Post Calvinism Discussion Review

You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

Chief among misfits, a misfit in the trailer park at night.

A misprint with the sixth sense, been sick ever since my brother died of an O .D.

My two cents never made sense, either to me or anyone else inside of the sheet bins.

My 9th Smith on my right side.

Why you staring at your cop dot sign and my John Hancock on the dotted line?

Tell me what's the bottom line.

The bottom line is I'm not right.

I'm not left, but this elephant won't fight.

There's nothing left but the spotlight.

Hold my beer, you can find me in the moonlight.

You can say what you want.

You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

You can say what you want.

You can say what you...

I'm wits in the deep end and I can't find my assigned seat to sit in.

My theology don't fit in.

Black sheep of the Reformation sheep pen.

To the Reformed, I'm just another Baptist baptized again.

The bastard child of Anabaptist.

Host to child of Reformation society.

We don't need your education.

Give me a Bible and a bookshelf of dead men.

Cigars, bourbons, and beer cans.

Bow ties, tattoos, and bearded men.

Making Reformation great again.

You can say what you want.

You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

You can say what you want.

You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

No, you won't around me.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Open Air Theology.

My name is Jeff and I'm one of the co -hosts.

I'm also one of the elders at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Tallahoma, Tennessee.

If you're ever in the area, please stop by and pay me a visit.

I'd love to sit down and have a conversation.

Also, at the very top, I want to remind people that we are having a conference in

February on the subject of why Calvinism.

It would be great for everyone that's able to come to hang

out and just sit underneath God's word and just

fellowship.

If you're able to make that, please, please come hang out with us.

If you do come and you watch Open Air Theology, please let us know.

We'd love to actually talk to the people that watch our stuff in public.

I'm going to pass it over to Brayden Patterson.

Yeah, Brayden Patterson.

I'm the pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Hagerman, Idaho.

Come worship God with us on the Lord's Day at 11 a .m. if you live nearby the area.

I also have a YouTube channel called Reformed Ex -Mormon.

So thankful to be a part of Open Air Theology.

Just really thankful to even be a part of that, not a debate, but the discussion that we're in.

It was more discussion than debate, but just super thankful to proclaim Christ

like that.

And yeah, I'm surrounded by a whole bunch of dead things.

And that just shows that dead things don't come to life, right?

That had to be moved because I bumped the chair and it moved it.

So it's just the logical conclusion that Christ is the one that makes us alive in regeneration.

John, would you introduce yourself?

Sure.

Well, there's not much to say for me.

I'm 21.

My name is John Myers.

I do a podcast with my brother, Randy Atkins, called Rector Reformed.

And there's a couple other things we've been working on lately behind the scenes.

But right now we're just seeking to glorify God

and be faithful where we are.

And so that's why I'm glad to be here.

And I'm very thankful for you guys allowing me on your show.

Yeah, man.

Well, like we've told you in the past, you're always welcome.

We are a part of a ministry together called one that Haps Addison is putting together called

Passing the Torch.

And so it's, you know, getting to know you has been a joy.

And so for those of you that don't know, we just had a

discussion debate, the two gentlemen we disagree with on Calvinism.

Well, we're not doing this to to speak negative about them.

I'm sure they're, you know, really nice gentlemen.

Right.

I'm sure if we saw each other in person, we'd shake hands, hug necks and and

laugh and, you know, find some common ground and have fellowship.

But we just want to talk about what just took place on the debate.

And it looks like J .P. Uncut has joined.

Welcome, J .P.

Again, we took none of that stuff personal.

This has to do with doctrine and what we believe.

And tonight we just want to kind of just show talk

about points that we were trying to make and then points that they were making and

how I believe they wouldn't answer our objections.

And I'm sure they're going to do one.

Speaking of how we didn't answer their objections.

The video is out there on the Gospel Truth Network.

You can go there, watch the video.

I think it's like two and a half hours long.

I'm not exactly sure how long it lasts.

But, yeah, so that's that.

So let's begin.

John, you watch the debate.

Thoughts?

Yeah.

Well, first of all, thank you guys for doing the debate.

I'm nowhere near as well equipped as you guys are.

And so I'm very thankful for you guys participating in it.

And I think you guys did a really good job.

Overall, I think the key contentions that you guys are bringing up

touch a foundational problem that they have in terms of what they

bring to the discussion at the back of their mind, like their presuppositions.

And those presuppositions are overriding how they interpret the scriptures.

And that's sort of what you were seeing in Colossians 2 and some of those passages you guys were bringing

up, because that was determining how they're interpreting those passages.

So for me, I think it was very clear for those who are listening, like

they weren't really addressing the points.

And so while I love them and I have a lot of respect for them,

I think that they did not do their burden in that discussion in terms of

responding to what you guys are saying.

Yeah, I feel like I lost my cool for a second and I want to apologize to JP and Marlon for that.

Again, please give me some grace.

I do struggle in that area, and I'm sure they feel the same way.

So I'm a street kid, right?

I grew up on the streets and sometimes, like

even as a pastor, and I feel like, you know, my position is not being accurately

handled.

And then it's the whole idea.

So we're trying to take the big subject of Calvinism and the T -U -L -I -P

and answer the questions within a two and a half period of time, right?

Like each one of those points deserves two and a half hours, right?

And so it was really hard to, you know, because they're throwing up verses that I know I'm not going

to be able to actually properly walk through because that's what we like to do.

We want to take a verse and we want to know 20 verses before and 20 verses after and put it in this

context.

Every book has a theme and every paragraph has a theme and the theme of the paragraph doesn't override the theme of the book, right?

And so it was really with the amount of time that we had, it's

impossible to go through all that.

And when we were trying to go through all that, I was accused of taking too long.

And whenever I didn't, when I just took two minutes, I was accused of not answering.

And so I didn't like it just it wasn't well balanced.

I'm thankful that Marlon had us on there, but I will not do it again in a discussion

forum.

I want to have a real moderated debate and not on the host subject.

Maybe just one of the points or maybe we just focus on regeneration because that's the hinge pin.

Brayden, your thoughts?

Yeah, no, I agree with you.

I think that this is why I think debates are important, right?

Because it can show somebody how you are able to talk for 15

minutes at a time or more or less, depending just but a large amount of time and walk through a text or walk

through a topic.

And I think it shows a little bit better exegetical skills.

I really I thought that especially at the beginning, I thought it was really awesome seeing respect

given towards the end, it started to fall away.

And I think that was just because after you talk for two hours, it happens.

Right.

But I appreciate hearing you even say something like that.

I think I obviously me being a Calvinist, I'm

going to say I don't think that they represented what the scripture said.

