Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
You gonna hang for a minute?
Yeah.
You're so tall, man.
He's got those little bills that I don't know how to flush.
Questions for us, Brayden?
I don't have any questions off the top of my head.
Do you want to feed me any of that stupid stuff?
We're live.
Okay.
So, we got people watching.
Alright, we're live.
It's not Memrix.
It's a little commercial crew like me.
Alright, so, questions?
Come on, feed me.
Make something good.
Feed me Seymour.
That's a good movie, too.
What?
When it comes to the money?
Yes.
Yeah, you got it.
Whatever.
Do I really have to?
Just go to the line.
Go to the line?
That's good.
Okay, Matt, so...
Mormon theology, they have the Apostle John, right?
Did he ever...
Because I've heard that he never passed away, he never died, he's still present.
Mormon theology is that he, among two others, are still around so that the true gospel was
never lost.
And that's how Mormonism justifies that the true gospel would never be lost.
Yet, they also have the 12 Apostles in the Mormon church, right?
Right.
To replace the... 12 Apostles.
So, but John's still alive.
Wouldn't he take the place of one of the Apostles?
He's not functioning as an Apostle.
He's just going around out there doing John stuff.
But is an Apostleship, like, lifelong?
You'd think so.
So, that's their inconsistency, I see.
But he's not doing Apostle stuff.
Well, I would want to know, you'd think, this would be another question along those same lines, you'd think, if the Mormon church is a
true church, you'd think that John the Apostle would go show himself at Salt Lake City?
Yeah, I mean, so...
Maybe you could do it.
You look kind of Apostle -ish.
Take the beard a little longer.
Yeah, and what you could do is go in and start speaking in Russian, and they'll think...
Yeah, they will know.
No, that's a good question, and...
He'd take his place as Apostle, and...
He's not functioning as an Apostle, so they need 12 to function.
Okay, that's their answer, then?
He's just doing John stuff, being around.
John stuff.
Peter and Phil, I got...
Yeah?
Weird.
Nothing?
You got any people online?
Yeah, we do have some people online.
Just fire them?
Or do you want me to go down and take a look and fire them?
There you go.
I don't see any questions on YouTube.
I thought you had something good.
We have some...
Oh.
Grab some of them.
Which one, the YouTube one?
I'll just go in.
All right.
Do you need me to tell you your password?
My own password?
But all I have to do is just get in and find the Karm videos, right?
It'll be there, right?
I don't even know where I'm going.
I'm on a list.
Ah, crud.
More problems.
Well, just fire questions at me, because...
Well, Lizzie's got some.
Yeah, I got a question.
Did you go into Christian Evangelicals and post in there the word?
Well, no, I can't post that one.
It has to be a question.
Let me get a little closer.
So now I see it.
Okay, good.
No.
Right there, right there.
This question is from the study.
And Dodie Mendoza asks, is the King James Version of Galatians 2
.16 the correct one?
That one says the faith of Jesus, where other versions say faith in Christ.
I was taught that it's the faith that is of Christ that saves us, not our believing.
So the of versus the in.
Yeah, it's funny.
That very topic has come up a lot lately.
The faith of Jesus.
It's not our believing, but the faith of Jesus that saves us.
But if that's the case, then we're not believing.
Then we're not Christian because we have to believe.
It's not Jesus' faith that's imputed to us.
So to impute is a legal action.
Imputation is a legal thing.
So our sin is imputed to Christ.
His righteousness is imputed to us.
Faith is not imputed.
So it can't be something that's His that's given to us because it has to be a legal transfer.
His faith is really His faith.
Our faith is really our faith.
So it talks about the issue in also Romans 3 .22 and Galatians 2 .16, the faith of Jesus.
So it talks about this kind of stuff.
Most people think what he's talking about is the faith of Christ under the law, before God, His faithfulness.
He brought in salvation, but we need to believe and truly believe to be justified.
And that's what's going on there.
Okay?
And it literally does say, faith of Christ of Jesus.
So it's the genitive, which means the faith of Christ.
But it doesn't necessarily mean that His faith as a substance kind of a thing is given to you and then
His faith in you.
But then if that's the case, you're not going to believe it.
And that's the critical issue.
And we can't be justified.
I can't pronounce this person's name, but from YouTube.
He repents, or to repent in Greek methodol is to change the mind.
So what we see is what's called an anthropomorphism.
Anthropos, man, morphe, form.
We see God appearing in human form and behaving in human form.
The first instance of that is found in Genesis chapter 3, when the
Lord is walking with Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve sinned, and He said to the man, where are you?
Well, does he know where he is?
Of course he does.
So he's speaking in human terms.
