale Tuggy, that's right. Thank you So that's what I'm thinking about doing but but on the other hand,

I'm not a heretic to go out and look for them because I'm getting older This getting older thing really is getting in the way

So, you know, I'll turn 68 this year So, I mean

I gotta get myself in shape and I got to do something I could have a change of something because it's just not as easy

So I would have to prep for two months before I go do a debate like that Yeah, I know heretics abound so much heresy so little time.

That's right but I want to be able to do those formal debates because I think they're

Interesting and I think they're informative and if I could get someone to agree to a formal debate

At a church setting I would do it in fact the debate where Layton and James White were in that that church.

I've debated in that very church I debated a guy in the charismatic gifts. I was standing right there where James White was

So that was in Houston. That was years ago So, you know, I've had formal debates and I think that they're received

Well, I'd like to do some more so I'm open to that put out the bad signal and heretics will come running

Yeah, but here's the thing, you know Again, I'm just musing thinking out loud.

My wife's health is deteriorating and So, I mean it's just a factor, you know,

I need to be here to take care of her to get her things to make sure she's okay and So for me to be gone for say three days could be problematic for her

She can get around but sometimes it's extremely difficult too. So anyway, you could see what that's just a factor

So we'd have to have someone who would watch her Maybe spend the night things like that just in case she has an episode has to go to ER It's that kind of stuff so that I'm reticent for that reason so I could do it online

And I'd always be here that would make it easier, but I like the idea of an actual church and Yeah, I'm gonna start studying provisionism more and more so I want to be able to articulate it very well and then

I could always get a hold of Leighton and Say, okay, dude Let's talk. Just just tell me

I'm gonna ask you questions. I'm not gonna debate you I just wanted you to tell me what this is I'm gonna ask you questions and you just tell me

I'm gonna write down your answers So I can't want to understand your position very very well. I think he would agree to that because he is a nice guy but Unless he's changed his cell number, but I could get a hold of him.

So I'm thinking about that but You know, I get this brain fog half the time now and I Start to forget things.

I Gotta change my diet or do something I get if I need a nutritionist who says Matt we've done some tests on you

This is what you need do this. Are you an expert? Yeah, that would be fun to watch. That's right.

It would be So look we got 66 people in here and I was hoping

You know, the reason I open this up is let me clear my throat The reason

I opened this up was because on the forums I'll put the URL in here forums .com

.org I put a link up there. I started a thread this morning open discussion on Calvinism.

I Said if enough people are interested, I'll open up live chat room tonight, you know 8 30 p .m.

Eastern Standard time and that anyone interested in can join in the conversation and challenge

Calvinism You can bring your most difficult questions. I could try and answer them. I'd be polite and patient if that sounds interesting

Please let me know here and I've only got one or two two three three people responded

So I thought you know what? I'm gonna just open this room up. Anyway, put the link in there and just see if anybody shows up and I also

Put it on Let's see karma Facebook doctrines of grace

Facebook karma videos and on X So what

I want you to do if you're listening, I would if you'd be so kind Would you please just type in what platform you're watching from?

It's either Facebook a Facebook karma Facebook doctrines of grace karma videos or X You put it on all the media social medias, yeah, that's fine

Just tell me which one you're watching from and how did you find it? And the reason I'm asking to do that it just gives me information

Which Facebook Noel and Tommaso because there's two Facebook's up there one karma videos

Okay on Facebook. Okay, you have to do this. You got to say Facebook karma videos

Facebook You know doctors the grace YouTube karma videos

X you got to do it like that. Otherwise because there's two Facebook's so which Facebook YouTube okay there you go.

The YouTube's only one YouTube. So that's good the karma. Oh, there you go All right. Does Calvinism say we are guilty because of Adam sin it depends on what you mean by guilty

Generally speaking when you're guilty of something is because you've done something So, how are you guilty of something if you haven't done anything?

So that's why the word guilty there needs to be examined. Are we made sinners by Adam sin?

Yes, we are. That's Romans 5 19 so if that's the case then

Then we are made sinners by Adam sin are we then guilty now, that's an interesting question

How would we be how would we define guilty if you say guilty based on what you've done?

Well, then no guilty based on what he's done then. Yes And then you see there's issues there.

We have Willis Fletcher. Hey Willis. Welcome, man You're on You hear me

Willis Willis I hear you

Willis Can you hear me You're clicking a lot.

I don't do well with those for very long So, can you hear me not if you can hear me yes,

I'm here All right So there you go. All right. Do you have a

Comment or a question or are you Calvinist or not or what? I was just listening in I Agree with you on the on the

Calvinism thing and when somebody mentioned something about our status even from creation or even from conception the

Bible is clear that everything that Adam did was imputed to us and I think a lot of what we struggle from is the fact that people don't understand what imputation entails it's not in the sense that it doesn't make us like In the sense that when

Jesus was imputed our sins, it didn't make him literally a sinner, but it declared him a sinner before God Just like when we were when

Adam sin was imputed to us even before we ever Send the first in it imputed us with with sin

And we were declared Unrighteous in God's eye and I've used this for an example. We and I don't mean to step on people's toes, but When OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his case, even though there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary if the court was just it would have it had to treat him as if he would had not committed the crime and It's the same with us that even though we never committed the first sin

Because of his imputation God has to treat us as if it was us who ate of that tree of knowledge of good and evil

Right. He and Adam all die first contents 15 22

Romans 5 18 says through one transgression the resulted condemnation to all men.

Yeah, so We are dead because of what Adam did there's Romans 5 19 right there

It says for through the one man's disobedience The many were made sinners that is very important were made sinners, right?

Yeah, and that in the Greek is what's called the aorist active indicative and I mean they're errors passive indicative, sorry the air is passive indicative and aorist means past tense

Passive it's called voice means that you receive the action and Indicative means it's it's an occurrence.

It's a fact. So we were made sinners by Adams sin because he represented us Does he have a question or is he here to educate slick?

So, yeah, do you have a you have a question or anything? I just say question or a comment You're just giving a comment and that's fine.

Yeah Yeah, tag Warren McGrew get him in here.

Let's see what he can do I'd love to debate him on Calvinism. I'd love to debate these open theists on Calvinism.

Oh, man, that'd be good So so Willis, we're what state are you in West Virginia?

West Virginia. All right. Yes, and you're reformed good. Well, you're all right So what media did you find this on?

Well, it was through the stream yard I think it's what it's called that you had posted on the the calm form.

Oh So you found the calm forum? Yeah. Yeah, I'm a member there on calm. Okay. All right, so It's not in the current forum.

Okay, that's fine. Yeah. All right. Let's see if anybody else is there Normally what I've done this or basically every time

I've done this before nobody Nobody shows up I mean,

I really enjoy dr. White and his Debates and I honestly didn't know who dr.

White was until after I began to See a shift in my theology Yeah, he's great.

I've met him a few times and He knows his stuff. I think he's one of the top apologists in the country.

He's a good guy. I Wouldn't want to play there. I'll tell you that You what

I wouldn't want to debate him Yeah, well me either but depending on the debate, you know a

Good debate is someone who can actually present the opponent's Position them for them.

They could stand in their place and and present it yeah, and That's what

I like to do. It's like it's why I need to study morning to slow down in some areas Anyway, did anyone see

I think biblically the YouTube guy going on against predestination? Oh, no, I haven't seen that There's so much to discuss.

Hey, Laura. How are you? Laura. Oh She just muted herself.

Laura works with me I well, I just come in because I see it's in different places and I was seen if you can see all of the

Comments in different places. So that's what I I was just in here checking it out.

That's all hi Well, let's see. I see comments from Karma org

Facebook and or I doing or is that John Ford? I don't know what that is. I guess that's

YouTube So, I don't know other than that. I think that's it Melissa and humbled clay

We were born children of wrath, that's right. Hey man three. That's right. Melissa.

You mentioned Warren waiting for a response back Please explain pie related to Kings it's just a

Well for one thing Notice what it does not say in the text and first Kings.

I'll go there. All right Actually something And to get back into here, all right first Kings, all right 723 now he made a sea of cast of metal 10 cubits from brim to brim

Circular. Oh, it does say circular in form and his height was 5 cubits and 30 cubits in circumference

So one of the issues here from brim to brim. All right So how is the measurement being made how thick is the brim is it 5 inches 6 inches 2 inches 1 inch

And how are they measuring the diameter? Internally or externally and as they're doing it internally and they're measuring to the external or the diameter to the outside measuring from the inside Circumference you get different numbers.

So those are possibilities within there The other option is that what's happening is they're just speaking metaphorically

It was you know three it might have been in that culture They just say that the number three they would use it for basic division

They would just divide it by three and that's just just the thought So you have to ask yourself in this?

Is it they mean three point one four one five nine two six eight seven five four? I think that's what it is. Is that what it is?

Is that what they're supposed to be because what they just said three point one four one five eight. Oh, that's wrong

You know, well you see if they're just saying three because they use it as a general number measurement thing

They're not a problem because think about another thing Ten cubits. So a cubit is the length of an elbow to a hand and I don't know if they had an absolute

Standard measuring stick that they would use and if they did how are they going to measure the circumference?

So it's just it's it's difficult to say they had an exact precise measurement system going on So when it says ten cubits or five cubits, well, then he was just do their the arm

They might have had a standard measurement and they would just measure it out and that's it He might have had a thickness of the brim and Willis you got to mute yourself when you're typing

Because at the tapping I don't do well with taps I'm autistic. It's a sound issue

So I hear some beeping in the background and some other stuff Well, I was just saying

I was tapping because I was just tapping because I work Okay Normal people normal people it's not a problem

I'm I have I don't know what to call it, but it's an audio a problem and I have 80 decibel ringing in both ears

So my brain has to produce the sound ignore this sound don't hear tapping. I want to I want to turn to it

Want to hear it and so it's distracting for me. I'm not complaining I'm just saying I got this problem and then

I ask people to just mute themselves. That's all That's all right, well you have my friends thank you man god bless

All right. So my friends say they can beat me in any argument. All that needs a water bottle All they gotta do is have a water ball this crinkle it

And I go It's so they could beat me So they know about this issue.

I have to so that's what anyway, that's what there's several possibilities here it's not I don't believe it's intended to be as a mathematically precise thing but a generic

Representation of what's going on? That's why I says three because I think you divide if I was doing something like that I would just use three as a number instead of three point one four

You know You do a basic division and that's what it is. So it's not a big deal.

All right I'm new and curious you're new man. You speak well for being new

How do you like two months? That's impressive. I'm new and curious

Oh as to why God put that tree in the garden in the first place knowing it's omnipotent what we would take

I think it's necessary because Because it being made in God's image means that part of the qualities of God exist as The ability and necessity of being able to do what is right before God and there's options where God can never be successfully tempted to fall man

Participates in that temptation but fell and I think it's a necessity in part for that One that's part of the reason

I think an overlapping reason is the greatest act of love is self -sacrifice without the fall there could be no sacrifice

So I think there's part of that too and some other things So then we get into what's called efficient proximate and ultimate causation and That God knew what would happen when he created the universe and put

Adam and Eve in the garden. He knows we're gonna fall. I personally believe that the fall of Individuals is necessary, but when

I say that let me see if I can find out on the verse Here we go,

I think it's necessary What I mean by that is not because God wants it to it's gonna make it happen.

That's not what I mean by necessary I mean that it's it has to happen because Creatures are not holy

God is holy first Peter 116 be holy for I am holy. He says and what clued me in on this is first Timothy 521

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God in Christ and of his chosen angels now the word there is eclecton from eclectus

Chosen why are there chosen angels and that got me thinking? So my conclusion was this chosen angels are the ones that God had to choose not to fall

That there was something going on in the pre -existence I mean the pre -existence before the universe whatever when the angels were

There was something going on that God intervened so that they would not all fall They're chosen angels.

This is just just me thinking. Okay, and It's election. So there are certain elect angels and their elect people.

So if God elects angels Well, why doesn't he elect can't you elect people as well, of course? so I think that what that showed me was that they had to be intervened upon in order not to fall and I thought does that mean then that all creatures?

Will ultimately fall because they don't have the quality of holiness being the character of God and without that Then they will always fall

God can't give it to them because it's part of his nature We're not divine holiness as part of his divine nature that cannot be given to us because it's part of his divine nature so we can be seen as being holy in Christ by adoption and Representation.

So this is what I was thinking that that might be chosen angels and And stuff and I forgot what the question was

Water bottles my kryptonite. That's right I put the garden and not but I think

I answered that. Okay, how could someone choose God if he has hidden it from him? Well, he wouldn't be able to if it's hidden by God.

You can't find it, right? How can someone choose God if has been hidden? Well, he wouldn't be able to know what he

Simple. Okay. So you go to Matthew 11 25. I Praised you father

Lord of heaven and earth that you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to infants

Well what things about Coming to Christ believing in what he was saying and things like that Okay, and then we would live in seven what then

Israel is seeking it has not obtained but those who are chosen obtained it and Arrest were hardened.