I don't think they were able to.

I don't think that they were able to directly handle the text that we were bringing up.

And I that's where like a debate like Romans.

I couldn't like I was just like, dude, what are you like?

What are you trying to get out with this?

Romans eight talks about the elect.

Romans nine talks about Israel.

Romans 11 talks about the Israel of God.

Like it's this continual thing of new covenant members.

And so like that's where I think having a debate format actually has a lot of value and things.

But I was happy with how it went, though.

Overall, I think we glorified Christ.

I think we preached and crucified.

I think that I think I think that video is going to be edifying for people that

do not know what Calvinism is.

I think that will be it'll be very edifying in those ways.

I'm thankful.

Yeah.

One thing I noticed in the discussion, especially when you guys got to Romans nine.

I'm not sure which of them said.

I think it was Mahler.

And I think Mahler said that Romans nine wasn't about salvation.

Did I understand that correctly?

I think it was.

It was one of them.

Yeah, one of them.

But JP is watching.

JP, if that was you that said that, let us know, brother.

Yes, it was.

I don't know if he's actually watching or if he's just comments, but.

OK, OK.

But yeah, regardless.

It reminded me of verse twenty five, where right after the cold passage, you're referring to Braden.

As he also says in Hosea, I will call those who are not my people, my people and her who

is not beloved, beloved.

And it shall be in the place where it was said to them, you are not my people.

There they shall be called sons of the living God.

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea.

It is the remnant that will be saved.

Right.

And so in those are explicitly salvific terms

in Romans nine.

So even if you want to say it's corporate or something, that's fine.

That's not a discussion.

Let me interrupt you for a second.

I think it would be helpful for us to walk through the TULIP like and, you know,

just real quick to kind of show the verses that we we had written down

and to exegetically explain them.

And also the verses that they brought up.

Maybe we can take the time.

I don't know how much time you'll have, but maybe we can look at that in the context and actually

have the time to explain those things.

Is that OK with you guys?

Yeah, for sure.

How much time you got, Brayden?

Yeah.

I might have to jet out early, but let's try it.

I'm not sure.

It doesn't have to take long because we're not going to be interrupting.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So.

So for the tea, we brought up Ephesians two, one through three.

Right.

Brayden, if you want to give that our explanation for it.

And I'm not sure if they may bring up a passage for this.

I don't know if they brought up anything besides when we got to pee.

That was when they started to bring up passages about once saved, always save stuff about how you could lose your salvation.

But that being said, I and J .P.'s opening argument for tea because they were given the mic

first.

I think he misrepresented what Calvin has said, and I called him out on it because that's that's where he said

that Calvinists say that people are unable to respond to the call of the gospel.

And I called him out and saying, no, we believe people can respond, but they're going to respond with what is

consistent with their nature.

And their nature is obviously seen in Ephesians chapter two.

So our position in Ephesians chapter two is that it's not necessarily teaching that one spiritually dead because it doesn't

ever say spiritual in there.

It says that you're dead.

It's talking about how you have a permanent cessation of ability to please God.

And Ephesians two, one through five, that out of yourself, without God being an active agent in

something, your consistent is your your consistent nature is going to be that

of sin and transgression, rejecting the things of God.

And that that's seen.

And that's what I quoted.

I never told them the text that I quoted from, but I think that's from First Corinthians chapter two, verse twenty one.

Is that the text that we do not accept the things of God in our in our regardless?

That's what our our stance.

We brought up Ephesians two, one through three, talking about how we have to be made alive first

before being able to please God, which faith in God is a pleasing act.

And we can't do that unless we first are given a new birth.

Right.

And the context of this, like in Ephesians chapter one, verses three through. What is it?

Versus three through fourteen is actually speaking on the covenant of

redemption, which I brought up.

I'm not sure.

I think I brought it up in the year.

Right.

Which is why I didn't bring it up then.

But the context is speaking of the covenant of redemption.

And we are chosen in Christ and it speaks about how he has redeemed us and how

we are sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Right.

And so and then and then in two, he goes on to mention that,

you know, why this has to happen is because we are dead.

Right.

And our deadness is being outside the body of Christ because we're dead in our transgressions

and sins.

If we're in the body of Christ, we're not dead in our transgressions and sins.

We are what theologians call saint and sinner reality.

Right.

I am positionally righteous, although I still wear this garment of flesh.

And so I see myself as sinful.

I'm sure both of y 'all do as well.

See me as sinful, not yourselves.

Right.

Now, you know, like we see ourself as sinful, but but because of what Christ God has done for us in Christ,

God sees us as perfectly righteous.

And so that's not what's taking place here in Ephesians 2.

We're dead outside the body and our transgressions and sins.

And it says in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the

ruler of the power of the air.

Speaking of Satan, the spirit, Satan, that is at work in the sons of

disobedience, among whom you formally conducted yourself.

We formally conducted ourselves in the lust of the flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind.

And we're by nature, children of wrath, even as the rest of the rest.

Sometimes Christians will say mankind doesn't have mankind there.

It just has rest.

And so in that word mind there.

The best translation, I think, could be there.

In my opinion, looking at the Greek is imaginations.

We are.

So whatever it is that our thoughts can think of, that's what our flesh is chasing

after.

Right.

And if and this is our nature by our nature is chasing after

what our mind desires.

Now, if you're in the body of Christ, you do not chase after the desires of your mind.

You are at war with the desires of your mind.

And so that's which.

And so when it says go ahead.

I was going to say, which which actually is talked about in the new covenant, because it says in that Ephesians to the works of the

mind and of the flesh in the new covenant.

We have the law of God written on our mind and upon our heart of flesh.

And so we still do the exact thoughts of our mind.

But they're they're now the thoughts that are consistent with God's law.

Right.

Because we live.

Well, even in your living, if you're dead in your trespasses and sins.

Right.

So the Jews, according to Romans chapter, I'm a student.

Romans chapter 10, beginning of verse one, they were chasing after desires of their mind.

But their desires of the mind were to keep the law of God according to the flesh.

Right.

I'm going to keep the law of God in order to please God.

Right.

And so so every every person who is born.

So it's that that heart of stone has the law of God written on it.

But it's in their mind.

But the difference is they're chasing after it for self -righteousness, self

-righteousness.

And so no matter what the desires of your mind are, you're chasing after it.

And even as a Christian, we're raging war against the desires of our mind when

it's going toward, let's say, self -righteousness or or let's say pornography.

All those in between.

Right.

The Christian has to refocus his mind.

We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the prince and powers of the air.

So on and so forth.