This is the pattern that God has.
So it says He repented.
He's just simply saying that He changed His mind.
In our frame reference, in our time, in the whole bit, that's all that's going on.
From eternal decrees, God doesn't change His mind.
So He, we can say it this way.
He decreed from forever ago that at that particular place and time,
He would change His mind about what He was doing with them.
And that's consistent with Jeremiah 18 .8.
I don't even know where that verse came from.
Let's see if I remember that correctly.
I think that's it.
I don't think it's Jeremiah 18 .8.
If that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I plan to bring on it.
So there's an idea here within the Word of God that God will say, I will do something,
and I'm going to condemn you.
You're going to be in trouble.
But if they turn from it, then He says He won't do it.
But He said He was going to.
So God is letting us know that what He's doing is declaring things, but we
change.
Then He changes based on our changing.
But it was ordained from all eternity also.
It's not an easy one to get through, but that's the answer.
I can't really remember that one, Jeremiah 18 .8.
I haven't heard that one in a long time.
Ready?
No. Yes.
Dodie Mendoza from YouTube asks, have you ever been to the Speaker's Corner in
London?
Nope.
Do you know who Jay Smith is?
I've heard the name.
I'm actually reading this up now with you.
I've not been there.
I want to go there.
People have invited me to go there.
If someone will pay my way and have me speak at a church or two - or three -year conference, I'd be glad to go.
Then go out there, Speaker's Corner, and have fun with the Muslims.
Tulip's got a question for you.
Just a few below that.
Let's see.
The Severin?
I was with Slick when a guy asked him this question.
You won't remember, though.
Remember who?
Wait, I didn't remember.
Anthropomorphism.
God, look, that's what Charlie says.
Tulip, what's the correct biblical interpretation of Joshua 1 .8?
Whatever I'd say it is.
The Ultimax Jesus.
Whatever I say it is, that's what it is, right?
People take that out of context.
Okay, let me see.
Joshua 1 .8.
I think I know what that is.
No, I don't.
The Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you will be careful to do it according to
all that is written in it.
For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.
What it means is that you should always keep the law with you.
You should meditate on it all the time.
I'm talking to the Israelites here.
You shall be careful to do everything that's written in it.
That's what he's saying here.
And also that by doing that, your ways will be prosperous and successful.
That's what it means.
Yeah, it's right there.
What does it mean?
Maybe he's asking about the prosperity aspect of it.
It's not a prosperity gospel thing.
Because a lot of times what they'll do is they'll take something like that and say, see, it's for you and your prosperity.
There's a principle of following God's laws, and you will prosper.
But this is written specifically to the Jews there in that context.
You've got to be careful not to misapply it.
The Cult of Slick.
Yeah, that's pretty good.
Funny.
I've heard that one before.
You've heard that one.
That's right.
Got one from Facebook.
Oh, okay.
We've got some from Facebook.
Sandra Luchka.
Did Jesus have a fallen human nature that he inherited from Mary and was able to live a perfect life
because of his divine nature?
That's Christadelphian theology, that Jesus had a fallen nature but never sinned.
Christadelphianism denies the Trinity, the deity of Christ.
It's a cult.
No, Jesus did not have a fallen nature.
If he had a fallen nature, then that would have been a defect.
I believe it's Deuteronomy 17 .1.
Let's see if I remember that one.
Let me see if I'm right.
The lamb must be without blemish.
You shall not sacrifice to your Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or a defect.
Having a fallen nature would be a defect.
It would be a blemish.
And so, no, he did not inherit a sinful nature from Mary.
Now, let me just expand on that a little bit.
Some people think that we inherited our sinful nature from our fathers.
Because in Adam all die, 1 Corinthians 15 .22.
Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, Romans 5 .18.
So, some people think, and I lean towards that, that the sin -authority nature is through the father.
And so, he didn't have a literal father and a mother biologically.
And so, therefore, it's one theory.
We don't know that that is it, though.
Alright.
Tulip expanded on his question.
Doesn't it mean that Joshua would be successful in overtaking his enemies to take the land of Cain?
I guess so.
I haven't read the context in a long time.
It's them crossing the river, going across into that area.
Probably that's what it is.
But, it's been a while since I've studied that particular thing.
But, yeah, it's for the Jews and the battle that they're going to go through at that time.
Keep the law.
Do right.
Do well.
Was Jeremiah deceived by God?
Jeremiah 20, verse 7.
O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived.
You have overcome me, and revealed.
I have become a laughingstock all day.
Everyone mocks me.
God does not do deceiving.
Jeremiah is simply stating that the Lord deceived him.