Yeah, you do an explanation on Revelation You want me to exegete the entire book?

What happened there? Is that what you want the entire book? Revelation it'll take a while So I'm not sure what you mean, or do you mean the idea about God revealing himself?

There's three main kinds of revelation. There's natural revelation in the universe

There's special revelation in the Word of God There's in the scriptures and there's incarnational revelation in the person of Jesus and each

One each one is less Each one becomes more specific

You can learn about God and the generic idea of God in his beauty his majesty and stuff and maybe even his

Trinitarian nature by looking at creation because creation is time space matter and Time is past present future space is height with depth and matters salt liquid gas.

So you might conclude that God has a Trinitarian aspect to himself a threeness, but not necessarily in personhood, but the scriptures reveal personhood of the

Trinitarian essence so so it's more specific and Jesus is a revelation of the Trinity in flesh because of inseparable operations and Representation stuff like that So there you go and creation

Adam was created in the image of God and had the qualities of a true The true knowledge holiness and righteousness God had a greater purpose to fulfill all things in Christ See what someone says had true knowledge.

I don't know what true knowledge is compared to false knowledge Because what is knowledge? Does knowledge mean you know a fact that absolutely is true or that you believe a fact that is not true

So you could have true and false belief, but what is knowledge? so I would say that true knowledge is a

Belief that we have that comports with the mind of God the revelation of God then we have knowledge and that's how it's justified

And so therefore he would have to reveal himself and such to us Can I explain the

Trinity in flesh? Jesus is the representation of God and that's

Hebrews 1 3. There's a doctrine called inseparable operations So the

Trinity is one thing with three persons the triune nature of God is a singularity

The triune nature of God is the one thing. The one thing is triune and There's a paracritic relationship

Parakaresis means a mutual indwelling so that the different persons are Mutually indwelling each other all the time and yet they have distinction so this means then that the word is paracritically related and Involved in the

Father and the Spirit When the word became flesh, this is not removed.

This is not gotten rid of and So Jesus would say things like I can only do what

I see present tense See the father doing J. John 519 John 530. I think it is and So he can only see that which the father is doing only do what the father does what he sees the father doing etc

So this looks like he this is support for inseparable operations

In that what he is doing it in observing is doing observed in the Trinitarian whole

So he is the manifestation of the Trinity in flesh in one in that sense that the divine nature

Is what he is this is which gets interesting the divine nature is inseparable and so each aspect father son

Holy Spirit participates in Trinitarian miss And so the word became flesh is is still participating in Trinitarian miss

But yet it's the distinction of the Sun the word that became flesh and dwelt among us it's hard to explain and So that's what

I would say. Okay. Hey Laura Hey, you've got a question. I just thought that you might want to answer in In YouTube, it says how can someone choose

God if he is hidden it from some Answered it. Oh, okay. I didn't hear it.

Oh must have been his death call. Sorry That's okay. No, I answered it. I said if it's hidden from them, they can't because it's hidden So the the answer is in the question

So here's a question if you jump high enough, can you touch the moon? What do you guys say if you jump high enough can touch the moon?

And the answer is Yes Because the answer is in the question

See if you don't jump high enough you touch the moon. Otherwise, you haven't jumped high enough That's the idea.

Is it possible to do that? No, it's not possible to jump that hard But you see this is this thing is logic and stuff like that All right, so I don't think it'd be really gonna come in maybe

I'll shut it down in a minute so Give it a little just a little bit longer okay, and then

No big deal 67 people watching

I see. Okay. I Love teaching and answering questions about stuff like this.

I mean, it's a lot of fun I can jump higher than my house. My house can't jump There you go

All right. Well, I'll give it another minute here if nobody comes in or has a really good question, whatever then

I'll just bail By the way, I'm new here what is meant what what what

Here is what I meant. Okay here I'm not sure what that relates to All right

Say is this biblical the act is not one of merit but of condition this act of appropriating salvation

Is one which only man can do that's a load of crap Sorry Stuff like that the human sorry, but it is it is it's bad

We appropriate the cross the value the cross to ourselves This is why I say I want to get a t -shirt for people saying

I chose God of my own free Will with it and the front and on the back there's a handprints you wear t -shirts every time you take a step you pat yourself on the back

So The act of appropriating salvation. Oh we appropriate it to ourselves

It's it's a load of crud because the Bible says you cannot come to Christ unless it's granted you from the Father John 6 65

Is granted to you that you believe Philippians 1 29 your cause to be born again first Peter 1 3 born again Not of your own will

John 1 13 So it's not sit there. We appropriate it because it violates a doctrine of total depravity the enslavement of man to sin etc, so Yeah, just came in and got called

Calvinist before I knew it What he was All right, I'm getting on but I'm working late at the hospital.

Okay, I Used to work at a hospital. I enjoyed it. I was a runner Conquered an orderly slash kind of transporter and then

I also worked in registration and emergency, so I was in the ER and people would come literally into the

ER waiting room to our desk and Register and then we go back into ER And the

LSBO Legacy standard Bible only You further explain a flip is 129 as far as what is granted what is granted is faith

So look, I'll I'll go here. All right, I'll explain. Oh Man well, maybe

I typed in the verse right it might help There we go for to you it has been granted all right

Has been granted you put your mouse down here and you see it's called the aorist passive indicative third -person singular

What does that mean? And notice what's going on here has been granted to see how it says it has been granted

But notice that what the Greek says is hotty who moon Extra risk they so What's going on?

Is it said it's saying for and then to you? Okay, and then this word granted, but the verbs they

Conjugate and so you can have different Elements and stuff in verbs. Okay So what this is saying is the aorist means it's past tense

Passive is voice So there's three voices basically there's three voices

There's active passive and middle voice active voice I hit the ball

Middle voice I'm hit by the bar hit myself with the ball. That's middle. I perform the action on myself middle voice active and passive Middles in between active voice.

I hit the ball. I'm performing the action passive voice I'm hit by the ball and In middle voice

I hit myself with the ball So what this is is passive voice.

I'm hit by the ball Passive I'm made to believe That's what's going on Paris passive indicative indicative means it's a statement of fact so past tense

It was it's like saying in the past you were made to believe That's what's going on.

You could literally translate it like that as an expanded version To you in the time past.

It was made that you believed You were brought to believe by God's work. It's like saying that All right

So that's why it's really important because notice it's the aorist passive indicative.

So to you it has been granted For Christ's sake not only to believe in him, but also to suffer.

So we're granted by Christ to suffer I mean by God to suffer and to believe

And what's interesting is to notice this again This is the right here down here.

This is the aorist passive indicative check this out Romans 5 19 as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

Were made sinners This all hide that this also

Were made sinners were made here we go over here were made sinners. This also is the aorist passive indicative were made

This means that by Adam's sin we were made sinners it happened to us

That's what's going on the aorist passive indicative Not that big a deal, but there it is and that's what it means there

Did that answer that question? Have you ever heard of the Mandela effect people who say the Bible is supernaturally changed changing?

Have you dealt with him yet? I'm not sure what sense you mean Mandela effect. I recommend people watch

Warren versus Matt total property debate Did we debate really we did? To be honest,

I don't even remember that we did. How'd it go Hudson? Tell me how it went if you want to come in and tell me how it went

Here's the link. I don't remember debating him. I'm sorry. I just don't Mm -hmm

Ex -mormon listen to some of your stuff years ago. Help me understand the truth of the lies They have been good grain to me. Praise God Jayden good for you

Praise God All right So Got a question up top

D so just tell me what your question is again because I have to go scrolling up there while things are moving and then

I can't find it and Then I have to say well, where is it? It's up there. Where is it? Just Repeat it and then that way

Is that it worked potentially saving rot for man, but done independent of an exterior to the individual

It is a work. Okay, Christ work in Calvary made atonement for every man, but did not save any man

No, he did not make atonement for every man I'll show you why Okay Therefore God speaking therefore.

I've sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquities of Eli's house Shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever

Oops, I show this to people and they it they stubbed their toe They stubbed their toe speaking of stubbed toes

We have bill Indian spice chibis Yeah, you know you debated

Warren about two years ago two and a half years ago how'd it go I don't recall He's a pelagius this guy's

You know, he was on the Chris Fisher after show give me a bad time to just talking smack about you

Yeah, they people do that all the time that's just a Baptist yeah Yeah, so what do you think of that debate then it wasn't teaches favoritism

Hold on DJ and I'll get to that answer in a sec. Go ahead. Go ahead bill. No, you definitely won that he's just His arguments were terrible

Okay, so let me go back on YouTube and check it out Yeah, our debate him again.

Maybe I would there's gonna be the next Pope the Antichrist. I don't know Okay, how would you respond to non -reform focus a

Calvinism teaches favoritism from God define what favoritism is? That's the key

Look the basics of the basics of the basics is first to find your terms What does it mean to show favoritism?

Well in Romans 2 11 God doesn't show favoritism. Well, he picked you over him. That's favoritism

Well, what's the biblical view of favoritism? I'll show you what the biblical view of favoritism is people just don't do their homework so much, you know for if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes and there also comes in a poor man in Dirty clothes and you pay special attention to the one who's wearing fine clothes and you say you sit here in a good place

And you say to the poor man you stand over there or sit down by my footstool Have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?

So this is the favoritism that's rebuked in Scripture Seeing a person as a quality or a characteristic

Good -looking rich, whatever. It might be tall Muscular has a nice car and you show favoritism because of a quality characteristic possessed by that individual

That's the favoritism that God negates. So when God chooses one person over another

He's not showing favoritism because it's not based on what's in them He is simply using his sovereign right to elect whom he desires for whatever reason he has

That's the answer. Okay. All right Hope that answers that who's gonna be the next pope you already got that Melissa Hi the current comment.

I think that is about it New comments, how do you argue thief on the cross getting saved when

Christ Church of Christ insists on baptism? It says he's under the Old Covenant the Old Covenant Doesn't work because Jesus died first They went to break the legs of the of the tooth of the thief of the murder

They broke the legs of them then they went to Christ. He was already dead. They didn't break his legs

So this means then that Jesus died first Which means then that the

New Covenant was now in effect because if you go to here, I'll show you laughter

Did he when he said a New Covenant? He's made the first obsolete

But wherever a is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear then in Romans 5 16 and 17

Okay For where a covenant is there must have necessity be the death of the one who made it first covenant, right?

For a covenant is valid only when men are dead for it is never enforced while the one who made it lives So this is an interesting verse to talk about but the point is that the

New Covenant was instituted when Jesus died Says Jesus died before the thief in the cross the thief in the cross died in the

New Covenant So it was not under the Old Covenant that he died. Okay? I'd said you realize

Calvinists were in the translation of the King James King JV, right? I don't know if that's true or not

Excellent. Why didn't you think of that our good? Thank you. You're welcome I'm not sure who's saying that to Calvinist translate the key or whatever.

Hello, Matt Can you give your perspective on the importance of Melchizedek Melchizedek in Hebrews?

7 is spoken of there Happen to be right there According to the order of Melchizedek So Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek was

Melchizedek in the Old Testament. Was he? Was he

Jesus Christ, I don't think so. Hey, I think he was a type of and a representation of that's what

I believe. So That's what I think, okay,

I don't know what else to say and so he's an important figure because he was a type of representation of Christ and Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

He was seven seven through ten talks about this. So he paid tithes to Melchizedek and So you can see right there

Okay so it demonstrates that the greater is blessed the greater blesses the lesser the lesser is blessed by the greater since He paid tithes

Let's see this case Okay, yeah here's but the lesser is blessed by the greater so what's going on is that is demonstrating

The great turn this of Melchizedek over Abraham and when the Jews appealed to Abraham as their great authority

What the writer of Hebrews is doing is showing? Well, Melchizedek is greater than him and Jesus is a priest after that order

Okay How can Christ be both King and priest if he if he would then have to be in the land of David and Aaron?

So in the genealogy one in Matthew one in Luke There's two genealogies and they come back.

They Verde they diverge diverge. Let me do this harm

To Gene G's Hope I didn't get that to what different genealogies

Matthew and Luke. It's been a long time. I've had to recall this one so Where'd it go?

There we go. All right there. All right. So let's see what we got here. Okay, so Where is it?

so From David is where the split occurs for the genealogy into Luke and Matthew and If you were to go here

You'd see The article I wrote on this years ago. What did

I write that back in 2008? all right, so So the question was

I've got to anchor these before I go on Here we go

How's both King and priest if he had to be have to bitman been the line of David and Aaron?

So I know but and Aaron but of David for sure and the genealogy supports that so there's not a problem there

Okay. All right. So let's try this one This karma believe they're justified by works or faith.

Well karm is a non alive website so Karm doesn't believe anything but the

The official position of the statement of faith found in the karm website is that we're justified by faith alone in Christ alone

Why is Satan let loose for a little while at the end of the Millennium and are we in his little season now?