And we have to live our lives looking to Jesus Christ.

The moment we take our eyes off of Jesus, we're at war.

I mean, we're giving in to the desires of our flesh.

And so and it's because of that reason, verse five tells us, even when you are

dead in your transgressions, made alive, made us alive together with

Christ.

And so right here, we didn't even get to get to it.

We had to be made alive, made alive, made alive.

We were dead outside the body.

We had to be made alive, brought into the body.

When you read this, if you keep going, it says that when we were made alive, we are sitting with him in the heavens.

Now, how are we with him in the heavens and on earth?

Because the church is the body of Christ, us in him, he in us

making us the temple.

Yep.

All millennialism, baby.

All millennialism.

Or just biblical.

Sorry. I'm just kidding.

Biblical Christianity, right?

We should keep it.

We should keep it going, though.

So unconditional election.

I don't think they brought up a text.

They didn't bring up a text besides choose you this day, who you will serve and total depravity from what I can recall.

And then they didn't bring it at all.

I don't want to misrepresent them, but I don't think they did.

Yeah, I know.

Just like, what?

But what Jeff was saying in there is exactly right.

Old covenant people, you were born into the covenant as a child of Abraham.

And you chose that day if you serve the Lord.

So a 30 -year -old person, they were born into the covenant.

They chose that day if they were going to serve the Lord or not.

They were in the covenant.

They chose to serve the Lord or not.

It wasn't you choose to serve the Lord and then you're in the covenant.

It's you were in the covenant, serve the Lord.

In the new covenant, you're born again, choose this day to serve the Lord.

It's a consistent pattern that we have.

But one's not through physical birth anymore.

It's now through spiritual birth, through being born again, being born of the water and the spirit of John chapter 3.

And if it was salvific, Joshua wasn't

telling the Jebusites to choose you this day, whom you will serve.

As for me, I'm going to serve the Lord.

He's talking to covenant people.

And that's the same idea.

So I'm preaching on revival at our church, right?

And I'm making sure to hit it hard that we are to obey Christ.

Like if you want revival, right?

Revival is when the fire is lit in us to where we go out and witness.

And when the revival is lit in us and we're out witnessing and people are getting saved, that

brings around an awakening.

Right?

Reformation and awakening.

But if the church still stands here twiddling their thumbs and sitting on their hands and tapping their feet and

not doing what the Bible tells us to do, which our marching orders are found in Matthew 28 and

Acts chapter 1, there's not going to be a great awakening because the church is not being obedient.

Revival is when the church is being obedient.

I'm up there telling them, choose you this day, whom you're going to serve.

And I told them, you're either going to serve Jesus or the devil.

And you can only have one father.

And your father is either God or the devil.

And who you serve will tell you who your father is.

I'm speaking this to a room full of Christians.

Right?

I'm doing what Joshua did in that chapter.

Choose you this day.

I'm not going out on the streets telling unbelievers to choose you this day.

I'm calling them to faith and repentance.

Right, because that would even bring into question, can somebody that is not having faith serve the Lord and be saved?

Like if that is what that text is teaching is salvation.

So you're saying, I'm not saying this is what they're saying.

But if you want to take that verse in the way that I think that they're trying to apply it.

So can I serve the Lord and be saved?

If I'm not born again, if I don't have faith, can I just serve and be saved?

No, I'm by nature a child of wrath.

I've died.

I'm dead in Adam.

Hey, give me a second.

I gotta let my dog in.

She's barking.

Yeah, you're good.

I'll go start going through unconditional election.

So unconditional election is, again, that God did not see my faith or anything good in me

for a purpose of choosing me or electing me to have faith.

Right?

So if we're building this argument, total depravity, that means that we're going to do that, which is consistent with our nature.

That is dead in our sins and trespasses.

Unconditional election is meaning that God never saw what I would do tomorrow or maybe what he saw in me doing this debate.

He did not choose me so I could have this debate.

God unconditionally elect me so that his mercy could be seen, his glory could be seen, and so on and so forth.

So for that text, we went to Romans 9,

Romans 9, verse 11, that Esau and Jacob, that before they'd done

anything good or wrong, that he had chosen Jacob.

And then that's what we see play out in verses 18 through 24.

And John just quoted or read for us 25 and on, that God, as the

potter, has all the right, and we cannot hold him culpable for what he has decreed.

He has all the right to make vessels for mercy and vessels for wrath.

And that's what that text is teaching in there.

I don't think they necessarily had another text in unconditional election.

John, what's up, dude?

What do you think of everything, Habs?

What?

What do you think of everything?

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Well, you know what?

To be honest, I love the dialogue and

everything.

I wish it was a formal debate, you know, so that we could expand on what we

believe.

And, you know, when there's a, I get what they're saying.

I mean, I gotta be honest.

If I had a surface level of understanding like they did, I would completely

come to the same conclusions.

You know, but again, I think that when we look at Scripture

in its entirety, and Jeff pointed out, I

mean, like halfway through and stuff, he goes, what you guys are doing is you're conflating the old

covenant and the new covenant.

I said, I think if you don't have a proper understanding of the old covenant and the new covenant, and the old covenant was

you, you circumcising your own flesh, and

that Ezekiel 36, 25, and I, and I will

sprinkle clean water on you.

And I...

Well, yeah, Yahweh, you know, not me, you know.

But anyways, the way that I was really looking at it,

especially when Moeller was talking about, but Pharaoh hardened his heart.

And again, I think that if you don't understand

Scripture, if you don't like really, if you're not really taught these things, you

can come up with a lot of your own conclusions and everything.

You notice that in Exodus 4, 21, God

tells Moses that he was going to harden Moses's heart.

And then in Exodus 8, 32, it said that Pharaoh hardened his heart.

And it's something I'll be teaching on in December at Covenant Reform Baptist Church.

But when you see this, like Genesis 1, you have God's view, heaven's

view of creation.

And then in chapter 2, you have man's view of creation.

So here you have God's view of he's going to harden the heart.

And then over here, you have, I mean, it's all throughout Scripture.

Revelation, I saw, I mean, I heard 144 ,000, I saw a

great multitude.

And so when you don't understand these things and really know how to

differentiate between, again, the covenants,

the Hebrew grammatics, you don't understand the structure, the context,

bringing it all in.

You can draw these conclusions that it's our choice in that.

But the simple fact of the matter is, is God chose Israel out of all the nations.

All right, God did.

They chose God, God chose them.

Right.

I think it just showed some hermeneutical principles, like even in, and maybe this goes back to the tea real fast,

but even the beginning of the tea, they were bringing about, why would you preach the gospel if you

knew that only the elect would be saved?