But, there are instances in which God consented to looting influence.
2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, will do that.
So, there's a close connection sometimes between God sending something that will allow them to deceive, as
in sending a deceiving spirit.
But, he doesn't do the deceiving.
So, I would say no.
Jeremiah is simply just recounting an overall idea.
But, it's not God who does deceiving.
That would be Islam, in Surah 354 of the Quran, where Allah is the greatest of
deceivers.
Dodie Mendoza from YouTube asks, How do Unitarians answer when the Bible says that Moses was face
-to -face with God,.
And the Bible says no one's ever seen God?
Well, Exodus 33, 20.
33, 11.
You cannot see my face, for none like to see me in love.
Yet, they saw God.
Nine verses later, 33, 20, Moses spoke to God's face as a man speaking to his friend.
Actually, there's better verses than that.
You can go to Exodus 6, 2, and 3, where it says, God spoke fuller to Moses and said to him, I am
Yahweh.
I appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty.
How do Unitarians answer it?
Depends on what kind of Unitarian.
Because different Unitarians.
But, generically speaking, they would probably have to say that it's the angel of the Lord, or representation.
There's a problem though.
Because in Exodus 6, 2, and 3, it says, God spoke fuller to Moses and said to him, I am Yahweh.
That's not an angel.
Then John 6, 46, Jesus says, not that any man has seen the Father.
So, that would mean that God Almighty was seen in the Old Testament, but it was not the Father.
No more questions?
None.
I've got a question.
Jump up there?
This way?
Right to the tape, brother.
There's tape on right there.
Right there?
Right there, perfect.
Beautiful.
I'm glad that you guys can't smell me from YouTube.
I don't want to sound like a Mormon apologist when he's asking this question.
Go ahead, sound like a Mormon apologist.
I'm pretty good at it, Matt.
Challenge him.
Go for it.
I can pronounce this word.
Chiasmus.
It's a type of poetry that they found.
I mean, chiasm.
I remember learning about this when I was younger and I was taught by one of my older brothers about it and it proved that the Book of Mormon was true
because there was no way that Joseph Smith could have written this type of poetry before it was discovered.
There's examples of it in the Bible.
Chiasm.
Let me explain what that is.
So you have, He who asks, he who seeks,
he who knocks.
For he who asks, for he who seeks,
for he who knocks.
So this is a chiastic structure.
It goes here, here.
They have other ones like in the Prodigal Son where there's a verse here at the beginning of the story, the
last verse.
These things match.
There's different types of chiastic structure.
You can read a book called Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes by Kenneth Bailey that goes into this in great
detail.
So if Joseph Smith is authored by Satan then
he would certainly have the ability to write chiastic structures.
Simply because they're chiastic structures doesn't mean it's from God.
So certainly since he was involved in the occult and certainly because he was doing bad things and was turned to
Satan, a false god, he ultimately was in contact with demonic forces so that that could easily explain that
thing.
Furthermore, people often repeat themselves as is the case in the Book of Mormon.
Maybe you've heard this phrase and it came to pass.
Maybe you've heard that repeatedly said.
So it was already in the mindset of Joseph Smith to do various forms of repetition.
Plus, a lot of people don't know this but back in those days we didn't have writing, typing, photos and all
this.
In order to remember stories they would do these kinds of tricks.
He who asks, he who seeks.
He who knocks, for he who asks.
Like that.
They could do it that way or you could reverse it.
If you notice, ask, it just happens to work this way in English.
That'd be easier to remember, wouldn't it?
Asks, he who knocks.
Because it's the word ask.
Oh, he's gonna do that.
Hey, it's chiastic.
But does it mean it's inspired of God?
So, you know, there's that.
If he's gonna be copying scripture there's gonna be patterns in there he's gonna pick up.
Plus, if he's got the Bible over next to him the King James, maybe 1611 and he's got something he's trying to
write and trying to sound spiritual which is why I put these and thousand there then he might just see, you know get so
involved, he sees patterns and starts doing stuff.
He wasn't stupid, you know.
He was deceived, but he wasn't stupid.
He could do stuff like that.
There's lots of ways to explain this possibility.
Just because it's chiastic structure doesn't mean it's there.
I would go to look at the Quran and see if it's in there or the sign and
help with the key to the scriptures from Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy see if it's there.
If it's there, then where it is.
But it was definitely in the New Testament.
So this idea, they'll also say Joseph Smith obviously was a prophet of God because
who could write such a book at such an early age?
At 14.
At 14, how could he write a book like that?
Well, it's easy.
If you have the Solomon Spaulding manuscript that was in the same printing press that
he had access to.
And Solomon Spaulding wrote this stuff.