Why is he let loose in order to deceive the nation's to bring people to war and destruction so that the gigantic?

I told you so in the day that you eat of the fruit you will die Genesis 2 17 That's what I believe is the answer for that one

All right Let's see. What are you arguing sovereignty doesn't need to be the King Joe. Okay, whatever

All right So Tristan, I'll tell you what I'll do. I will go and show you where the statement of faith is and Here we go

There we go, and you could check out the karm statement of faith if you're interested in fact everybody

Yeah, I'll show you why I went late and flowers such as wrong But this is the karm statement of faith

It trusted if you're interested check it out. If not, no big deal How does Calvinism lie with justified by faith in Christ because Calvinism teaches you're justified by faith in Christ.

That's what it says You're justified by faith Doesn't teach anything else.

That's how you believe. That's how you're justified by faith. You believe and you you're justified So that's it aligns with it because that's what it defends

Okay So the father gifts of Jesus are the ones who listen and learn that's not what it says.

I'll show you why There's problems with that position from different angles

But I'll just do the light version of this all that the father gives me will come to me It doesn't say all to come to me.

The father will give me That's late in flowers position The ones who listen and learn are the ones who come to Christ then before the father give them

That's not what it says all that the father gives me will come to me So that's that there's that all right

So Isn't God in control or doesn't he do what he wants?

Okay, so let me see if I can scroll back up So Tristan, I don't know if you are aware but we

Calvinists I don't know what your position is. I just Maybe you're Calvinist asking a question from somebody else

Yes, he does what he wants that's correct So we Calvinist don't deny free will we affirm free will we affirm?

Biblical free will not humanist free will Most Christians believe in humanist free will not biblical free will and they're shocked

So let me explain they'll try and you can all do this in your own minds You know, I'm gonna try and trick you

I do this all the time I say the same thing and so people who've heard me do this. They know what I'm gonna say I say

I'm gonna try and trick you. All right I'm gonna show you something. I say is free will this

That You have two options good and bad you can do good you can do bad and you're freely able to choose either one

No one's forcing you. It's up to you. Is that free? Well Yeah, people say yeah,

I said no, it's not free. Well Yes, it is. So no, it's not Because that means

God doesn't have free. Well because you said I said I'll trick you I said so it means you can do good or bad

Well, God has free will but he can't do bad. So now what are you gonna say? Does God not have free will?

See now we have to stop thinking about humanist philosophy And we had to start thinking about Bible based

God based thinking So in order to have free will defined biblically it has to be by God's nature

God's essence So free will is the ability to make a choice consistent with your nature.

God is holy He can only choose holy things So free will is the ability to make a choice consistent with your nature.

That's not forced on you Now that applies to everybody including God the first one

I did only applies to people So what they're doing is defining God on humanistic philosophical foundations instead of God himself and that's where the error begins because they're not

God centered or man centered without realizing it and so What we'll say is yeah, well the unbelievers perfectly free

He can't believe on his own He cannot receive spiritual things first Corinthians 2 14 his heart's desperately wicked deceitful

Jeremiah 17 9 He's a slave of sin Romans 6 14 through 20. He doesn't seek for God could do no good

Romans 3 10 11 and 12 He's by nature a child of wrath Ephesians 2 3 so I say how does someone like that?

Believe in God he's free He's only free to do what his nature Allows him to be free to do and his nature as a

Bible reveals about him. He's a hater God doesn't seek for God doesn't do any good Can't receive spiritual things can't understand him or see him.

Can't can't can't so He's free People that's not free.

Will yes, it is. Do you give me a better definition of free will that includes God? Don't use humanism as your philosophy don't use man -centeredness as your philosophy use

God because this way See the unbelievers free. No one's forcing him to reject

God. He's doing that of his own free will Okay All right

So we Calvinist don't reject free will we affirm biblical free will? Okay.

All right And if you guys want come in here to a stream yard if you want

I'll treat you nice. I'm not gonna get mad at you and all that kind of stuff. All right Most anti Calvinist, let's see.

I'll just put this here most anti Calvinistic Ignorantly confused human autonomy with volition.

Yeah, they do They often do that Especially in regards to the question of Calvinism. The issue is can man in himself through himself by his own power save himself natures?

No, but most Non -calvinist would say they don't save themselves They just put their faith their trust in Jesus and then they appropriate the by their own works their own faith

Appropriate the sacrifice to themselves They make the sacrifice of God Powerful when they do something and I just reject that.

Oh, I reject that. Yeah All right Is that what you're going to do with free will is then why punish them for doing that only their nature allows them to do?

Because it's a good question John Because it's what they choose to do freely of their own free will

That's why Now about this question because you got to understand something two things

One is this They're freely operating under their choices what they want and they're rejecting

God They're responsible for their own actions But there's an underlying Emphasis or underlying idea that's kind of woven

Notice what this question is if what they're doing is is what their free will is Why punish them for acting in their free will?

Well, that implies the idea that there needs to be a different kind of free will in order for fairness to exist

That's what the implication is in the question. So there's a hidden agenda in the question

And so I say to people this is what you're really getting at then Can you show me in Scripture any place where it says or implies?

That you must be able to have free will in a libertarian sense in order for God to be fair that's the question and So I asked people that and they're not able to to show it to me and then they often get mad

I don't want to get mad, but they sometimes do How about this question Will old and New Testament saints have to look forward to the judgment seat of Christ?

And will we have to give an account for all this? Yes Give it a count. Yes We will and yet we are not going to be judged for damnation by that But yeah, we're gonna have to face and suffer a reward or loss of reward on all of that.

Okay There's another let's see. What's another one do Calvinists believe? They're under grace or under law under grace

Okay All right, my cat may get up here any second here

Just to let you know He's a 20 -pound Russian Maine Coon Two and a half years old and he's a purebred was given to us long story

Thanks, Fred. If it's not a work because God grants it to us and it's not a work on his part as well

This is the work of God that you believe on him whom he has sent. This is John 6 29 okay

Right there. All right Come on big guy, come on Come on Here, I'll show you

I'll show him to you Yeah Come on, there we go

Come here Come on, big guy. Here we go. All right

Yeah, here we go There This is this is flopper.

He's a good cat Seeks get an idea how big he is He's still growing

Matt slick brother, which confession do you hold to? The one that's on karm

Okay, the statement of faith. That's the confession. I hold to all right Okay Are you kidding me

Matt cat? that's this is flopper and And So it cost a lot, but we didn't pay for him and here

I'll show you something Okay, come here. I'm gonna stretch out stretch out one stretch.

There you go stretch. There you go There you go

Stretch some more. There you go. He likes Open these and being biblical don't mesh together open theism is not biblical

No disrespect Matt, but doesn't it make us robots if we were only doing what our nature allows John Ford, let me ask you you have your nature

Did you ask that question freely if the answer is yes that refutes your response if the answer is no

Then what caused you to answer the question? chemical reactions

Okay Trying to get out of here get back there we go.

Oh, there we go Yeah Yeah, he's a big cat

All right. There's Joanne. Oh and get my hand on the mouse here in a second Okay flopper.

I gotta go Okay Come on big guy Come on, he's a

Russian Maine Coon purebred and We had a guy walk in here once This guy's fixing our furnace or something and he goes what the heck is that?

All right, um All right now Joanne's in here, okay, so any other questions my cat beat up your

Floppers a Calvinist. Yes. He's got five claws So yeah, he's a he's a

Calvinist I Said wants to argue open theism.

Okay, come on in open open or argue. I'll ask a question I'll ask a difficult question. No open theist can answer.

I Mean no open theist can answer because they're open theism prevents it. I Have a question that you can't answer as open theist yet to leave open theism in order to answer it if you want

All right I was hoping the anti -Calvinist would come in. I do appreciate the questions and You know for those

I think some for might not be a Calvinist or something like that I and I'm trying to be very respectful to you and not angry at you and if you have questions, that's fine

You could ask difficult questions if you want and that's fine, you know, no big deal

We live under grace. Then why do you consider ourselves Calvinist if that was a man -made claim and not biblical term?

The I'm a Trinitarian not a biblical term. I'm a monotheist not a biblical term

Okay I'm a non sacerdotalist. That's not a biblical term

I'm an amillennial list not a biblical term Okay, so there's lots of non biblical terms that we use to assign to theological perspectives in order to have a shorthand

So if I say to you that it's pinna contemporaneous Well, what am

I saying? I'm saying that there are some events either two or more that are happening at the same time

So we have words like esoteric Hidden from the majority and understood by a few

Okay Fenestrate to take a building and furnish the building with windows

Fenestration so you see we use words as shorthands for definitions and other things

So that's what we say Calvinist five -pointer Reformed that's all okay, and whether or not the word is there isn't the issue.

The question is is The concept there I'm going to show you guys something

I'm going to show you something It may be a real surprise to a lot of you I'm going to show you where Jesus taught the five points of Calvinism All right,

I'm going to show you where Jesus taught the five points of Calvinism And you may say he did not teach it.

He did not Well, let's find out. All right Let's find out.

I'm going to share this page and Let's see stop screen share present

Share the screen and I'm going to go over to a Window go right there and share the screen

Did Jesus teach tulip here check this out total depravity? Which is a teaching that were touched by sin and all of what we are

And he was saying that which proceeds out of the man That is what defiles the man or from within out of the heart of man precede the evil thoughts

Fornications theft murders adulteries deeds of coveting wickedness as well as deceit sensuality evil slander pride foolishness all of these things proceed from within and defile the man and Even so every good tree bears good fruit, but bad trees bear bad fruit.

This is that's total depravity Unconditional election, which means that God chose to save you not based on anything in you

But I and what's in him no one can come to me and as a father who sent me draws him I'll raise him up on the last day and he was saying for this reason like that's not

Make that non red For this reason I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it's been granted to him from the father

Whoa, then why doesn't God grant it to everybody as soon as he was alone his followers along with the twelve began

Asking about the parables and he was saying to them to you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God But those who are outside get everything in parables in order that while seeing they may see and not perceive and while hearing

They may hear and not understand lest they return and be forgiven So he's hiding this the truth from people.

He says all things have been handed over to me by my father No one knows the son except the father nor does anyone know the father except the son and to anyone to whom?

The son wills to reveal him That means the choice of Christ to reveal him to you

Friday not come down from heaven or I came down from heaven not to do my own will But the will of him who sent me and this is the will of you of him who sent me at all that he's given me

I lose nothing raise it up on the last day But this is the will of my father that everyone who beholds the son and believes in him have eternal life

And I myself will raise him up the last day limited atonement which teaches Jesus only bore the sins of the

Christians the elect the sheep Remember there's two people groups sheep and goats the goats go to hell

I'm the Good Shepherd the Good Shepherd lays his life down for Who? the sheep but you do not believe because you are not of my sheep and All the nations will be gathered before him.

He'll separate from one another as the Shepherd separates from the sheep and the goats Irresistible grace which means at regeneration.

That's what it means regeneration That when you may to be born again, you can't resist the God the grace of God It does not mean people mistakenly think it does not mean

That God's gracious to you, you know two years ago. You resisted him. That's not what it means It means every gender at being born again a regeneration

He said to them follow me and I'll make you fishers of men and they immediately left their nets and followed him So he chose them right?

Okay, and as for I guess some other verses In fact, I'm gonna update this one

All the father gives me shall come to me and I will never cast out and I need to put in here first Peter 1 3 he has caused us to be born again and John 1 12 and 13 which says as many as receives him to them he gave the right to be called the children of God those who were born not of the flesh or the will of Man, but of God not of their own will but God made them born again

I know we have perseverance of the Saints I've could never have not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me

This is the will of him who sent me that all he's given me. I lose nothing So the will the father is that Jesus lose none

I could expand on these more but you see yeah. Hey, look at that He actually did

Teach the five points. Let's get to Jim and Ben Hey, you're on Hey, can you hear me?

Yes, I can. Yeah. Oh very good. Very good Um, I was just wondering if you can maybe touch on your thoughts on equal ultimacy and Just how that might relate potentially to some of the scriptures have gone over and maybe

Romans 9 if you want to get into that Yeah, equal ultimacy Ladies and gentlemen is the idea that God equally predestined people to damnation and to help

I mean it's salvation and damnation All right. So what I want to do is go in to My Bible program again.

I have to get it here Okay, let's do this Come on, where are you?

There you go. All right window. Let's see if it does that And oh, I'm gonna cancel this and come back open.

Sorry so we can get into Romans 9 I can show Here we go there, there we go.

All right, so And Romans 9, all right So equal ultimacy deals with God equally predestined people to damnation and to salvation

There's debate on this even among Calvinists to what extent if at all is this done?