Why would you do that?

To the effect that they were bringing that up.

And my point was Jesus, who's God and knows all things and knows that they're going to reject the message.

He still told them to repent and believe in the gospel.

So that argument against Calvinism is completely mute because you can't use that argument for why Christ

himself was preaching the gospel.

Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, before we do, I want to, because I wasn't able, we had a, they put us on such a time

constriction.

Like it was very hard to try to get my point out.

And so I want to take the time real quick and I want to read these, these verses that I have right here.

And again, just listen to this.

First Timothy chapter six, beginning in verse 13, Paul says, I charge you in the

presence of God who gives life to all things and of

Jesus Christ, who is, who testified the good confession

before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandments without stain or

reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Right here, he mentions Jesus Christ.

So what I'm about to say after this, notice that this is the end, the nearest end to seed it,

which he will bring about at the proper time.

He who is the blessed and only sovereign.

So who is the blessed and only sovereign?

God.

All right.

The king of kings.

The king of kings.

So the blessed, the blessed and only sovereign right here, the king of kings

and the Lord of lords who alone has end

mortality and dwells in unapproachable light.

So right here, Jesus Christ is the sovereign king of king, Lord of lords.

That's dwelling in that alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable

light.

Now, right here, whom no man has ever seen nor can see.

John chapter one, verse 18, tells us that no one has ever seen the father.

So right here we have the father and God, the son.

They dwell in unapproachable light.

You cannot approach it.

And then John, I think he's well, I think Paul is picking up on what John is saying.

John 6, 44.

Jesus says, no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him

up on the last day.

John 14, 6.

Jesus said to them, I am the way, the truth and the life.

No one comes to the father but through me.

If God dwells in unapproachable light and you can't get to Jesus unless you're drawn by the father and you can't get to the father

unless you're drawn by Jesus, how do you get to God?

And from a human responsibility, it is impossible.

And that's the point that we were trying to make.

But we only had just like a few seconds before they start complaining.

You cannot get this stuff out.

Well, you know, I also, you know, I just wanted to state that I think

Mueller, he, I think to be honest, I think that he handled

the text and his understanding from his perspective really, really well.

What text?

What?

What text?

From his perspective.

I never, which text?

Well, I meant the debate.

I meant the debate that he wanted to stick with certain verses and everything.

But what I was saying was he did pull out one and that he said that he would have went to what

all really means.

And if he were us and I.

I've been to those arguments before.

Well, well, no.

Because we were in John six and John six is all that the father comes to me.

Well, we know that in.

Was it Mark?

And I mean, Matthew, when it said that all

of Jerusalem and Judea came up being all of the land of Judah

and Jerusalem came to be baptized by John.

Does that does that mean all of Israel came?

Well, no.

All that that we're going to be baptized.

You know, so it's that there's a there's all doesn't mean all like we we

think it means all the time.

Oh, you know, and I think that that would have been something, you know, and I'm looking at it, you know,

like, I mean, when I look at all the whole scripture.

You know, you know, when I look at all the scripture and I see how I mean, just

you just see it over and over and over again.

You know that that this old covenant and this new covenant.

One was of works.

One was a do, do, do, do, do.

And then you had the new covenant, which was you couldn't do all of that.

I'm going to come and do it for you.

You couldn't circumcise the hearts of your being the flesh of your heart.

I'm going to come and do it for you.

I'm going to sprinkle clean water on you.

I'm going to do this because we couldn't do it.

You know, and I think it's it's the scripture clearly states that

that this was all from Genesis all the way pointing to the coming of Christ

points to that.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, if you guys don't mind.

One passage that came to my mind in the debate was Philippians 129.

Yes.

Part of unconditional election is that God has chosen

unconditionally.

He chose people that's not based upon foreseen faith or foreseen action on our

part.

It's solely upon him, which means the faith that we have comes from him as well.

And so if God gives us faith and not other people, then that would

prove unconditional election.

And so I'll just read it really quick.

It says for to you, it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in him, but

also to suffer for his sake.

Right.

You're under the same problem we had earlier.

All I see is a black screen.

Yeah, really?

I'll just.

Yeah, I mean.

Happening.

I can hear you.

Yeah.

No, no.

I think that's where they get tripped up.

Is they think from a Western mind, you know, mindset that granted

means like if I ask for permission first.

All right.

And here it's it's not something that you accept.

You don't accept faith because that would require you to have faith to accept the gift.

And so it's it's a gracious gift.

Like your life is a gift to you.

It's not something that you accept this way.

It's something that's given to you innately.

And I think what you really saw here is the difference between covenant theology and

dispensational theology.

Yeah.

Because in the beginning here, I started out with the covenant of redemption.

Right.

How God.

So.

So in the idea of election, God purpose to save a people.

So we're talking about election.

We're talking about a covenant made between the triune God.

Right.

God purpose to save a people.

Well, how is he going to save them?

Well, in time, he sends his son to accomplish this purpose through living the

life that they could not live.

That's as a substitute and dying.

The death that they should die as a substitute was buried and rose against the gospel.

Right.

And then and then the Holy Spirit, because it's all trying, the Holy Spirit applies the

purpose and the preaching of the gospel.

And so he kept mentioning that we're that faith comes by hearing and hearing of the word of God.

Well, of course it does, because the word of God, that's when the Holy Spirit

applies the purpose by giving you faith.

And so I want to go real quick.

I mean, well, I think Haps touched on it earlier from if

you know me well, this is like my my favorite portion to go to, because it actually gives you the order of

salutis.

Right.

I sprinkle you with clean water.

Right.

That's regeneration.

He removes our heart of stone, that that's our self -righteousness.

He gives us a heart of faith.

All right.

And he gives us a heart of flesh, which is faith.

And then he puts his Holy Spirit in us to keep the law.

So the order of salutis is regeneration, faith, Holy Spirit.

So all this talk about believing, we believe that we have to believe.

We just know what comes before our believing.

So let's look at the third point was was was the L, limited atonement.

And we took them to Colossians 2, 14.

And I feel like they did not absolutely did not touch the text.

I don't think they handle any text we gave.

But I think this right here really showed for anyone that was watching.

Brayden, do you want to speak on this?

Yeah, I tried to press Moller.

I have a hard time saying his name.

I apologize.

Moller.

Moller.

I apologize.

I my name is not perhaps right several times, but it is what it is.

I think Colossians 2 was not given any answer to our questions on it like

that.

What's the canceling out of the debt?

A certificate?

That's that's Christ becoming sin so that we might be made the righteous of God in him.

Right.