And the people who know Solomon Spaulding's manuscript have read parts of the Book of Mormon and said, hey, that's Solomon Spaulding's material.
And that's documented as being the case.
That's how he could do it.
Plus, he spun lots of yarn.
In his occult dates, when he would say Captain Kitt's treasure was buried up in the northeast up
there.
And that in order to find Captain Kitt's treasure what you got to do is take a goat or a lamb and
get a bunch of guys who would buy it.
And then his fee is to get the body so they can eat it when it's dead.
They cut the throat and wherever it would die that's where the buried treasure is.
Start digging down.
But you can't lose your faith because then the spirit that guards the treasure will move the treasure.
So this kind of thing would require if you could be successful it would
require that you have a way of communicating.
And people said, who knew Joseph Smith that he was pretty slick.
And that he was able to schmooze people.
Which explains why later on he used a schmoozing ability to get women into bed with him.
Yeah, I'm a prophet.
And we've got to be sealed in the temple if you know what I'm saying.
And so that kind of thing going on.
That's why he had over 30 someone wives.
Because it's like, hey, she's hot.
And she's married to somebody else.
We'll get sealed.
He was a con man.
He was quite skilled at what he could do.
So there's lots of ways to explain that.
Plus there are other books that are written by younger people too.
They're out there.
Just because he was young and he produced that doesn't mean it's from God.
My daughter read her first novel at four.
She was writing at ten and twelve.
She's still a better writer at that age than I am at 60.
Supposed to be from God.
That answers my question.
Okay, probably more than what you want.
No, it's good.
Always more than what you want.
What do you mean always more than what you want?
Oh, I heard that.
I heard that.
Got any more questions?
Tulip.
Is triathlon competition at modern neo -evangelical worship center ego -stroking, ear -tickling, and scripture -twisting?
I like that.
Dottie.
Matt.
Is the Trinity Channel a good source for the truth as I see many have left, like Sam Shimone, David Wood,
and you have ever been on the channel?
Yeah, I've been out there several times.
And I have on my cell phone their phone number.
I've hosted many of their shows.
I've done hours of TV with them.
And sometimes they won't call me for a year and then all of a sudden I'll be there three or four times in a month.
But yeah, for the most part they do a great job.
Sam.
I know Sam.
And I don't know why Sam's got a problem.
Well, I do.
He told me.
But...
Anyway, I can't remember all the details.
I can't comment.
I don't have any problem with what they're doing.
Even though they mistakenly think Roman Catholicism is Christian.
We've got to work with them.
They have a great venue of being able to get out to North America, South America, Europe, the Middle
East.
And so when I first went on there I was hated by millions more.
Great.
D. Slick.
Who's D. Slick?
D. Slick?
I'm not a doctor.
That's Doty.
They're responding to Doty.
When I was in Vietnam, we tried to make others think we were not where we were.
What's that?
Maxwell Edison?
Question for Matt.
Who is Azazel in Leviticus 16 .8?
I don't know.
Azazel?
Leviticus...
I don't know who that is.
Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the lord and the other for the scapegoat.
16 .8.
Leviticus 16 .8?
It's...
In the ESV it says Azazel.
In 16 .8?
It's going to be 16 .8, yeah.
Lot for the lord and the other for the lot of Azazel.
So that's what they're saying.
Azazel.
Literally goat of removal.
Or else a name.
That's literally the goat of removal.
Well, I mean, you see my one down in the footnote says the meaning of Azazel is uncertain.
Possibly the name or place of a demon traditionally a scapegoat.
Yeah, that's what it means then.
No, I don't know.
I have to research that one.
What is it?
Sounds like something in Ghostbusters.
That would not be in the fridge.
That would be in the closet, probably in the stove.
Zool was in the refrigerator.
So Azazel would be in the stove.
A scapegoat.
That's a good one.
So Azazel, let's see.
This says literally.
I can look up all these little cool tools.
An unused word.
Entire removal.
Scapegoat.
From an unused word.
Cool.
Let's see if anybody else has got any questions.
Who did Moses see in Exodus 33 -23?
As you put the link, good.
The harlot Rahab received the spies with peace and sent them out another way.
Lying depends on context and one's own personal conviction.
Romans 14.
No, lying is a sin.
Scroll down here.
As earlier.
Playing in games.
While getting the upper hand.
Boot tricking something is not the same as lying.
Anyone watch the dividing line yesterday?
No, I didn't.
That's two different things.
Thanks, Matt.
You're welcome.
Is it sinful as a Christian to work at a casino or horse racing track where gambling is a center of their activities?
What are you doing there?
We had a discussion at seminary.