Some say that what God does is he only actively Predestined people for salvation and lets the others go to hell

But he doesn't force them or cause them and in that sense He's not predestining them by an action of his own, but they are simply going there so that's one side of the view the other view kind of moves over towards no

God is actually working it so they go to hell and Generally what you could do for that Support of that is for example, you can go to Proverbs 16

For the Lord has made everything for its own purpose Even the wicked for the day of evil now

God made them for this purpose interesting When you go to Romans 9

We can go to It was a skip ahead Here does not the

Potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel

For honorable use another for common use what have God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power nor known

It's gonna be endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and he did so To make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory so it and he did so is not in the

Greek and Yet, it's implied because of this I believe which he prepared

We know that he specifically intervened in individuals and elected them for salvation. You go to Ephesians 1 for Rome and Acts 9, you know, he intervened in the life of of Paul the

Apostle and chose him and made him believe so So in the equal ultimacy side some people use this to say

God actively predestined certain people to hell So I'm not sure what to believe

I'm just not not convinced any one of them is true. I think there's truth in both of them

So what I say is if God just lets people go their natural way, that's fine if he absolutely

Creates people for the purpose of destruction. That's his business. He could do what he wants if someone wants to say that's wrong

Then please show me The universal moral standard by which you then make a judgment like that Show me that because what people often do when they object to Stuart a biblical teaching or potential biblical teaching is they'll say it's wrong

Why is it wrong because I say so Well, God would never do that He wouldn't well, how do you know?

I mean look at Romans 9. There's evidence to support that position Is it really what it means?

Well, it's a debate, but there's it can be used Legitimately he prepared them for destruction

Okay right there. So Okay, so it seems to support equal ultimacy

I know well that's not right Here's a point about incidentally about Romans 9 People object to this kind of stuff

It's not fair there's no injustice with God is there he loved one and hated another that's not right

You'll say but then why'd you still find fault? what's happening is the

Paul is He's writing and then raising an objection, but you're gonna say that's not right.

Who are you to answer back? And that's the thing You'll say to me. Why does he'll still find fault for who resists his will on the contrary?

Who are you? To talk back to God. He can do what he wants with this creation. And that's what

I say to people If you're gonna tell me that it's wrong for God to do that. Okay, then why is it wrong?

Don't just give me an opinion You show me from some Supernatural authority about what universal morality is by which you can then say that's the case

Otherwise you need to sit down and and just not raise your hand anymore because you don't have the ability to refute

Scripture and you don't have the ability to then ask to support the idea that your particular worldview or Question or view of righteousness is the right one

Now I'm not saying one of the other views is right I'm saying that if you want to say that something just has to be this way the only standard of universal

Moral truth that we have to go on is revealed in Scripture so you have to show that to me in the scriptures and if you can't then you don't have an argument and you're just arguing out of the

Depravity of your own heart say what God ought to do and that's that's bad. You see why

I say that? Okay, hope that answers that question Jim I Just to be clear.

I myself do believe in that again. I think there's potentially different understandings of equal ultimacy that are out there.

I think they'll have a commonality but There are there are I've looked at some definitions that I've looked at like, okay, that's not what

I agree with but I think it's even goes further than some of the definitions I've seen sometimes but the concept of equally alternate active unconditional is

Exactly what I see Romans 9 showing and I'll even take it so far as to say that I don't even see how it's possible to understand what

Paul is saying without Understanding that it's all unconditional I Could I certainly appreciate that I'd lean towards that view a lean

Yep So someone says what Calvinist Bible are you reading today, Matt? I'm not reading a

Calvinist Bible. I'm reading the Bible Hudson I prefer the New American Standard Bible.

It's not a Calvinist Bible. It's just Translation I can use the King James if you want.

I can use the ESV if you want doesn't matter Anyway, and he's read somewhere that if you could see evil in the hearts of men the way or thrice

Holy God does weed quake. Yeah, that's true. I believe that So anyway,

Jim praise God good Well If I could just bring this up, too I mean

I know RC Sproul has an article and he has some older videos that have talked about equal Ultimacy and he points to paints in a very negative light and specifically when one of his articles that addresses it he talks about how

Under this view. It's saying that God is the author of sin and degeneration Versus on the side of what he would call the elect versus reprobate on the elect side would be

The author basically goodness and regeneration versus on the other side of a reprobation that's

Degeneration and sin and and that's sort of the big boogeyman is God can't be the author of sin

But I would just look at Isaiah 45 and the King James and it says God, you know creates evil

No, but that's that's 45 6 and what that but in the word There is raw.

God can't create ontological evil because it's contrary to his nature. What's going on?

There is a juxtaposition He says he's the creator of of Take me go to it.

I'll show you what's going on Isaiah 45 7 one forming light and creating darkness

So this is leading to the issue of the understanding of that Forming light and creating darkness.

So he's talking about opposites here Causing well -being and creating

Calamity because the word raw can be used that way and it can occur and it does occur in many different oops

Instances favored adversity ill affliction sore Grievous and things like that so that's how we understand it because it would seem to be very very problematic to say that God is

Creating something that is by nature evil in itself then he would be the author and the cause of evil and that's

That certainly presents a logistical problem. Okay. I mean

I hear what you're saying on Isaiah 45 Because there definitely is a contrast between peace and evil in that passage

I make peace and create evil. Those are obviously contrasted But that being said it has to be pointed out that sin in and of itself is a non peaceful thing

It's enmity with God. It's the opposite of peace and even in this context It's about Cyrus who is doesn't like verse 1 to subdue nations before him and I will loose the loins of Kings to open before him the two lead gates and the gates shall

Not be shut. I will go before thee and make The crooked places straight I will break in pieces the gates of brass and cut and sundered the bars of iron

So the context is war and you can't have war without something simple going on Either from the attackers perspective or the defenders perspective or both war is it comes from our lusts

As James says, you know why there's war it's because of the lust of man I Would probably argue more on the side that Cyrus was doing

The right thing at this time but Even if somehow it wasn't I was still ordained of God for him to do that.

So I Don't see how you could you know escape sin from not being included in that evil and also like you were saying

A lot of stuff. Are you saying then that God actually created a creature that is by definition in nature evil

Um, I would say that that's how we're all created Okay Okay, so You're okay.

So let me ask you again evil. You know what evil is Satan is evil.

Okay, Satan is evil. We're fallen Sure. All right. So there's a difference

He's certainly fallen but he has an ontological nature now that is just evil. Did God create him like that?

No, of course. He was originally created good But okay, so saying that Absolutely God created him evil

So he did not create Satan as an evil being but he's evil now So are you saying that God creates people as evil beings?

Well, I would just say like we're evil now, so we had to be created as such

So are you saying that God creates us as evil beings? I Don't see how that couldn't be the case

Okay, so let me ask you another question are you saying that God created us as evil beings Yes Okay.

So do you have any scripture that shows that he's created us? ontologically evil

I think the you would just simply go to the passage and talk about the gods a creator man and you look at Romans 3

About none that seeks after God all gone out of the way. There's something to do with good. No, not one

Therefore we're created evil Okay, like manges, so how would you define evil?

That which is contrary to the law of God Okay. So when

I think of something I shouldn't think of am I then evil? Yes So I'm evil in my heart and my nature by by nature

Even though I'm redeemed born again and made a new creature Yeah, so in the case of a saint he has the flesh as well as the spirit

You know the old man of a new man, so we get we get both Packages of that, you know righteousness as well as evil our flesh is evil or spirit is good

So I think we're talking about evil in a different sense. I talk I say ontological evil.

I mean the maximum Nature of what evil is He doesn't create God God doesn't create us like that and there's a question here we don't have an answer to How is it that our soul is propagated?

Is it created by God specifically or does it? Propagate through this the sperm and egg coming together and God works it and we don't know

There are different views on that. I just think it's difficult to to say that God creates evil

Then you're saying he's the author of evil itself. And this is very problematic. I think you should back up from that Well, let's assess it.

Let me let me help maybe clarify that a little bit Hello I'm gonna

I need to use a rest. I think I lost there for a moment. Can you hear me? That's okay yeah, I'm gonna still listen

I use the restroom because I just use the restroom and I'm gonna mute myself, but Just keep talking cuz

I'll hear you Okay, sounds good Um Well, I would say like your one's flesh is ontologically evil

I would also say that Because yes, it's true that there's natural processes as to how

Human beings come in to existence like the sperm the egg for example But what

I would also say is that's Utterly controlled by God. It's not like I don't believe it's it's sort of this

Deist like perspective where guy kind of winds up the universe or winds up a natural phenomenon and it just lets that Go its course without God's done

Continuous intervention or intervention but continuous action upon it Like I don't know

I would say the natural universe the phenomenon that we're saying is all continuously moved by God It is what basically that that reality as it comes is continually craving created by God, so that would be the

Consistent, you know sovereignty perspective that natural phenomenon actually in the ultimate sense is supernatural

Phenomenon because it's controlled created maintained, you know, everything about it is is of God Otherwise, let me get this great.

So you're saying that God creates everything each second Yes That's a

Muslim view. It's not the Christian view. I mean

We could just look at you know, the fact that God creates all things No, no, no. No God created something and it's in motion.

He doesn't recreate the entire universe every second That's a

Muslim view There's logical problems with it. Then he means well creating evil all the time.

So it doesn't work So I think you need to work on that one as well. Okay Why hold on there's some guys and I want to talk to some guys in the chat

Because there's some open theists in here now, so I want to get to okay I think you should study upon a little bit more.

All right, okay

You know, so Warren's here we'll come on in if you want and here is the

URL to come in So, you know, I was hoping that you know, they would come in we have a nice little dialogue if they want

And they can say that whatever they want to say and then we can talk I've heard

Calvinists are cranky but compared to their minions out there y 'all a bunch of meanie faces Yeah Interesting Okay, so so what's my question

I'm going to ask Hudson what is it What's the one question

I can ask Well, there's several questions, but what's the one question I asked that open theists just just can't answer they have to avoid the question and To get out of it.

How do they what is it? Because he said he knew I was talking to him.

So Hudson Hudson Look, I'm and I don't know what the problem is.

If you don't want to talk to me, I understand but You know, I don't have to I Could have any okay.

Oh He's right the atonement. So here's the question that open theists can't answer Now notice what first Peter 224 says he bore our sin in his body on the cross

Who's the hour? Who's the hour oh You are

Well, it's the people who lived right? Okay. What about the people in the future?

Did he bear their sins? How could he know which people were going to exist and what sins to to bear to impute to Christ There a question because an open theism

God can make mistakes. He can make false prophecies He can goof and he doesn't know because of free will

People's free will which they don't understand what free will is. It means then that that God Can't know who's gonna be born

Because he doesn't know if Betty's gonna like Frank how many kids are gonna have Yes, no, it's gonna happen.

So they can't answer the question. How is it then our sins are imputed to Christ? So that's a specific issue and I've asked this of open theists normally what they'll do

I'm not trying to be dismissive but normally what they'll do is Say it's not a good question

Why isn't a good question because I quoted the scriptures related to it first Peter 2 24 bore our sin.

What does it mean? Explain what it means and it and they'll do that and they really can't defend their position least my experience.

Maybe someone here can Or how then is the atonement what it is it what does it mean to be propitiated?

Which sins are being imputed generic sin What's a generic sin is there an ontological essence to adultery that's out there in the universe and God takes that Nailed it to the cross or is it

Frank who committed adultery that sin is dealt with specifically Which is it?

This is the question. I Challenge open theist to answer Let's see if they can in fact what

I'm going to do Is open my document on open theism? And I do outlines on all kinds of topics.

This is a very short document on open theism It's only how many oh, it's longer than I thought it was

Okay Come on, get down here. Come on. I'll see how many pages it is

And It'll tell you here in a second I'm still working on it. And oh, we're gonna add.

Oh, it's 38 pages Okay, 38 pages. So What I could do is open this document up and I have it open and in this question this area

I would love to have responses to it so that I could Write it down so I can accurately represent what they say.

That's what I want to do So if any open theist wants to try and answer that question

Okay, first Peter 2 24 All right, hold on So it says in first Peter 2 24 that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross

All right. So what does it mean? To bear our sins. That's question one question two

If he doesn't know the free will choices people are going to make how will he know which individual sins people are going to make

To bear have Christ bear. So that's my question two questions and If you're able to answer it,

I would love to have a response and I would put that in my notes anybody anybody

Guess I could wait a little bit Yeah questions, I have lots of questions and all kinds of stuff

And we could talk about decrees and Various things, okay

Anyway, I'm hoping I'm hoping that What will happen is that people will respond instead of?

becoming Vituperative All right. Hey Daniel, you'd want to say something

Joanne Oh, she just left Anybody waiting

Okay, hey there's Dan hey Dan nice picture looking good

Thanks you too good to see you again So are you what's your theological perspective?

I'm sorry. I don't remember you if we've talked before So we actually had a discussion on standing for truth on Donny's channel

Okay we discussed limited atonement there, but Yeah So I'm not an open theist.

So if You know, I don't qualify to answer your questions. That's certainly fine. But your questions were interesting to me.