He was nailed to a cross and it says it was canceled out, meaning it was done away with.

It was paid.

It was it was gone.

Propitiation.

Right.

Or maybe in better words, penile substitutionary atonement is what that is.

But regardless, when was the debt canceled out?

Not when you have faith on the cross.

Two thousand years ago, when our Lord and Savior God in flesh died, he canceled out a certificate of

debt.

He canceled out sin, wrath and if I can just interject real fast.

And he was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Right.

Right.

So all that being said, right, like.

How is it if he died for all the sins of all the people in all the world?

That if the sin that was canceled 2000 years ago for me as a believer.

How is it that God can justly pour out wrath on somebody whose sin debt has been canceled?

And that's the the the exegetical stance you have to come to on Colossians 2 14 is that it is

limited atonement or particular redemption, whatever you want to call it.

It's that it's exactly made for the new covenant members.

Yeah, that's why I was trying to hold their feet to the fire here.

And they would not stick with the text.

He just said something like, yeah, I just don't see that.

But it doesn't matter if you don't see that you're not dealing with the text because it actually says that says that

it's like that.

That's the big issue, I think, even with losing your salvation.

So how how how can your sin debt be canceled?

I believe.

And then when you stop believing that sin that is re imputed, like it's it's unpaid for,

like Christ goes and takes a receipt back and asks for a refund.

Like like that's not that's that's not that's not

allowable in Colossians 2 14.

Yeah.

And one thing I would mention really quick, if you guys don't mind.

One thing I mentioned to you guys before the debate is it seems like on

their view, they have some sort of misunderstanding of the sacrificial system.

In a sense that in the old covenant, when you had the sacrificial system,

the atonement was made and was made to the father.

Right.

It was made to the father.

And so the father was the one who had to accept the sacrifice.

And if the father accepted it, then the people would be redeemed.

The people that it was made for would have redemption.

Right.

That's it.

That's the idea of the sacrificial system.

And so when they're talking about us accepting the sacrifice of Christ, it's almost

like they're saying that the sacrifice of Christ was made to us and we have to accept

the sacrifice.

And if we don't.

Then the sacrifice doesn't apply to us.

So do you guys see what I'm saying?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, absolutely.

The sacrificial system.

Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely.

That's a really good point.

And, you know, when all this is going on, you have so much going through your mind.

And if you talk over two minutes, people are freaking out.

Right.

And I will never agree to a discussion like that again.

They would not.

It's impossible to have them to answer the text in a discussion format like that.

And I think that's why they choose to have a discussion format instead of a

real debate.

So that way they are not forced to stick with the text and answer the text.

Right.

So anything else on limited atonement?

Yeah, I'll just say this really quick.

When it comes to Colossians 2, all those participles explain each other.

Right.

All those participles.

When you have you being dead in your sins and transgressions in the uncircumcision of your flesh.

He made you alive.

How?

Having graciously forgiven us all our transgressions.

How?

Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us.

He has taken it out of the way.

How?

Having nailed it to the cross.

All of those participles explain each other.

And so when you when you follow the text, that's how we have redemption.

And that happens on the cross.

That's why he says to tell his time.

Right.

It is accomplished.

And so for them, they have to redefine perpetuation from the

assuagement of God's wrath to a possibility.

He's making it possible for God's wrath to be assuaged.

And if you accept it, then you will have your perpetuation.

Instead of dealing with it, instead of dealing with the text, he just kept saying that he would have went to a better text.

Right.

But he wouldn't deal with the text that he didn't think was good.

Yeah.

Well, and even even in them.

So one thing I did want to bring up on this is that they brought up the elect in the Old Testament, Old

Covenant and the Old Testament.

The issue with doing that is we don't

we wouldn't say that everybody in the Old Testament and the Old Covenant is a part of the New Covenant.

Right.

There are several people who died in the Old Covenant that were never saved.

They did not have their sins forgiven.

And so like that's why in Romans nine talks about that, that he's always had a remnant.

Or is that Roman center to eleven?

What somewhere in there talks about how he's always had a remnant of Israel.

He's always had a.

Romans 11, seven is your remnant chosen according to grace.

Yeah.

So there's always been a remnant.

So so that was.

God's elect was the remnant.

That was the ones that had been granted faith to believe in Yahweh's promises before Christ came

and instituted the New Covenant.

So they were conflating because because what I was trying to point out that that there is the remnant elect.

Right.

They're chosen.

And this would be a part of that, that covenant of redemption.

Right.

But God also chose ethnic Israel to bring about the seed of

Christ.

Right.

He chose Abraham.

He didn't choose.

If Abraham had a brother, he didn't choose him or he didn't choose someone else.

He chose Abraham.

And through Abraham, he was going to bless the nation.

He blesses the nation through the offspring that comes from Abraham, through the chosen

ethnicity that brought about that.

Right.

But when the new covenant comes, it's not about the chosen ethnicity.

It's about the the covenant of redemption, the elect

for spiritual salvation, not more to bring about an earthly people to bring

about a seed.

Well, and I think so.

I think that's where we would start to see, like, the root of sensationalism fighting against the

what I'm saying, I think, is in the Bible.

And I think we would all say amen to it is covenant theology.

Right.

I think I think Matt just said an analogy that that is that's very fitting.

Difficult to stick to one letter.

And I would argue also covenant theology, everything that we stand upon.

It's difficult to stick with one letter when they all interweave so often.

And it's like taking a baseball, talking about a baseball swing without mentioning

how your body works together.

It's all intermingled.

And so that's why it was very difficult to cover.

It was just hard.

It was difficult.

That's where it would be better if you just had to stick to one letter.

That's why I mentioned that to you guys before the debate.

I wouldn't recommend trying to do the whole thing because they're all so

intertwined.

Well, we didn't want to.

We didn't want to.

The only way for us to have the discussion was to agree to their terms.

I know. I know. I've been there.

You know what?

That was completely different than the conversation that we had on J .P. and Cuts channel.

Right.

Like there was actually respectful dialogue going on where it was.

It did start to get interrupted a little bit at the end.

But regardless of that, it was actually where we could talk.

And I wanted to put them.

I wanted to hold their feet to the fire because I felt like we're not answering any of our objections.

We'd bring up a verse.

They bring up a verse.

I did not want it to be Calvinist foxhoe.

And I don't know if there's a term for what they believe, but their foxhole and us throwing

verses at each other.

I wanted to have a verse.

And let's walk through it.

They give a verse.

Yeah.

And we walk through it, which did not happen.

Yeah.

So one more thing really quick before we move on.

They mentioned 1st Timothy 4 .10.