John Frame was the professor at the time there.
And a question came up.
Can a Christian actor play a murderer or a rapist?
Good question.
And so we discussed it.
His opinion was, yes, if
the portrayal of the character was that he got what was coming to him, then it would be
exemplifying justice.
But if it was that, yes, he gets away with it and everything's happy, then no, because he's fomenting evil.
So if you're working at a racetrack, what are you doing?
Or a casino, what are you doing?
Are you a janitor?
Are you helping people gamble?
I had a tough one.
I mean, personally, I couldn't work at a casino.
Now, when I say that, I'm always reticent to say I could never work at a casino, for example, because,
well, what if my wife and I had to move someplace because of her health?
And then the Internet becomes illegal and they're threatening me.
And the only place I can work as a janitor is at a casino to pay to keep food at the table.
What do I do?
I'll decide then.
So I'm careful to say I should never do this or that.
But normally speaking, I don't think it's a good idea to work at a place that promotes gambling and sinful behavior and things like that.
I've never even been to Vegas.
I've driven through it.
I've never gone into the gambling anything and done anything.
Actually, I've done something once.
I did one thing when I was young.
I did $20 on a slot machine once, and that was it.
Okay, so, oops.
But I don't go to Vegas.
I don't support it.
I don't go to their shows.
I don't believe in supporting it.
So that's me.
Do you have a question?
So can you explain the theological reasons why gambling is sinful?
Because gambling is the idea of taking chance instead of trusting God.
We're not to put our trust in chance but in God.
So can we buy a lotto ticket?
So, you know, you're in a store and you've got plenty of money and you have an extra
dollar.
And just to do it, you get a lotto ticket.
Now, is it sin to do that?
Some Christians would say, yes, it is a sin.
It's a sin.
Why?
Because you're gambling.
Well, kind of.
But then gambling has different forms, too.
Particularly most of us men who are married know about gambling.
We go home and say something to our wives we think is good.
We're gambling there.
And, well, we men know about that.
Are you married, Mark?
So no guys disagree with that one.
We understand that.
Now, there's stupid gambling.
Like when I was 19 and I would gamble with my life and the life of others by taking my 1967 SS
Camaro and trying to race down Turnbull Canyon in Whittier, California at midnight in the dark as fast as I
could.
Now, some might call that just simply stupidity.
So that was definitely sinful and bad.
But anyway, back to the lotto ticket.
Is it sinful?
Well, I don't think it's sinful because you're not
trusting in it.
You're not depending on it.
It's, eh, if it works, it works.
If it doesn't, it doesn't.
Now, maybe someone might take umbrage with that and have a better argument, but I just can't see it as being a sin.
But the lottery also supports things.
Oh, that's a good thing.
What is the lotto supporting?
School system or whatever.
It supports a cultural cause where if you go to Vegas, I mean, you're literally
directly supporting prostitution, drug use, alcoholism.
I mean, it's like it all stems from that.
That's a good point.
In Vegas, when you support them, supporting a sinful lifetime in all areas, in
a situation of a lotto ticket, you know, schools are a big support and things like that.
But does that make it okay?
You know, it's just, I just, because they threw lots for things in the Bible to
decide things.
It's a form of gambling.
But they were trusting in the providence through it as well.
So I have a problem just saying universally it's all bad to universally it's all good because I don't know
all situations and stuff.
So I'm reticent to say it's just bad.
But for the most part, gambling's bad.
Stay away from it.
You shouldn't do it.
I have a friend who, when I was living in Southern California, once a year or so,
he would take, I think it was $200, and he would drive to Stateside in
California, into Nevada, call it Stateside.
And he would gamble his $200, and he'd go.
He'd go home.
He would never, he just did it once a year.
I went with him once, you know.
He'd go, buy a steak, keep me company.
And he was not addicted.
He said, I can spend $200 going to movies.
Hollywood doesn't support some good stuff.
You know, I didn't judge him on it.
It's like, okay.
But I did do this once.
This is no lie.
I didn't gamble.
I went to the roulette wheel.
I can still see it.
It's red, black.
And I went red, black.
I got 11 in a row.
So I missed one.
Then I tried it again.
I got nine in a row.
And saw the way back.
I tried.
Hey, guess what I did?
I was, I didn't put any money on it.
He goes, what?
Turn around.
Come back.
I go, it won't work.
11 in a row, then nine in a row.
How about that?
Okay. Sorry.
So keeping this going, is it sinful for Christians to invest in stocks such as Budweiser
or Philip Morris or wing casinos?
It gets tough.
Because you might invest in a group or mutual fund that has all kinds of various things.