So sure Yeah No problem, are you a

Calvinist or not? I don't recall no, no, I'm a classic Arminian But I certainly hold that God knows the future and some some form of Middle knowledge or knowledge of what people would choose under various circumstances

Right counterfactuals, of course you would Yeah, it's a I mean there's just enough passages on that sort of thing that God knows

What would happen over here or over there? I think probably Yeah where we might disagree on passages like that would be

You know if if they're via libertarian free choices versus I guess compatible free choices maybe it's one way to say it, but But the basic idea that God knows what would happen under other circumstances

To me there's that's pretty hard to to get around Actually, there's been around it

I affirm it as a Calvinist. Yeah. Yeah. So there's one that's actually interesting.

It's Well, there's several interesting ones but the the one in Exodus where God is talking to Moses before he hardens

Pharaoh's heart and he says that He knows that Pharaoh wouldn't let the

Israelites go unless compelled by a mighty hand I think that's

Exodus 319 okay, I wonder if what you think of that passage and do you think it has an impact on the whole narrative of hardening and What happened with the

Exodus I'd have to read it in context to see what's going on.

I don't have any notes on it. But if I were to Whoa, darn it.

There we go. There. Let me go to Exodus 319 319 but I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go except under compulsion.

Okay So I'll stretch out my hand and strike Egypt. Okay, so I okay so perfectly

It's I love this kind of stuff. It's not a problem in Calvinism. So I'm not sure what the challenge is okay, so For starters, do we agree that at least some other circumstances if not a wide variety of them

God knows what would have happened, right? so let's say for example okay, because The the exception clause so except under compulsion, right and so presumably

I mean, why does God know what will happen in different circumstances? Oh Okay.

Well, oh, that's a tough question That's the important question, well, how is it what must be the case for counterfactuals to be true?

So that's a great question and I would say that In a case like this, you know,

I think part of it is is Pharaoh's character Because this just seems to show that Pharaoh is a very stubborn guy

But it The problem with that is it seems like Is that going to be absolute, you know, like that it just you know can't

See in order for counterfactuals to be true there has to be a condition in which their actuality or potentiality exists so what what is it about a counterfactual that has

This actionability, it's not the right word, but that it could be the case if We what you and I would agree.

I hope that it would not be that these events these counterfactuals are independent from God right

No, God would In those alternative circumstances, even those things don't happen like okay, let's say

I don't know he offers Pharaoh a bunch of camels Right, so Pharaoh would say no because he's not gonna let him go in a compulsion

So that circumstance of a bunch of camels that never happened, but God still knows it Right, but why?

No, it's a serious issue. It's a serious issue people talk about counterfactuals and I want them to think it through Not that I've got it all down.

I'm not saying I do what must be the case in order for counterfactuals to be true Counterfactual true doesn't mean it's actualized but it's true under certain conditions

What must be before all of that in order for that to occur to be the case? so God has to Obviously still have created

Pharaoh under those circumstances Sustained his existence enabled his free will all that other stuff that goes along with what

God does in the normal world Would have had to have been in place in That scenario as well the scenario of Pharaoh with the camels.

Okay. Well, let me let me give an illustration We got a piece of paper here Okay, I'll use as a piece of paper

Okay, it's perfectly flat got no crinkles on it. All right, there it is piece of paper and It's purely white and there's a dot in the middle and that's

God It's okay. Nothing else that exists. The white just means nothing else exists

It's what we do it in pencil not ink But in pencil we draw squiggly lines out from the dots neat squiggly lines of potentiality a potential

Timeline of universe events. Okay, and we could draw a chameleon and we just draw a lot and roll in pencil

So all of those are counterfactuals Right all but one

Right, all of them are counterfactuals because he hasn't decreed anything yet as an actuality

So all of them are counterfactuals in the mind of God before he brings any one of them into existence so all of the

Potentiality that exists exists because it's in the mind of God and there's these different you could like that That could be like this could be like that.

It's really squiggly lines That's those are the representations of God's mind and is these are all potentialities or actor.

They are counterfactuals They're not existing yet but the reason all of those can only exist as counterfactuals because They work in God's mind and every detail related to any counterfactual is dependent upon him

You see so Okay, let's see if I can Them using that model.

So you got the dot in the center that represents God and the squiggly lines So on a libertarian view what is gonna happen is those those squiggly lines are themselves gonna branch out

And so what you have is what God can do himself Those are all the things closest to the dot are gonna be what

God does himself like create sustain Providence all that stuff But then the branching points are gonna be what he can enable us to do without having actually created us

He still can he can he can enable me to wear a white shirt or a blue shirt and you know that there you go

So the counterfactuals are all under God's sovereignty, aren't they? Because yes

Want to say any counterfactual free will choice is independent or autonomous So, okay the that always trips me up is the word sovereignty because I Mean, I think of sovereignty as a king, you know

God's rule In that sort of thing. So but you seem to be using it maybe in a more extensive sense or something

I'm not sure what you mean by sovereignty But do you mean that you know God is king of the universe

He can do sovereignty means he has the right and the capability of doing whatever he desires anytime anywhere with anybody anything oh

That's Different. Okay. Yeah, so maybe I Yeah, I don't agree with that.

So could God have commanded us to hate Christ instead of love him No, because he can't violate his own nature and his nature is holy

And so is it possible that his commands are a reflection of his character? Of course, they are

Jesus says in Matthew 12 34 out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, but God can't lie

There's not no condition no counterfactual in which God would command where God would lie

Okay That's Good so, okay I'm glad you clarified that I appreciate understanding that because when you first said it

I was worried that like You were you were saying it more like look I can just do anything. Well, there's

There's anything within his nature or basically anything. There you go. Good. Good. Yeah.

Yeah okay, so Again, it comes down to Can God Create us and sustain us in a way that we make

Choices between a blue shirt and red shirt. He does I mean, right so Yeah, those choices to me.

They represent branches on this squiggly lines that are coming out now So now circling back to this verse one of those squiggly lines come up coming out here is you know?

the the scenario where Pharaoh is offered a bunch of camels to let the

Israelites go and but God knows somehow That Pharaoh won't do that Yes Instead Pharaoh would refuse in that circumstance now it never happens

But for some reason he knows no it's gonna take the plagues You know, I'm gonna have to hit him with ten plagues over the head.

Otherwise he won't Do you agree won't he well in part

Obviously, I think it comes down to his choice But God knows what that choice would be and why does that you know what the choice is gonna be?

Well, right because he's God I mean Yeah, I don't know.

Okay, that's a great question, but I don't think I have an answer because okay

But I can we can talk about this and why he knows these choices So let me exaggerate in a bad way.

You're not guilty of this I'm not accusing you of this in any way and we're just having a conversation.

I'm just trying to illustrate So let's just say that God knows things because he looked into the future to see what they're gonna do

Then the implication with that is God learns That's a problem. I'd open theist would say that but that's a problem.

Okay for us Because in the mind of God all actual all potentialities exist.

I don't want to say infinitely I don't know if that's an if if it's a necessity in the mind of God with an infinite number of possibilities but I'll just use that and There's an infinite number of possibilities that God Decrees and that you know,

I chose this black shirt today. You've chose the blue one. Okay So maybe there's a universe where I chose the blue and you chose the black

And if that's the case, why is it the case? Is it the case because God? She's going.

Well, let's see. What's she gonna? Oh, he's gonna do that. Oh, I figured it out That's not what's happening.

Open theist would say that but not us Why is it that you chose blue and I choose black because God is the proximate cause of all events so I Want to defend myself, but before I do

I want to understand you. So yeah, so let's say let's say God decreed

Dan wear a blue shirt and Matt wear a black shirt Has God?

Learned now that Dan will wear a blue shirt and Matt a black shirt. Nope Okay, so why is he learning?

if He eternally foreknows

Dan will freely choose a black shirt and Matt will freely choose I'm sorry, Dan will freely choose a blue shirt and Matt will freely choose a black shirt

But he's not it doesn't have foreknowledge really means Biblically now, I'm not sure about this.

But what I've seen of foreknowledge in God is not reactionary but causatory

I Can show you why I say that I may be wrong But I think

I'm onto something here seeing that but the reason and God can't learn you would you would agree, right? He doesn't learn about anything

So He doesn't know. Okay good, but but but so when we when we talk about learning

It's almost like there's information out there that the person doesn't know and then they become aware of it and then they understand it, right?

So there's nothing like that with God God's That I'm not saying there's this it seems like that you'd say that there's some basis like the the scriptural language for God's Knowledge usually is is sight now.

I understand that's anthropomorphic But there's probably something backstopping it in what's going on, but we you know, what's going on in?

You know God's mind is gonna be a mystery to us. But but okay So my point is like let's take sight my sight, you know,

I see, you know Whatever. I see this glass. So my sight is being impacted by the glass

It seems that acted means shoved into a small compact area you mean it's being affected

Okay, it's affected by the glass now. God doesn't have Physical eyes because he's a spirit but It might be okay to say that God's Basis of knowledge of the glass is

The glass because normally knowledge is about Facts out there, right?

It's not, you know knowledge is in the noggin and the facts are out there and But the knowledge is based on the facts

But I would say that knowledge is that a truth is what corresponds to the mind of God and we have true knowledge when whatever we believe

Corresponds to what God has revealed Therefore we have knowledge Revealed Well, yeah because you know like Jesus the only way that truth in life

We don't know that unless he reveals it he did because he knows all things so God doesn't increase in knowledge

So his knowledge is absolute and so whatever he reveals to us is just automatically true and authoritative.

That's just the way it is Right, but Yes Okay, so Why is that glass sit on a table all actualities and all events

Exist in the context of a causal chain that goes back to the single uncaused cause

God So the glass the glass in your table It's right and so every event and every fact

It proves God's existence Because you can't have an infinite set of independent occurrences

It violates the laws of logic actual infinites versus potential infinites gets into some logical problems

I'm not gonna get you too logical about all this But anyway, the thing is well, how does God know a counterfactual the only raised way?

He knows a counterfactual because he knows all things He knows what will happen in this condition in that condition in that condition because he knows everything

This is it's what's all absolutely known eternally from God Which means that any condition he wants to affect?

He can do from eternity past and he could sit there inside of our your world in my world He could right now he could appear in your room or my room right now if he wanted and we'd be on our face

Weeping take a couple weeks to recover. You know this kind of thing, you know, which I'd be I'd love that if it happened and He could do that and he can do what he wants with us

And so that's why the glass is there the same way because God can do what he wants he's the sovereign

King Here's the thing I've noticed about false religious systems. They always exalt man and demote

God You're not doing that but they exalt man man's free will man's ability man's

Counterfactual abilities and God has to be restricted some way somehow That's always is the case

That's why I like Calvinism because it doesn't do that one of the reasons I like it. I've been interrupting.

Of course, go ahead No, actually, I was I was interested in something you said earlier You said that you thought you've seen some passages in the

Bible that seem to indicate that knowledge is Causative if I heard you correctly for no one for knowledge is causative.

I wanted to explore that a little bit What the what text did you have in mind? All right.

Here. Let me share my screen again. I said I'm working on this thinking this

It's not like I've settled it I'm going you know what? I think there's something here. So let me share my screen again and see what you think

Not that's it. That's not it Okay, okay, there we go So look at this for those whom he foreknew he also predestined

The four known ones are the same group as the predestined ones Great so there's a

Causative relationship here. No, I haven't got what's all worked out. So if you ask me a difficult question,

I go that's a good question That's a good point. I'm gonna write that down in my notes and think about it. Okay, so For those of me for new the four known ones are only the are the predestined ones

Not it does not say of everybody out there in the future He knew in the counterfactual realm who would pick him so he predestined them.

That's not what's going on Those to me foreknew he also predestined now watch this

I never knew you Okay. Ah for no Never knew you right at that time when you did not know

God you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods but now you've come to know God or Rather to be known by God.

Okay. Here's this word here and It's from a gnosis. Okay, but it's it's this word

From gnosko. Okay, that's the root. All right, so we go to For no, if I remember correctly,

I don't embarrass myself here, but it's from prognosco right so it's gnosko, but just for so this is what

I Concluded and I'm still working on this is that when

God for knows a person it means are saved That's how he uses the phraseology

That's that's what I'm saying because so never I never know you

Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Good. They They will be saved but I guess one challenge

I'd have for that is Doesn't that make predestination a bit redundant?

I can see why you say that I never thought of that that way It kind of makes it redundant. I Could see why you'd say that Except that it would it?

Okay. Let me here's my answer to that okay, and Okay, now please understand

I'm not trying to talk down to you I'm only asking the question are you familiar with federal at all

Yes, that's the idea of Representation but Christ is the federal head of believers.