Now, Brother Braden, I love you, brother.

But I disagree with you here.

I think there's a better way of responding to it.

1st Timothy what? 4 .10? 4 .10. Yeah.

No.

So the one that Mahler brought up was 2 .2 .2 at first.

And that's the one that I was responding to.

And then they kept on going with the Timothy text, which that wasn't the text I was responding to Mahler with.

We didn't actually even get a respond from 1st John, which I thought was

not great.

Yeah.

So there's a few things that I would bring up here

for 1st Timothy 4 .10.

It says, For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God,

who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Now, there's a couple of options here, but the view that I take is that the term

especially, the term in the original language is malista.

I take it descriptively in the sense that it's describing who the all

men are.

And if you look at the original language, the all men is in the same form

as the piston, the believing ones.

And so there, I would say the believers

are the all men.

So every believing person, God is the Savior of all men.

That is every believer.

Yeah, yeah.

I take it descriptively.

And I don't have an issue with that.

That text, though, we never got a walkthrough.

The one that I read from was 1st Timothy 2, which was Mahler brought

it up.

Or no, it's not 1st Timothy.

It was 1st John 2 as well.

Yeah, 1st John 2 too.

I agree with you there.

Which we gave the context.

We gave the context.

Brayden gave the context in the short form.

I gave the context of the whole book, and they rejected it.

Yeah, it's just for me, I think it's better to get into the meaning of

malista there in 1st Timothy 4 .10, because they're assuming it's referring to a

subgroup.

So God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers, and they're

trying to make them different categories, right?

A subgroup of all men, so that they can say, you know, He's

saved believers and unbelievers if they believe.

Did I say something different than that?

I think what you said in it was that it's referring—.

I don't remember going to that text.

It was chaos, man.

It was chaos, I know, I know.

You may have been quickly speaking, so I think you were trying to give an interpretation on the spot,

but it sounded like you weren't taking it descriptively, but prescriptively, in the sense that it's

telling you that Christ is the only Savior for every

person.

Which is another option, of course, that's another option you can take that wouldn't entail their view.

I don't even remember talking about that text.

Did I say something about it from 1st Timothy 4?

Yes, yes you did, brother.

I heard it, and I was like, um, it's easier to say malista means

something descriptively, and therefore, it's saying

God is the Savior of all men.

That is believers.

Yeah.

Well, that's my fault, because that would be my stance on it.

I can't remember I said that.

Yeah.

That I said that.

It's okay, brother.

It's okay, brother.

When they're throwing out two or three verses and kind of bouncing off of that, it's—.

It's not your fault, brother.

I promise I'm not faulting you.

I promise I'm not faulting you, okay?

No, for sure.

Like, I can show you my piece of paper here.

Here, let me do that real quick, just to show you that we wrote down one verse

for each one, and we were wanting to stick with that one verse.

And, yeah, it didn't happen.

That's not the way the cookie crumbles.

Our thoughts were, if we can just get one verse, we explain it, they explain it,

and we'll let the cars fall where they land.

I even got blurry for some reason.

Because you just lost your salvation, bro.

I'm probably—.

Did you just stop crying?

I just fell from grace.

This is a brand -new camera.

Ruh -roh.

You might have to get a lens cleaner.

That's what I did.

Drop it on the ground a couple of times, and I'll fix it.

Really quick, Jared, I think that's an option.

That's an option that we could use.

But I think the descriptive interpretation works best,

especially when you see the same thing mentioned in 1 Timothy 2 .4, right?

Where you have all men described as all kinds of people, right?

And so when you have the same type of language used in 1 Timothy 4 .10, it's easier just to say the

description than to grant to them that it's referring to a

subgroup.

That's my opinion.

Still blurry.

Yeah, you might have to put something in front of the camera for it to focus on that, and then it'll regain.

Look at that.

There you go.

Smarty pants.

Man, I've been there so many times, brother.

Yeah, I think when I held that book up, it threw the focus off.

Yeah. Sorry, bro. Yeah.

Cool.

All right, so let's go to the—so because of time, we kind of

doubled the I and the P, and I don't think we actually did a good job on either one of them.

You don't think we did a good job on them?

No, no, I'm just saying we as—in the totality of you, me.

In terms of the dialectic and trying to address those things, yeah, I understand.

It's fine, Jeff.

Thanks.

Well, I'm not saying like me and you, we didn't, because I mean—.

You did the best you could in the circumstance that you were put in.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so like with John 637, I think that this is the part where I really started to see

them crumble, right?

Especially Mauler.

Am I saying his name right?

Mauler.

Mauler.

Mauler, if you're watching this, please forgive me.

Think of Darth Maul.

If you think of Darth Maul, that helps.

Mauler.

All right, Mauler.

Because like, you know, like it basically, exegetically,

it walks through what it means, right?

I mean, let me get to it again.

Yeah, you read John 6.

Yeah, because I read John 6, yeah, 37.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, right?

And it says, and the one who comes to me, I will never cast out.

So just to keep from reading it all, verse 40 tells us how we come to him.

Where it is the will of the—excuse me.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and

believes in Him will have eternal life.

And I myself will raise him up on the last day.

So how do we come—so verse 37, all the Father gives me will come.

How do we come to Jesus?

Right here, believing in Him.

We believe in Him.

We believe in the—we believe the Son, right?

All right.

So that tells you how we come to Him, by believing.

But he was saying that you have to believe in order for the Father to be given.

Before the Father gives you to the Son.

So you have to believe in order for the Father to give you.

So in the same way that I was explaining with that door, the way that that door has hinges, that door is dependent

upon the hinges in order for it to operate.

He's saying that the hinges are dependent upon the door.

Yeah.

So here's the exegetical problem.

What he left out was 35.

35 is right before you have the indictment upon them that they don't believe.

Right, because he read 36.

Right.

So Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life.

He who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.

Those things are put in parallel to one another.

So what it means to come to Him just is that you're believing in Him.

Believing.

Yeah.

And then his response was, but I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

So 37 functioned as an explanation as why they don't believe.

Right.

It's because the Father has not given them.

So coming to me in that passage is not physically walking up to Him.

It's believing in Him.

If it was physically walking up to Him, then only those...

Then they all would have come.

No, it's not even that.

Only those who saw Jesus in the flesh 2 ,000 years ago could

come to Jesus.

Yeah.

We can't come to Jesus.

If coming to Jesus isn't believing, then we cannot come to Jesus.

Yeah.

And so what he's missing is the order here.

All that the Father gives me will come to me.

Then that term for coming, that's in the future tense.

So the giving precedes them coming.

The Father gives you, and that ensures that you will come to Him.