And some of the things might be, say, for example, you have to say booze.
Then what do you do?
What if it's not in an ETF?
What if they're directly investing in Philip Morris?
Philip Morris?
Would you bet?
I think, I think that we have to be wise in where we invest and be careful with it.
And try and, you know, we're supposed to invest, the Bible says to,
in various things.
But try and do it in a Godly way and be responsible.
So my, one of my daughter's friends is into digital money and was
telling me about some stuff.
So I took a few hundred dollars and put it in there.
And I told my wife, I said, it's not a gamble because we're not gambling.
We're not putting our hope in it.
It's like a stocks.
It's just a digital money thing.
And this guy turned 20 ,000 into 400 ,000 with his dad.
Bitcoin?
Bitcoin stuff, yeah.
And so I put some money, just letting it sit, see what happens.
If we lose it, we lose it.
If we don't, we don't.
It's not a gamble.
I'm not putting any hope in it.
I'm not doing anything.
It's an idea to try and invest in order to make more money and be more successful, pay off bills.
That's a good motive.
That's the motive behind it.
Well, people might say, well, that's gambling on, you know, equivalently, it's like stocks.
That's money for them.
Is that bad?
I wouldn't say so.
I know somebody who, that's one of the things they do.
They wash a stock market and then invest accordingly and make money.
It's a bit of gambling on that.
But it, and I would think that probably in the Bible, there's some things that they would do that was, in a sense, gambling.
You know, they're gambling on the rains coming and they're trusting that God would provide.
Is that gambling?
Not really because you're in God's providence.
You're not, it's not chance.
You know, seeing if your livelihood is in chance.
That's what I get by gambling is you're living chance as being a provider, not
God.
And I think, generically speaking, if you're seeking God's wisdom and to be the provider through something, then
okay.
I wouldn't say, well, God, I got a great deal.
I can buy into this new whorehouse and the stock's low.
I can make a lot of money.
It's going to clean up.
You know, that would not be a good idea.
You ask God for that kind of thing.
But there's lines to be drawn.
So if you have five minutes to witness to a Mormon as a Christian, what would you focus on?
What I'd focus on?
Praying to Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.
In 3rd Nephi 19 .18, they did pray to Jesus.
In Matthew 28 .18 -20, Jesus has all authority.
Jesus says, ask anything in my name and I will do it.
John 14 .14, Stephen prayed to Jesus.
In Acts 7 .55 -60, 1 Corinthians 1 .2, they called upon the name of the Lord
Jesus.
So I try and get them to go to the one who has the authority to forgive sins.
As he does in Luke 5 .27 -48.
And try and get them to pray to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.
I've spoken to a Mormon before and asked him, do you believe that Jesus died for his sins?
And he said yes.
So how do you respond to that?
Well, see, a lot of people don't know, but when you talk to Mormons, you can't use terms.
You have to use definitions.
So if you say to a Mormon, do you believe in the Trinity?
They're going to say yes.
But you have to say this.
Do you believe there's only one God in all existence, all place, all times, who is never a man anywhere, any place, and
that the Trinity is one being who exists as three simultaneous, co -eternal, distinct persons?
Then they can't say yes.
Because when you say Trinity, they're hearing three separate gods.
When you say Jesus, they're thinking the brother of the devil, and you and I, the spirit of God.
So you've got to use definitions.
That's the key with talking to Mormons.
Be specific in your definitions.
Thank you.
What do you make of a church service who, during the singing, dims the lights and has electric lasers on the wall?
Well, I like lasers.
I think it's pretty cool.
On my phone, which I downloaded the stuff, I was at Joel Osteen's church in Houston
last year.
There it is.
And I went there.
Hey, I'm not feeling good.
I think I'm good.
You're a fast lighter now.
I did.
I felt good.
I was uplifted.
I had a great time.
There were a lot of beautiful people to look at.
The music was great.
The thumping music was good.
I loved that.
The laser show was great.
I felt like I was at a concert.
I wasn't edified, but I felt good.
And so the laser light show that they had, you know, it was cool.
I would say, instead of using manipulation to get people to come forward, speak the truth of God's word
and let the Holy Spirit do that work and come forward.
So I think manipulation is what's happening.
Dim the lights.
Use the lasers.
Say this again.
Get a babe up and get her pretty face up on a big screen.
You know, that kind of thing.
It's all manipulation.
Romans 12 .2.
Has to apply to the church.
Romans 12 .2, which says, Do not be conformed to this world.
Do not be conformed to this world.
Absolutely.
That's exactly what's going on.
In fact, this is for real.
After the service was over, Buddy and I that were there, we went to Joel
Osteen's church.