Yeah. Oh Very good. Very good. Very good. So just as he that's the father

Chose us. That's the elect in Him that's federal headship

Christ, right? Okay, I'm following you. So What I believe about this is that the choosing and being in him

Or election and being in him Have to work together They cannot work apart

What I mean by that is so Jesus is a federal head. This is okay. I'm gonna talk from my

Calvinist perspective. Okay? But if you don't accept it, all right So God the

Father elected certain individuals and gave him to the Son for safekeeping Jesus only came to redeem them.

That's what I believe now If that's the case he the Father chose us the elect in him

Jesus The in him is his representation The choosing can't occur without in him

The in him can't occur without the choosing You can't have the choosing for salvation without Christ being involved

You can't have salvation of Christ without certain people being redeemed

That's how I see them Interrelated. So when we go to this issue of Those before new

Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. Let me repeat that back. Make it sure I understood Sure, so we're chosen in Christ and that shows the the union of the choosing in the cross

But I guess headship and federal headship. Yes in federal headship, but my guess I guess my question would be this so It seems that the cross

In union with Christ would have to be the foundation of election in that case so You know, so it kind of like step one would be

Christ is the foundation of salvation step two These folks are elect in Christ but that's the opposite of limited atonement, which is the idea that Christ came to die just for the elect

Because rather it's the other way around They're elect because Christ died not

Christ died because they're elect. All right. Good now I'm going to introduce a concept called logical priority versus temporal priority

Sure, you familiar with those Yes, yes, I am like like Eternal generation of the

Sun or so, whatever the case might be. Yeah, right and that you're absolutely correct So for those who don't know you turn this is a quick illustration

Lot of temporal priority as you turn the light switch on electricity enters the light five seconds later light shows up So it's temporally different one is prior to the other temporally logical priority says they happen at the same time

But one is the cause of the other electricity is the cause of the light not like the cause of the electricity

So they're simultaneous, but one is logically prior That's what I'm saying here. Is that the election and representation of Christ?

there's a lot one is logically prior in that the election of God must be there and And the and because of election the the cross must be there in order for them to be

Not elected but redeemed But if if we're elected in him, it seems that our union with Christ is logically prior to our election

Yes, and it says Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world and it also says we died with Christ when he was crucified so but then when

If Christ being the logical if Christ comes logically first Christ being the foundation of salvation comes logically first then

The the decree of you know, the cross the plan of the cross There was no let elect in a logical order because that only comes second after Christ is already established as the foundation of salvation.

No, it's all simultaneously eternal Yeah, okay. Yeah once you get to time, yes, but it but in terms of Logic priority it would only seem like if we're elected in Christ and Christ must have been the foundation first And he's the elect one first and then we become the elect ones because we're united to him

Except that's a temporal priority. But if you're but it could be the case what you're saying and It could be the case.

So I'm still working through all this you see I'm still working on this Yeah, okay, so I should I should hear you out.

So, okay, so let me so you're saying if I'm hearing you correctly you're saying You're using for knowledge in some of those other passages you brought up.

I Was like, yeah, of course knowledge definitely means love in some context like Adam knew his wife or whatever

So I think I understand Where you're coming from there?

So to me now the next question is is for knowledge does for knowledge work the same way because You know

You once you add a prefix to a word it doesn't necessarily not the semantic range can can change like a

Forehead right my forehead. Yeah, right. It doesn't have the same Semantic ranges head like I'm gonna head out west

But I'm not gonna forehead out west right like so right once you put the prefix pro in front of the nose go does that constrict the semantic range

Or does it leave it that broadly? I don't know it could it's good. No, you're doing great, man

You're really thinking this through. I love that you're asking exactly the right questions I think you're predestined to be

Calvinist pretty soon. I can't help it say that. I'm sorry Well, all right

I'm having fun. All right. Okay. Look so here's here's the six places where for no

Prognostico occurs right here So, uh, I don't think you can read that I can make the screen bigger.

I can make these things bigger if you want I think I got it. I think I got it. Okay. Yeah, so the first one is

Put it up here. I'll make this bigger up this way so that I Think that'll make it bigger.

Let me see. Come on. There we go That good. Can you read that one up there? Yes. Yes So x 16 5 since they have known about me for a long time if they're willing to testify

All right, so that usage doesn't really help us because it's a different context different type, right?

Yeah, so it's probably talking the Pharisees knew about Paul It can be it can be before but yeah, so yeah, it's a type of Knowledge before but it's it's almost talking about knowledge in the past in that case.

But yes, because it's in it's in the the Present participle interesting.

Wow, that's really interesting so the present active participle draws its tense from the

Word that comes from before know my manner my youth which is from the beginning is spent Sorry, I get it's an interesting thing.

I'll go into it later. All right Okay, so here then we have Romans 8 29 those to be foreknew and then we have

Romans 11 to God has not redacted his people whom he foreknew Now that's talking about Israel.

I say then God has not rejected his people has he may never be I believe it's national Israel Okay, I agree

Okay, I to him an Israelite a descendant of Abraham a tribe of Benjamin. God has not redacted his people whom he foreknew so, so I Would think that's okay.

So like relative to the time of the writing God knew Israel Before that time so like that's during Paul's day, but in the

Old Testament times God Knew Israel so in that sense it's for knowledge.

It's a little different It's not like knowing the futures per se, right? So I think there's a little causativeness in it in his foreknowledge

He's not rejected his people whom he foreknew because we know he chose them the foreknown is

Okay, that's fair. I think I got your point. Okay. All right, that's fair. Okay good

And how about this one those whom he has foreknown before the foundation of the world? Let me get back to the context a little bit

Christ Yeah, exactly as of a lamb blemished. He's foreknown The foundation of the world.

Well, what does that mean? That's an interesting verse Christ has been foreknown from the foundation of the world there it

I don't believe it means he's knowing more about him in the Trinity I think it means that he's foreknown in the sense before the foundation of the world.

This is what was going to happen I see this as being causative also it

Causative I'm not I'm hesitant on causative. I would say that it's love but whether it's causative

Causative what do you mean causative like it's if you wanted to say it was his so those

For he was foreknown. That's Christ before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times

So I see this as the appearance is the incarnation which is related to being foreknown

So that Christ was foreknown in advance what God had decreed in his foreknowledge which requires causativeness involved with it so this knowledge is cause is the cause of the incarnation

I Start to think this that foreknowledge is more than just he knows but foreknowledge is he knows because He's directly involved with what everything that will occur and he foreknows not because he knows what they're going to do

But because he knows what will happen because nothing can happen outside of his sovereignty

That's what I'm saying that Includes the very nature of Christ and his incarnation Because the eternal decree of God the eternal generation which makes sense is would be right there, too so there's there's one more text that comes to mind maybe it's

X 223 do you mind looking up X 223? 223 yes, because he was predestined and they are the ones who did it, right?

Uh -huh. This man. I'll put over here could this bigger text. I'll do it over here too. I can make this bigger That's fine

Okay, this man delivered over by the predetermined plan of foreknowledge of God You nailed to the cross

This is a cognate of this the foreknowledge of God is associated with the predetermined plan causative

So Two thoughts cross my mind one

There's a difference between Predetermined plan and foreknowledge here, but that's just kind of the point

I was making on Romans 8 so then the second one is why why is

Luke splitting these out and One thought is that God Planned to hand

Christ over to Let's say the the Jews and the Romans and whoever

But he also foreknew what was going to happen if I hand Christ over they're going to kill him and In that sense

I find some Value in addressing the problem of evil so to speak right?

because you've got this distinction between God's plan what he's determined Determined but then also

There's a difference between that and what he's for now, so he's determined redemption He had but he foreknows the sins of those that are going to be a part of accomplishing that redemption within his sovereign plan

Can I introduce to you if you don't know what's called efficient? Proximate and ultimate causation okay, efficient cause is the

It's like what moves objects right or removes things Proximate is the closest one and then what was the other one ultimate ultimate?

Yes ultimate like the first cause There you go very good. Okay, so let's use it in our theological perspective here

Adam is in the garden and He freely without being forced of his own free will

Really chose to rebel against God and eat the fruit No one caused him. So he is the prime mover of his own action in that rebellion.

He's the efficient cause Right through one man sin entered in the world. Yeah, Romans 512 good

All right. Now God is the proximate cause of Adam's sin

But not the efficient cause the proximate cause is well God made the garden put the trees in there put

Adam and Eve in there gave instruction. I'll let the devil come in So God is those are the conditions or the conditions of the action where the efficient cause is the agent of the action

So the agent is deficient cause and the proximate cause is the condition the condition in which

Somebody could freely choose. So God it wouldn't have happened if God hadn't put it all together and he knows exactly what

Adams gonna do Because if he got this is why it's logically necessary even for the open theist

Because in the mind of God even from the open theist position God knows himself exhaustively

Which means he would know all potentialities exhaustively and whatever choice he would make in any condition that might possibly exist

So if he brings about an exact set of circumstances to bear then he's bringing about the necessity of the efficient causation

Yeah, I mean That so if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that God is the approximate cause of the fall because of he set up all the circumstances in which the fall happened, but again from Adam I'm not even sure that Libertarian freedom is it's all that different than a compatibilist freedom even under all those circumstances

It seems to me Adam could have chosen not to Say, I don't believe so.

I don't believe so I don't believe he could have not and I'll tell you why don't you think of this?

Simple because only God is holy and only in his holiness. Can he not sin?

Creatures can't participate in his holiness because holiness is part of his divinity creatures will just end up sinning

No matter what because they're not holy and first Timothy 521 it talks about the elect angels.

That's what clued me in. Why are they elect angels? Because it seems to me they would have fallen so God had to choose them not to fall

And so in my opinion all sentient beings will fall Given enough time.

That's it. Just they're gonna do that because they're not holy That's what I believe I may be right or wrong. I don't know

Listen, but we agree if the angels of the good angels they elect angels didn't

Fall then obviously they're not God and that's very clear

But they Don't have sin not like us

So they have sin like us they rebelled against God they they could do evil things they worse

Here's the thing. I'm counterfactual demons not the demons the angels They ain't the angels angels don't sin.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to be Yeah, really yeah

God's immoral moral law is moral character is dependent upon him and is universally true

Angels are subject to the same moral obligation as we are because it's resting in God's nature not in their ability

But in God's nature So why God says be holy for I'm holy because whether we can be holy or not is not the issue

He's the standard to be perfect as I am perfect. His father in heaven is perfect Matthew 548

Well, why is that because he's a standard so all beings are obligated to adhere to the standard which is

God Otherwise, we're lowering the standard down to man's level. I call that Christian humanism, and that's a problem

So angels are obligated to do what's right morally because they're the servants of God, but the fallen realm disobeyed

God they sinned the fallen angels The fallen angels have sinned but there are angels that didn't so let's

Isaiah's vision right so Isaiah comes before the throne in Angel comes and takes a with the tongs and puts the thing on his lips and he said because he's a man of unclean lips

But that angel is before the throne. So I don't think it has sent

No There are angels that have never sinned and there are angels that have sinned all the angels that have sinned are demonic lost

All the angel that have not are the elect angels. That's what I believe Okay, so but it seems if I heard it to you before You were saying

Adam Basically, his sin was inevitable Because he's not God but holy

But angels are not God And they all would have sinned but there's elect angels which

God did something to stop him, right? so I mean then

God could have stopped Adam too, but Whatever the case is the angels are a created being that Avoid sin somehow again three angels are created beings, but they don't sin

Well, there are fallen angels so the ones that have not fallen don't sin and then the fallen angels do do sin

Yeah Okay, so get back on line. We got to get back to work. We're talking about something.

Sure. Sure. Okay. Yes What's the counterfactuals are gonna say a question? Yeah All right, fair enough, and you know,

I appreciate you taking the time to chat with Matt You know, I don't mean to hold you up all night. But yeah, I mean

But I was that was great I appreciate the conversation oh I appreciate it with you as well.

And you know, you don't agree and okay, you know if you're not a

Calvinist But it's okay All right. That's all right No big deal guys

Like I was Matt I'd go out witnessing with you I've gone witnessing the only thing I would not say that you might say is

I would say I wouldn't say Jesus died for your Sin, I'd say Jesus died for sinners That's the difference

Okay Fair enough. I would go witnessing with you as well. But but so thanks again for having me on I hope you have a great evening.

Okay. Thanks a lot, man. God bless enjoy the conversation Okay, okay

So Tristan says I think these conversations get a bit rabbit -trailed But they're related topics and sometimes

I hope that they come to fruition, but sometimes you're right They just are rabbit trails and not that beneficial. That's right.

Your mind should be corrupted by the simplicity is in the Christ So yeah, but Tristan are you saying we shouldn't think these things through?

You're saying that we shouldn't wonder how counterfactuals exist. What must be the conditions for intelligibility?

Are you saying we should not think like this? that you know because you can also say by the subtlety of Deception those who don't think things through by the subtlety of deception would also be deceived

So you're gonna be depends on what you mean, okay? And you should of course you should hold fast to what's true first Thessalonians 521.