So when does the Father give?

We would argue in eternity past.

Yeah.

That's why you have in verse 39, Now this is the will

of Him who sent me, out of all that He has given me, past tense,

before, in the perfect tense, but you know what I mean.

Yeah.

He has given me.

I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

So it's something He did.

It's a past action in the past that has abiding results in the present.

We will come to Him because He has given us to Him.

That's the form of the language there.

All right.

I think that definitely wraps up Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints.

We have Romans 8, 28 through 30.

Yeah.

Trying to get through these as fast as possible.

Brayden, are you still there?

Yeah, I'm still here.

All right.

Haps is coming back.

All right.

Cool.

Got to let my phone charge.

All right, bro.

All right.

So I'm in Corinthians.

What am I doing?

So Romans 8, chapter 20.

I mean, Romans chapter 8, beginning in verse 28.

Okay.

If I can get, if someone else is there, please read it.

Yeah.

Okay.

And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good.

For those who are called according to His purpose.

Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He

would be the firstborn among many brothers.

And those whom He predestined, He also called.

And those whom He called, He also justified.

And those whom He justified, He also glorified.

All right.

Brayden, I know that you walked through this.

Do you want to re -walk through it?

Yeah, I think it just proves, this was the text that we were going to hopefully have a little bit more time to talk about,

but that was the closing argument for all the points that we were planning on having.

Is that.

Yeah, I was going to reiterate everything we said.

Yeah, because we believe regeneration precedes faith.

That's God calling.

We believe that we're predestined.

We're unconditionally elect, so that's the predestined in that text.

And the justification, again, limited atonement.

And then the irresistible grace, would it be that again?

That calling part, that God is the active agent.

We're the receiver of these things.

And then the perseverance of the saint is that He glorified.

So the issue that I think I see in what they're saying is and I would

caution anybody on this, right?

Like if you think that your salvation is dependent upon you continuing in something and you, your capacity,

that gets very close to a workspace salvation, right?

That's very, very close.

However, I think the better, more biblical way to say it is, of course, Romans 11, like, yeah, those

that continue in love.

Absolutely.

Why do we continue in love is the better question.

It's because we've been born again.

If we've been born again, what happened when we were born again?

We were justified.

And so, of course, we're going to continue in love.

And so the continuing in love is a result of us persevering, not that we

continue in love to be able to persevere.

So that's why we cannot be separated from God in Romans 8.

And that's, again, I referenced Hebrews 8 in that portion of the conversation.

And that is talking about the law of God written on our heart and on our mind.

What is the law of God?

Love God and love neighbor, right?

So if you've had those things happen, you will be glorified because

you are a new covenant member and you will persevere until glorification by loving God and loving your neighbor.

Not because of me, but because God wrote that on my heart.

Right, right.

And so in this, like it mentions in verse 28, called according to his purpose.

Right.

And so we would say that this is talking about the covenant of redemption.

And I think, in my opinion, and tell me what y 'all think.

So in verse 29, it says, for those whom he foreknew, he also predestined.

So to me, this the foreknowledge, not foreknowledge, foreknew and

predestined are the bookends to what's taking place here.

And I really wanted to push them on those whom he foreknew because this is not talking about foreknowledge.

It's talking about those he foreknew.

For love.

And so we would say that this is what's his purpose.

God, the father purpose to save a people.

What people?

Those whom he foreknew.

Right.

So those whom he foreknew, he predestined.

Predestined to what?

To be conformed to the image of his son.

All right.

So this is what it will go on to call glorification, but

we would say the resurrection of the dead.

Right.

So that's the two bookends.

You have him purposing to save a people,

those whom he foreknew.

And the end result is that this people that he's purposed to save will be resurrected in the

image of Christ.

That is our predestination.

We are predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.

And here's what, right here.

So that he would be the firstborn among many brothers.

Like in 1 Corinthians, it speaks about him being the firstfruits, the firstborn, speaking of his

resurrection.

So in verse 30, it breaks it down.

For those whom he predestined, right, to do what?

To be conformed.

It breaks down the order.

He also called.

So this is the effectual call.

This is the bookend, right?

The effectual call, those whom he foreknew.

Those whom he called, he also justified.

So that's the end time.

In time, I heard the gospel, believed, and was justified.

Why did I believe?

Because I was, because he foreknew me.

And then it says those whom he justified, he also glorified.

And that's where the predestined, where predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.

So the two are bookend.

So the idea is, is if he foreknew you, guess what you're going to be?

Glorified.

You're going to be resurrected in the image of Christ, right?

So if you say that those whom he foreknew are, he foreknows everyone, guess

what everyone is?

Glorified.

And so the argument just doesn't work with the text.

And I was really wanting to push that on them, but I had a feeling it would go the same way as

Colossians 2 and John 6 went.

Yeah.

And you know what?

You know, I got to say that, you know, by the way, I saw the text that

you sent me, Brayden.

Hey, JP, if you write Bruce, I accept your

apology.

Please accept mine.

And let's put this behind us so we can have some fruitful dialogue and glorify

God together.

But, you know, what I really wanted to really point out is,

is that, you know, like, I think one of the biggest things that I saw in the debate that

I know that Mueller, he alluded to when he, he went

to go talk from Ephesians and he was in the

Ephesians chapter two.

Now, just to give everybody a quick context out there, Ephesians chapter one.

So when you systematically break down Ephesians chapter one, you have the active

elective work of the father.

We spoke about this earlier.

The active what?

I walked through the context earlier, but please go ahead and do the same thing.

The active redemptive work of the son.

And then you have the active work of the sealing and protecting

of the Holy Spirit.

All right.

And if either one of those fails, then the whole, our God,

our triune God and his elective, redemptive

sealing work doesn't work.

But what I saw them say that really struck a chord with me

right here was in chapter two.

He goes, for by grace, you have been saved through faith.

So he tried to really break up that grace and faith like they were two separate entities.

But when you read it in the Greek, they're, they're, they're brought together.

That they're, they're, they're both the, the grace and the faith are

really brought together.

And what, what does he say right here?

Not a result of being, and it is not of your own doing.

It is the gift of God, not a result of works so that no man may boast for we are his workmanship

created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand.

Well, what's the beforehand, you know

that we should walk in them and, and that we should walk in them goes back to Ezekiel 36,

25, where he says he places his Holy spirit inside of us, saying causes us to

walk in his way.

He, he's the one that's causing us.

So if he's causing us to walk in his ways, then, then we

are going to believe in the one who, whom was sent

Christ Jesus.

And we are going to love our neighbors and he will raise us up on the last

day.