We went to their library, bookstore, which is about twice as big as these two rooms,
this room together.
It was huge.
Maybe three times as big as this.
And so I went to one of the workers.
I said, Do you guys have any systematic theologies?
And he goes, No.
I said, It's a book of theology that arranges things systematically.
And they call it a systematic theology.
It's got doctrine in it, like the Trinity and stuff.
He goes, I'll have to go ask.
So it took 20 minutes for him to come back and go, No, we don't have anything like that here.
Just checking.
Oh, yeah.
They had all kinds of stuff from all the wacko teachers.
Yes, ma 'am.
Real quick, back to the casino thing.
Maxwell Edison made a great comment that it's also kind of along the lines of worshipping money.
If you're worshipping money, you're putting your hope in it.
Yeah, that's true.
But his other comment was, If the Jehovah's Witnesses share with you that they have the correct version of God,
then would you worship Him and become a JW?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Well, compare the two.
If they said they have, it doesn't make it so.
Compare the two versions of God.
Oh, the Jehovah's Witness God denies the Trinity.
They're Aryan.
And Jesus is the first created thing.
And so they're a non -Christian cult.
But don't start with Jehovah's Witnesses.
They will deceive you.
They are false prophets who've altered the Bible to make it suit their theological means.
Doty Mendoza, what message would you like to give the Iglesia Di Cristo members who are so proud
to celebrate their 103rd anniversary tomorrow?
The method?
Krav Maga.
No, message.
Oh, message.
I thought you said method, for real.
I mean, Krav Maga, you know.
Do some bursting.
But anyway, what message would I give?
Repent from your false doctrines.
You're on your way to hell.
The Iglesia Di Cristo is a false church.
It's violent.
And when they lose their debates, they often beat up the people that destroy them in arguments.
Don't they just tell them, debate with documents, right?
I'm sure you clean their clocks.
Well, I knew a guy who debated them in the Philippines.
He was telling me he either got beat up or the guy who beat him got beat up pretty badly.
They came after him.
And so he was debating them.
If I remember correctly, he was debating them and beat them and made sure that he wasn't
alone in any place because they'll do that to you.
In fact, when we went to Tacloban, the Philippines, we were there after the
worst hurricane on record.
Anywhere on the planet, recorded history, hit the island chain there.
We were there two months afterwards.
And it was equivalent to taking a city
with a single scoop from a shovel, putting it into a washing machine, sloshing it around and then
throwing it out onto the landscape and bulldozing the streets clear so that the crabs there and their
yards and their homes were six, eight feet from the street to the thing.
And the children were playing literally two feet from the road as we're driving by.
That's the condition we saw.
And the Iglesia Ni Cristo churches were pristine because their money was spent in keeping everything up to date.
There were always good -looking buildings.
Always.
I remember that.
The contrast.
And the Mormon church also.
The Mormon churches, everything looked really nice.
The money went into keeping up the image.
They don't always need people to help, but that's what was there.
Anyway, yes, Nick.
Yep.
We'll go to one you asked a long time ago.
Jacob Diaz, me and my friend were talking to someone.
He said that everything was evil in the world and that the elements, that fire
represents the Father and stars represent angels and the earth was flat.
What is your opinion on this person's way of thinking?
Well, what I would do is step backwards three or four feet and just make
sure that the lame -o vortex of non -thinking
doesn't envelop you from the universe.
Obviously, that person has been infected by something.
That kind of stuff you can shred by just sitting with the person, asking questions, and start showing their
inconsistencies.
I've met people like that.
And how do you know that's true?
Because I'm in tune with the divine consciousness.
How do you know that?
Because I can feel it right here.
From Facebook, Sean Fry.
Tertullian said that 1 Enoch, which was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, should not be discarded since it speaks
of us, the elect, and the Son of Man that paid for the sins of the elect.
And in 2 and 3 Enoch, they were not, was not found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Do you agree with Tertullian?
Tertullian wasn't the human church father way back in the day.
No, I don't agree with that.
It's supposed to be scripture.
Dilly305 from YouTube.
If God is metaphysical and all metaphysical things are either concepts or they are not real, i .e. physical,
does it follow that God is either a concept or a non -real?
If God's a concept, then it requires a mind.
So that would mean there's minds out there.
So is a concept ubiquitous?
Absolute.
Does it require an absolute mind?
And just because something's metaphysical doesn't mean it's reduced to a concept.
Metaphysical means non -physical.
Just because concepts are non -physical doesn't mean all things are concepts or not real.
There could be different kinds of things that have existence as well.
You could have energies and things like that.