I think it is and test all things So here's a question. Okay. Let me ask you a question

Tristan This is not to embarrass you and please you don't if you don't want to answer it. That's okay Now this is critical thinking

Jesus has two distinct natures which nature died on the cross the divine nature or the human nature or both natures

There's only three possibilities It cannot be that the divine nature died because divinity doesn't die

God's divine. He doesn't die Doesn't happen But only the human nature died on the cross

All right. So here's a question if only the human nature died on the cross

Then how is a sacrifice of Christ of divine value? Don't anybody else if you know the answer don't answer

Yet, okay, because I've taught this answer before So Tristan, I'm not trying to trap you and not try to embarrass you.

I'm going to say this is where critical thinking comes in This is why we have to think about these things

So do you have an answer Tristan if only the divine is to be the human nature died on the cross?

And how is a sacrifice of divine value? It's a fair question and you can type in there you don't know and that's fine

Most people don't know most people just don't get it and that's okay So I'll give you a little bit of time here to think about it and I'm waiting but I don't see any response yet Maybe Tristan doesn't like me.

I don't know Doesn't want to answer. I don't know But here's the answer.

All right Because Jesus had the human nature as well. Yeah, but only the human nature died if only the human nature died

How is a sacrifice of divine value? So now

I'll have to introduce a concept from critical thinking So there's a doctrine called the communicatio idiom atom the communication of the properties

You're getting close Tristan That's right. The hypothetic Union. He's fully God and fully man

However, the communication of the properties means that the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person

So in other words, the person said I'm thirsty The person said I will be with you always the same person claimed the attributes of both natures the person died on the cross therefore the sacrifices of divine value and In order to answer the question you have to understand the hypothetic

Union which requires logic and the communication of the properties which requires logic And so we had to do critical thinking in order to get to that level of understanding in order to answer that question

It's not bad to do critical thinking and sometimes my opponents will say this is philosophy.

I'm gonna ask him Really? Which philosophy? Epicureanism rationalism nihilism

What kind of philosophical perspective are you coming from what epistemological system are you using that's a philosophically based one by which you're then saying

It's just philosophical if it's just philosophical then what realm of philosophy does it fit into?

They're not used to out being asked that kind of question to say it's just philosophy is dismissive.

Oh So it's just it's just philosophy. So therefore we don't say it's true What? So it's called the genetic fallacy.

The origin of something is bad. So therefore it's bad so when we have philosophy there are such things as as Critique there's such things as look at my notes determinism emanation ism epiphenomenal ism epistemic relativism there's error theory fallibilism fatalism mediasm foundationalism there's a relative identity inside of identity idealism

Realism, so I'm just saying these are philosophical Ways of looking at things trying to solve problems what philosophy is largely is just how are you thinking about this?

we use philosophy when we Derive the Doctrine of the Trinity one

God Isaiah 43 44 45 and Jesus is called God the

Son the Father's called God the Holy Spirit's called God yet. They have distinction of characteristics distinction of persons because they speak to each other because philosophically logically

Logically speaking if we have people or Persons speaking to each other saying you and yours and me a mine

It's the recognition of distinction between the objects. So we have the subject object relationship.

Therefore we have distinction This is logic. This is an epistemological issue. How do you know what you know and learning what you learn?

There's pluralistic philosophies. There's idealistic rationalistic. So when people say it's just philosophy

I'm going to say which branch of philosophy is it? Which kind Because it's just so dismissive and then

I'm going to ask him if you don't know Please then tell me where the logical error is and what

I just said Where's the logic error, I don't know

Maybe I don't know so Anybody have any comments or questions and I'll tell you why open theism is so wrong

It restricts God to the natural realm It means he's subject to the created order

That he's limited in his knowledge and that man's free will is elevated so that meant that God must be devalued

That's why it's wrong What is closed theism?

Could you please define closed theism? What is closed theism mean?

I'm not familiar with the term. Let's see look for my open theism outline and We'll go to Closed I'll put that in there.

What's closed theism? Okay. I'm looking it up.

Let's see what happens The idea that God is separate and distinct from the world

Yes, he is separate and distinct from the world Closed theism as the future has been eternally settled.

Of course, it's been eternally settled God's not a guesser So here's what one site says

God created the world but does not necessarily interact. It's more of a deistic understanding I thought check this out closed theism contrasts with open theism

Which asserts that God is actively involved and responsive in the world. Yeah, but it's not really an accurate thing so Of course

God works all things after the Council of Israel Ephesians 111 all things and so If God knows himself exhaustively

Then he knows all possibilities All possibilities

He can't gain and knowledge about potentiality Because he would have an exhaustive knowledge of counterfactuals

Then he brings into existence one of those In open theism, he would bring into existence a certain actuality that has potential ramifications

But no matter what ramification occurs He already knows exhaustively what each one will bring

But the question then remains maybe idol killer could answer this Which sins did

God impute To Christ did he actually impute actual sin?

My law actual line that I lied on that day The pride that I actually had my heart on that day in that time in that moment

Are those sins? reckoned to Christ's account That's a question.

How would he answer it? Can you answer the question for Jesus to be

Jesus Matt had to lie what? For Jesus to be

Jesus Matt had to lie Wow so why does the open theist start down that kind of of Track that I had to lie

Why is it that the open theists are so hostile? Well, what is wrong with them that they're so hostile so fast seriously

Let me ask you idol you can't answer my question about the imputation of sin I'm waiting for you because I got a question for you about necessitarianism and property dualism

I'm asking you idol. Are you are you able to answer the question? Did God actually impute actual sins to Christ the sins of the future

Did he or didn't he? I'm just asking Everybody I hope he will answer the question.

I hope you would answer the question I'm waiting

Whoops like I saw your windows open You So are you going to answer the question

Idol killer, I'm gonna ask you the question again Did God the

Father actually impute actual sins to Christ in the future future sense?

Did he that's what

I my question. I'll answer

I answered you live. This is why I don't okay. Okay, I What's the answer?

Gets me sometimes people say I answered you all went when two years ago Sorry, I don't recall.

What's your answer now? What what is it? But then he talked about all this stuff, but they never answer it.

I've already answered. Okay, great. And what is it? So here here it is is

Did God actually? impute They caused

Jesus to bear the sin Future since actual sins of actual individuals in the future.

That's my question. I'm waiting

He's gonna make a video where Matt cannot cross -examine his answer Go wash up and these and panel

I answered him repeatedly refused except okay, whatever what's the answer? Here's your opportunity just say what the answer is

That's all just say it. I don't recall what you said You want me to stop everything go find whatever

URL it is Listen to whatever it was and then try and figure it out Give me an hour and a half two three days come back here.

Is that what you want? Did he or did he not? Impute to Jesus actual sins.

That's it Matt why you play the video where you taught? Okay So I'm gonna just assume he can't answer the question because he's refusing to deal with it and directing other other areas

So necessitarianism is the Philosophical position that every single event is necessarily caused by previous conditions.

I don't believe that Okay I'm not a property dualist.

Let me explain what's going on folks The human mind we talked about property dualism or we talked about substance dualism

Substance dualism would say that the mind is different than substance than the physical brain

Property dualism would say that the physical brain gives rise to the mind so therefore the mind is necessarily caused

By the physical brain the problem with that is it means that one chemical state in the brain

Necessarily brings another chemical state in the brain, which then means you think something necessarily necessitarianism

But if that's the case, you could never know if your property dualism was true

You could never know if necessitarianism was true. Now. Listen up.

I'll show you why the position is self -refuting listen up if necessitarianism means that things

Necessarily happen because of prior events then it means there is no free will if there is no free will it means then that every event necessarily happens, but if that's the case in Necessitarianism then that view refutes itself because you'd never know if necessitarianism is true because the statement about Necessitarianism necessitates that you say whatever it was not that it's true

It might be but you wouldn't know to find out you'd have to leave Necessitarianism and go on to a different epistemological worldview in order to hold to that.

So when he talks about necessitarianism He's approaching it from a philosophical position.

I just showed why necessitarianism is self -refuting and it's not a position He should offer. I don't hold to necessitarianism and I'm not a property dualist

I'm a substance dualist, which means that the soul the human mind Can operate freely based upon what?

What my nature is what my ability is and what my free will is it's just that God is not ignorant of it

And that he knows exactly whatever choices will occur because he's the proximate cause of all things not the efficient cause

So therefore I'm free and God ordains all at the same time There you go.

I just showed you why idle killers position of necessitarianism is self -refuting

I'll explain it one more time Because necessitarianism means that every event is necessarily caused if that means the statement inside Necessitarianism that necessitarianism is true is a statement necessarily caused by brain chemistry by things, but it doesn't mean it's true

It is a necessary event, but if it's just a necessary event, you can't establish truth value therefore necessitarianism refutes itself because it casts doubt upon itself and This is what he used to try and say

I'm a necessitarian So he's what he's doing here. It's another thing It's called an external critique not an internal critique an internal critique means you go into a person's argument for what he believes what he asserts

That's what you say. And then you argue from that perspective, but necessitarianism is not my position.

I just showed you why So he's doing an external critique which is invalid. So I've asked that what

I've done Is I've asked a difficult question a vital killer He's not been able to answer it except to deflect and say

I answered it a long time ago review it If it's such an easy answer for him He could type it out in a lost lot less time.

It would take to tell me to go look elsewhere and all this stuff I've had this kind of conversation with so many people and I ask him and they go go read this.

Well, what is it? It can never answer. I don't accept that that Deflection on their part as legitimate reason.

I think it's my opinion. I believe it's an excuse It doesn't want to get nailed

And I backed up and I showed why necessitarianism is a faulty view and it's actually an external critique and he doesn't understand that I don't know if he does or doesn't and that he's not an approach he should use.

All right, okay Well, I'll put the offer and to come in here one more time and we can have a nice hopefully nice conversation.

I'll be polite. I Hope he would be and he wants to come in. Did you guys get why necessitarianism is self -refuting?

Why it doesn't work in my worldview because I don't hold to necessitarianism Because it necessitates property dualism and I'm not a property dualist

How do we refute Colossians 1 16 to 20? Well, we don't refute it.

We don't refute God's Word So I'm not sure what you're getting at Because this is the teaching that Christ created all things

So I'm I'm I'm not sure and when if you mean in particular verse 20

That he reconciles all things to himself Then here's a question Does the reconciling of all things mean?

Satan Also and the demonic realm are they reconciled?

So that's my question, would you say that's the case would you say that the reconciliation

Means that all people are redeemed and we have universal salvation. Is that what you mean?

I don't know because you haven't defined it if that's what you're getting at out of Colossians 120

Yeah, he won't answer the question I don't believe he will I think the question is too difficult for him

I've heard open theist not just for him but for open theism. That's what I believe

Okay. All right

Oh Here we go. What I'm gonna do is paste

My question in here. Let's do it again. Okay, this is out of my notes

There we go, hopefully it'll all go in there good there it goes, okay Answered it above Matt affirm, whatever motive atonement you want.

What? Okay. Well if you did I don't killer I apologize. I do not know where it was

I was discussing with him and on the screen things are flowing up pretty fast on the right hand side.

I don't recall it I missed it. My apologies if you'd be so kind as to Restate it and I'll pay attention

Then there won't be an excuse for me not seeing it. Okay So, there we go.

I'm looking I'm just waiting for you to because I don't know where you posted a lot.

I don't know how far back So What's the answer of the question there?

Okay Well in Mormonism God learns so he they call him

God. So I'm waiting For that answer you said was up there so I Apologize for not seeing it.

I have been doing several things Here we go, so I reworded the question a little bit here, let's put it in here.

Okay. Oh He's a if he's a

Pelagian we could talk about that I could refute Pelagian ism also but So here

I rephrase the question a little bit, okay Wait a minute. It didn't go in there.

It's a wrong one. Hold on. I just copied it. But I guess it I didn't copy it, right? Hold on a sec.

My apologies Let's try this again. There we go There we go, let's see

I modified it just a little bit okay. All right

So it says in first Peter 224 that Jesus bore our sins in his body the cross So what does it mean to bear our sins?

Also, if God doesn't know the free will choices people will make in the future How can he impute individuals particular sins if he doesn't know which ones they will commit?

So that's that's a question I think this is a serious question because I think it risks

Invalidating the atonement The open theist view that is I think the open theist view much gooder

More good or thank you As my daughter once said she did things more fastly.

I love that So Notice that see in open theism you do over God he doesn't know everything he's restricted the physical universe

He can't know your free will choices. He can't know what sins you're going to commit in the future. He can't impute those to the cross

Well, then how are your sins paid for I don't think they have an answer.

Why did Layton flowers say that one person believes on her does not the scripture tells us why? But I don't think the provision in Indians can answer it.

He had Bob and Frank two twins Identical twins they go to church at you know in their 30s.

They both go the same time Bob believes the gospel. I think does not why well, it's a free will

Why does Bob's free will enable him to believe in Frank's does not? Why Okay, so why well

I can tell you why because the Bible says God granted that they believe next

Philippians 129 to the rescue so Okay.