So the question just doesn't properly represent actuality, what metaphysics is, and
things like that.
Here's a good question.
To what degree can a Christian who affirms essentials hold to false doctrines and still be considered a true believer as long as he doesn't
deny the essentials?
I mean, lots of people...
You could be a Christian and believe in annihilation.
That doesn't mean you're not saved.
You could be a Christian and believe in preacher of rapture.
You could be a Christian and not believe in baptism for covenant faithfulness.
Does presuppositionalism commit circular reasoning?
Yes, but is it invalid?
Everybody has a starting point that you have to presuppose is true.
Everybody begs the question to some degree.
How do you know the laws of logic are true?
Because you use the laws of logic to demonstrate that they're true?
That's begging the question.
It's circular.
You have to have a starting point.
So everybody would presuppose something to some degree.
That goes without saying.
Because we can't prove everything.
And if we try to prove everything, how we prove our proving is proof.
You have to have something to prove that.
And so you can't.
And so you have to have certain presuppositions and assumptions.
The question then becomes, which worldview can account for those presuppositions and make sense of them?
The Christian worldview can.
When you presuppose God's existence, everything makes sense.
If you get rid of the Christian God, things fall apart quickly.
So presuppositionalism, of course, like any argument system, presupposes certain things and values
that we can't validate.
And we work from that.
And that's it.
It's just not a problem there.
I've written more on classical theism than everyone, including Matt Slick himself.
Thank you very much.
Classical theism.
Good.
What's classical theism?
This is a written, defined classical theism.
So I know what you mean by that.
Guess what went way over my head.
How can you claim Mormonism at all?
People do it when they're deceived.
No, no, no.
This server is saying he's Mormon and I just asked him, are you joking or are you really a Mormon?
Oh, there it is.
Carbideus, that's you.
If you believe the Bible, you are by default presupp.
You presuppose it's truth.
You can't judge it's truth.
You assume it's truth.
Because of spirit Christian witness.
Some atheists might jump on this and say, see, your circular reasoning is invalid.
No, it's not.
Everybody has presuppositions, atheists included.
Can an atheist account for his presuppositional worldview apart from the Christian God?
No, he can't.
Well, there you go.
Anything else?
I guess I don't see anything in YouTube.
No, I think we ran them out.
Ran them out?
Well, it's 930 here.
We can just shut it down then.
We can go about 50 minutes.
Wait, what?
About 50 minutes.
About 50?
50 minutes on Q &A.
Well, let's give them one more minute and if nobody comes up with anything, we'll bail.
You do a witnessing tactics next week?
I'm going to finish Mormonism.
I've got a lot more on Mormonism.
I can do, but I can do witnessing tactics and then do something else.
You want to finish Mormonism and then do witnessing tactics for...
Yeah, I can do another four, five, six weeks on Mormonism.
Wait, I'm going.
But maybe I'll just wrap it up.
We'll see.
I'll think about it.
Well, you can keep going on it.
Well, we have the temple opening coming up in November.
So this is a good fodder for...
Temple opening in Eagle, right?
Meridian.
Meridian, yeah.
On Linder.
Okay, here's one more.
Sorry, by Eagle Island.
Really close.
Yeah, by Eagle Island.
Well, I'm going to do this one and then we'll close with this.
If God is benevolent, why does he threaten us instead of convincing us through reasoning?
Dilly, are you a Christian?
Because God certainly has reasonably shown that he exists by creation.
That's Romans chapter 1, verses 18 through 20, roughly.
And through the evidence of the eyewitnesses recorded in the Gospels about the work of
Christ.
So, apparently, reason isn't working with him.
And if he's benevolent, it doesn't mean that's the only thing he is.
So he had to be reasonable.
He's also just and holy.
And the threat is a necessity.
He's simply telling you the consequence of rebellion against him.
That's all.
It's like when I'm raising my child.
And I'll say, look, if you put your hand on that stove, you can get burned.
I'm just telling you the consequence.
You're threatening me.
I'm informing you.
Well, Job was right.
You can't reason with a depraved mind.
You cannot reason with a depraved mind.
And there's a problem with that called noetic effect of sin.
Classical theism is a doctrine that Aquinas and Augustine held that was popular in the early church.
See, that sure helped.
Defined it.
That's what they held.
Well, what is it?
Because man's fallen nature is dark and ruined.
It simply is about God having no metaphysical constituents and being identical with his essence.
Now, are you committing the fallacy of division here?
Or composition?
Lots to talk about.
You know what?
It's 930.
We'll get into this stuff.
I know.
It never ends.
I've done this with an atheist before.
All right, folks.
We're done.
God bless.
Next week, we'll see you.