I don't know if I don't killer is still here and if he left that's his is right

So I've asked a question and he said he answered it above this what he said

I I entered above Matt affirm, whatever model of atonement you want why affirm penal substitutionary atonement

So I don't see any more Statements from him doesn't mean he's not here

But I don't see any more scrolling through and that's it. So that's quite a bit and I'm a

I'm assuming That he didn't want to answer the question If anybody you know,

I should have said Where show me where the answer is and I'll find your answer

Just to be what URL. Where is it? Don't say a five -hour video. I'm not gonna you know, where is it?

What's the answer showing to me? It'd been nice if it had just told me Would that have been nice ladies and gentlemen would that have been nice if he'd have just answered the question

That I asked I proposed I thought it'd been would've been nice, right? Here let me

Put that in that the question it again Actually two questions. I think I'm gonna do this do it like this put a one in a like this and then

Like this maybe tell me if you like this better I put a one and a two Next to it.

Whoops Okay There I put a one and a two next to them so you have these two questions

See, oh, man, it doesn't show everything on that when I post it paste it. All right Pin it that's what it is.

That's right. How does God impute in particular sense if he doesn't know which ones I'll commit It's right

Specific people's specific individuals Specific sins

There I'm gonna work this a little bit.

Hold on a sec here You There we go

How about this shortened version? It's a 915. I'm in mountain time for me

So here's question number two in my notes by outline notes. Okay, so let's try that and I Just got imputed

Jesus on the cross the specific sins of specific individuals if he doesn't know which ones they will commit Okay in my notes what

I often do of a pair of this long asking a question of a paragraph this long asking the same Question I'll have a paragraph this long asking the same question.

Oh Do all open theists believe God makes mistakes for what

I understand they do So, what is the God of open theism say don't buy that much

Gotta go with plan B. Now. They call me now. I gotta go with plan

C crawl Yeah, that's the

God of open theism Okay, you're on Charlie You hear me?

Okay, you're muted cuz Laura's on the phone so Yeah He doesn't have to know

Jesus is divine. Therefore. His sacrifice has the divine value. This is an interesting response Mason I'm gonna

I'm gonna okay. This is it. This is interesting. I Want to I want to?

Write this out. Okay Response He doesn't have to know

Jesus is divine Therefore his sacrifice Has a divine value

It is sufficient to cover all future past and present sin independent of him knowing

It okay, but you still have a problem It says he bore our sin in his body in the cross

Which sins did he bear on the cross? That's the follow -up question, okay

All right Then what sins did

Jesus bear in his body on the cross? Okay, that's the that's the next question.

All right If that position is the case then okay Then what did he bear?

Okay, there you go. That'll be That and thank you for that response Seriously, I appreciate that.

Okay. All right, so we have two people on stage Charlie and Joanne.

Hey you guys I'm gonna get going here pretty soon because it'll be it's already almost three hours now So I think that's long enough every single sin that we will commit so Mason I don't know if you're a an open theist.

Are you just curious? Are you an open theist? Because if you are

Then that means every sin we will commit But is every sin identical to every other sin?

No and What one person sins may not be the same kind of a sin that another person may sin

So I'm curious did was there an actual imputation of sin to Christ?

Yeah, and if it is a grand covering, what does that mean? What does it mean?

Furthermore there's another problem Okay Furthermore, let me put this.

Let's see Furthermore first John 2 2 says that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world but the word propitiation

Necessarily means the sacrifice that removes wrath It doesn't make it possible it accomplishes it

So The question then is did Jesus remove the wrath of every individual of whoever lived because he bore all kinds of generic sin

You see the difficulty there

Does not love everybody maybe doesn't Alexander You're breathing you being loved by God in general way.

Yes, you know that that's from Matthew 5 42 through 48 So first John 2 2 says that Jesus was a propitiation for the sins of the world see, but Propitiation necessarily what it means is you can look it up the sacrifice that turns away wrath

It doesn't make it possible It accomplishes it That's what it means to propitiate but the question then is that Jesus removed the wrath of every individual who ever lived because he

Bore all Let's see all kinds of generic sin

Let's see if this will fit in the text Okay, there we go.

Oh, come on show up there so No, he doesn't remove all

Salvation is a free gift. Therefore people have to receive it By faith. Yeah, and in Basin, here's a question.

Why does one person receive it? Another one does not you say free? Well, why does one person's free will allow it another one does not it last mass?

That's right and park Doesn't remove all wrath But that's what propitiation means

So who do you propitiate a gift is not applied until a vigil has faith

You mean the cross of Christ didn't accomplish what it was to do until you do something

I know what you're saying because check this out. Here's a verse you should know about Look in Look in the screen

That's what it says in Colossians 2 14 See having forgiven us all our transgressions

Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which is also to us He's taken it out of the way having no to the cross

What's the certificate of debt? Sins a legal debt Jesus says forgive us our sins

And we said forgive us our debts as we forgive those who sin against us Matthew 6 our father who art in heaven so sins a legal debt

When did he cancel it at the cross? It's not canceled when you believe It's not canceled when you believe it's canceled at the cross read what it says

What I would suggest is If you disagree with that position repent because that's what the

Bible says right there the certificate of debt in the

Greek is Chirographon a handwritten IOU of legal indebtedness. It means a

Legal indebtedness now Jesus said our father who art in heaven Hallowed be thy name in Matthew 6 12

He said forgive us our debts in the parallel Luke 11 for he said forgive us our sins Jesus himself equates sin with legal debt.

Jesus said in the cross it is finished in the Greek. It's to tell us die Which has been found on the bottom of some ancient tax receipts handwritten signifying a legal death's been paid

So if he paid for your legal debt, it's paid for doesn't exist anymore and it accomplished at the cross

It's not made effective if you do something it's effective because God did it

This is more humanist philosophy being creeping in seeping in to the minds of the hearts of Christians.

Oh The cross it did most of everything but you You have to apply it then it's effective

And that's why you got to pat your back Pat yourself on the back. That's right. Calvinism doesn't save anybody.

That's right you had to pat yourself on the back because you see you you made the

The atonement of Christ effective by what you did Yep, you made it effective by what you did you know,

I chose God and that's why The atonement worked you see when

I chose him then it was applied to me So by my doing by my work by myself that the work of God became real to me

Well, mr. Uh, mr. Mr. Christian dude. Yes, that's right. I chose it.

What about Colossians 2 14 having canceled out? That's Jesus having canceled out the certificate of debt nailing it to the cross.

What does it say was done? Well, you see he did it at the cross, but you have to apply it to yourself to make it work

It doesn't say that it says he canceled it at the cross. It's canceled It's done by what

Christ did not by what you did the arrogance in my opinion of many people

Who make the cross of no effect? Until they believe it until they and their wisdom applied to themselves

There's a doing that Christ must do take up the cross deny yourself and follow me, but that's not what saves you

Alex that is about discipleship and following after him. That's not about justification and salvation

It's a walk a narrow way. Yeah Yes, you and be persecuted, but that's not what saves you. So Alex Are you saying that these things contribute to your salvation and get you right with God?

That they are what forgives you of your sins Along with your faith in God. I hope you're not saying that because if you are

That's a that's a that's a problem. That would be a I would consider that to be a false gospel. Okay? And we should do those things.

All right, we should We should absolutely but there's not what saves us.

All right. Oh, so you are saying that you

Okay. Okay. So you you you get yourself right with God and you keep yourself right with God Through your effort and your faith

Wow Romans 3 28 we maintain that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law

Romans 4 1 through 5 What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather according to the flesh has found for if Abraham was justified by works

He is something to boast about but not before God But what does the scripture say and Abraham believed

God and was credited in his righteousness now to the one who works His favor is not his wage is not credited as a favor

But what is due but to the one who does not work? But believes and him who justifies the ungodly his faith is credited as righteousness the one who does not work, but believes

Alexander if you believe that your faith and Your good works and faithfulness is what earns you salvation.

Then you breathe it bleeding a false gospel I don't know if that is what you're believing. That's the impression

I get and please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you Humble clay you're right.

So this perfection is a myth. I Can prove it so this perfection doesn't work. All I say is spend five minutes with me

Yeah, I'll fix that So Alex, are you a

Eastern Orthodox person or Roman Catholic? Apparently put the text up I was quoting, okay,

I Would agree with you Roman Catholicism is paganism You know what?

They say in paragraph 20 68 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you obtain salvation through faith baptism and the observance of the

Commandments They say in paragraph 2036 that The precepts of the natural law are necessary for salvation in paragraph 20 70

It says the Ten Commandments are a reflection a presentation of the precepts of the natural law

So what they're saying is you have to keep the Ten Commandments in order to be saved. So let me ask you Alexander do you teach that you must keep the

Ten Commandments in order to be to be keep yourself as saved as a

Christian By keeping the commandments you you You keep yourself saved.

I'm just asking me because that might be just misunderstanding you Okay, Alex so Do you teach that?

Okay, good good good good. So then do you believe in justification by faith alone in Christ alone

Alex? Not by your works, but your faith alone in God That's what justifies you and then you do good works later because you're saved

Okay, is that what you hold to Faith alone. That's alone what saves you and then you just do good works later, but the good works don't keep you saved, right?

So Alex Alexander, what do you say? What do you say? Do you believe in justification by faith alone in Christ alone?

Yes, I understand that but it's not what I'm asking Notice what it says on the screen right there to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly

His faith is credited as righteousness That's that's faith alone There's two options faith and works works are removed to the one who does not work but believes

No works faith alone. Do you believe that faith alone is what justifies you? Do you believe that you're justified by faith alone

Romans 5 1 having therefore been justified by faith

Okay, that's right and part proof of faith is not what we're asking for.

That's right About Romans 3 28 we maintain that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law

So waiting out there is no doing but it's God's tapestry. Okay one more time Alexander do you affirm that we are

Justified before God declared legally righteous and saved by faith alone in what Christ has done alone

Yes, or no. What do you say? What do you say

Alexander? Do you affirm or do you deny? Okay, so he denies it.

All right, so Here's a set of questions you can think about Alexander and everybody else

God grants that we have faith watch this. Yeah, you do You deny it And if you don't deny it say you don't deny it say you affirm it

Tell me you affirm that we're justified by faith alone in Christ alone Tell me you affirm that If you don't then we i'm going to assume you don't affirm it which means you deny it

It's either the case that you affirm it or it's not the case that you affirm it there's no middle ground You either affirm it or you don't?

Good. Okay Good, and you affirm that then like James 2 14 through 26

Our good works are what demonstrate our faith to others. God doesn't need them

Okay, but he requires them of us as true Christians, but he doesn't need them from us in order to save us

He it's better to go to romans, uh philippians 129 Okay to you that's been granted to believe

Okay Well good Well, you did have a say in that technically not true, but I get what you're saying.

He granted it to you That's correct, but he regenerated you you you did believe but he granted that you do the act of believing

But it's granted by god that you do it Okay Well guys i'm getting pretty tired here

And I have calm business supposed to take care of here pretty too You had to say the matter no, no, no does that mean what's what's false doctrine

Use You mean it's false doctrine that god granted that we believe You do have to do the believing, you know, you got to believe

It's false doctrine to say we've got to believe Is that it I don't understand

Yeah, I got yeah, it's three minutes three hours and 10 minutes have been on If you want alexander come in there's a link to come in here if you want to do it great if not

No, no big deal. Hey charlie Hi matt, how you doing i'm i'm talking to laura

Yeah, what about? Oh you of course Then it's not gonna be good, okay

Sometimes we say nice things behind your back Once a year i've heard but that's okay.

I mean, that's a good thing. Yeah Uh, anyway, laura was telling me something about how streaming is going and how we could make it better And okay good sounds like she's got a handle on it, but she needs to explain it to you

So you can make the necessary corrections Okay, we'll do yeah Nicely, well you're going out on on one of your facebook pages.

It says charlie spine is now live and Well, we gotta work on that then

Well, I figured if you were going to do something wrong you'd have plausible deniability and blame that's right

That's right. Well, I didn't say this guy named spine said it. Yeah, I mean, it's look at him. He's the heretic.

He's trying Okay Well, anyway, we need to talk about that. Maybe you can sign on a little earlier tomorrow on our normal routine.

Okay, and uh She can explain what the trouble is. Okay. We'll have to talk about it tomorrow then sounds good

And you can broadcast under your own name next time that'd be a that'd be nice yeah, all right

Okay, sounds good. Okay. What do you think? Okay, I told you good yeah, well, yeah, we're just gonna keep you on on task here and and get you

Oh, yeah, she's got her whip good sounds good then Okay All right, laura.

I'm gonna sign off. Okay. I'm gonna shut it down I hope you enjoyed this If you want me to do it again

Let me know I caught a little bit of it and I liked it. Yeah. Okay. We'll see how it goes then