And, and, and, and so I see this as like, just

again, surface level.

If you look at the surface level, you can totally come up with what they're saying.

I mean, like, like totally.

Hey Haps, just to let you know, I passed on what you said to JP and he wanted me to return and say that you have a very nice beard.

So just letting you know.

I just cut off three inches.

So that's why it's nice.

Can I have those three inches man?

Cause mine just won't go anymore.

Like mine just stays right here bro.

Hey John, do you use beard oil?

Not sure.

Do you even love your face?

I do.

Well, you need to use beard oil.

It'll help it grow.

I am unaware of all these things.

I'm not good in beardology.

Yeah.

Well, I can, I can help you out brother.

I actually make, I actually make my own oil.

Well, my wife makes it for me.

Have you seen Jeff's beard before he cut it?

No.

Oh gosh.

Down to the D's bro.

He's held an Amish person walking around as a new covenant member.

Crazy.

And I could get in a beard fight with somebody.

Oh yeah.

From across the state.

Could really use some help brother.

Yeah.

You need to oil that thing son.

Yeah.

Every good engine needs oil.

Yeah.

All right.

Hey, you're about to get married John.

You got to work on it man.

I do. I do bro.

I do.

I see the end.

Matt Ford, I am disappointed in you brother.

What?

You need to oil that face son.

You're supposed to be reformed Matt Ford.

He's supposed to be reformed and he ain't putting no oil on that beard.

Well, I'm doubting your, your theology now.

I don't know brother.

Mine just doesn't want to come out man.

Mine just doesn't.

Well, here's the thing.

Matt knows about oil.

All right.

That's why I'm more disappointed in him than you.

Well, Matt's beard looks so conservative.

You know, I'm like, you know, like, oh my gosh, I'm liberal.

So this is a liberal beard right here.

All right.

Well, do y 'all want to answer any of their objections or.

To what?

Well, I mean, they brought up a couple of scriptures.

I think there's a couple of ways that we didn't get the answers such as second Peter.

I think we're going to answer second Peter and shut it down.

All right.

I can do this really quick if you guys want me to.

What they're confusing is the audience.

Second Peter chapter two begins with telling us that he's addressing false prophets and false teachers

who have risen up among the people.

Exactly.

And that's the group who are the they in the end of

the chapter that they're referring to.

And so.

It's not that they were genuine Christians who are losing their salvation and said they are false

prophets and false teachers who were intentionally distorting the truth.

You follow the pronouns throughout the entire chapter.

It's the exact same group of people.

And so they're actually changing the pronouns and they do that.

They're changing who is being referred to in order to get to that conclusion.

Right.

Really quick.

I hope that's quick.

Yeah.

So second Peter two verse 17 on.

So.

So first of all just to read the text that they're talking about.

But false prophets arose among the people just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive

heritage even denying the master who bought them bringing swift destruction upon themselves and many will fall after or follow

their sensuality because of them.

The way of the truth was maligned with blasphemy or maligned meaning.

Right now some could somebody be saved if they had faith in Christ.

If they had the faith that they had in Christ was that Christ was not really God in flesh could they be saved.

No.

That's a heresy.

That's destructive heresy.

So.

So right there.

It means that it's it's turn the truth that's maligned it's blasphemy.

So in verse 17 says.

These things are springs without water and misdriven by a storm for whom the black

darkness has been kept.

So.

So black darkness has been kept.

So it sounds like there's a place of destruction that is kept for somebody like this.

Sounds like Proverbs where it talks about the day a day prepared for the wicked.

Sounds like Romans.

9.

Right.

For speaking out again arrogant words of vanity they enticed by sensual lust of the flesh those who barely

escape from those who conducted themselves in error promising them freedom

while they themselves are slaves of corruption.

For by what a man is overcome by this he is enslaved for if they are overcome having both escape the

defilement.

So listen this is what verse verse 20 is talking about how they were bought by the master.

OK.

For if they are overcome having both escape the defilement of the world by the knowledge of the Lord Jesus

Christ and having been entangled in them then the last date has become worse for them than the first.

For it would have been better for them to not have known the way of righteousness than having known it to turn away from the

holy commandment and it's on to them.

The message of the true problem has happened to them.

A dog returns to a vomit after walking returns to a wallow in the mire.

So what this is depicting is Jewish people supposedly

converting to Christianity but they're actually Judaizers.

They're saying you have to be you have to be circumcised in order to have faith.

Right.

You have to be circumcised in order to be a true Christian.

They're introducing destructive heresies and what they're claiming is look I've been I've been brought out of

the law by Christ.

So the master bought them but they're denying him when they say you have to be denied yet to circumcise

yourself.

Yeah it would have been better for you to stay in the state before then to have gone into this new

state where you're saying I know the righteousness of Christ but circumcise yourself.

You're a dog returning to its own vomit.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I would say a lot could go ahead.

Yeah I was just going to say really quick.

I think there's a parallel here between and in verse one to Deuteronomy

32.

If you go to Deuteronomy 32 verse five it says they have acted corrupt

corruptly towards him.

They are not his children because of their defect but are a perverse and crooked

generation.

Do you thus repay Yahweh and people who are wickedly foolish and without wisdom.

Is not he your father who has bought you.

He has made you and established you.

And so there it's the father who bought them not Jesus.

Yeah.

I would also say that it argues the same thing in Hosea

chapter three.

Basically in Hosea we see that God gave us adultery so that we can

understand adultery.

Right.

And it speaks about them being bought in chapter three.

So it's that same idea.

They were bought by the father.

If they're a part of the Jewish religion they were bought.

All right.

But. So. So. So.

So real quick.

Someone brought.

They mentioned in chapter three verse nine.

The Lord is.

I can't remember if they mentioned it or someone just texted.

I can't remember.

But. But.

But this one goes saying the Lord is not slow about his promise.

That some consider slowness but is patient toward you.

Not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance.

Now.

I can break this down or.

I don't mind.

I know.

Like I take the R .C. Sproul position.

I'll take the R .C. Sproul position on this.

I think it is.

Where chapter three speaks about like the context of chapter three says.

Beloved.

This is my second letter.

Right.

You go to chapter one.

The first letter addresses the Jewish people.

The elect.

He calls them my chosen people.

Yeah.

Yeah. So. So.

So in this text he's actually speaking to elect people.

Yeah.

So here.

For me.

I just.

Remind everyone.

When you see the Lord is not slow about his promise.

His promise in this context is about.

You know.

Second coming.

In this context.

So.

His promise is not about his promise of salvation.

It's his promise of second coming.

And some count slowness.

The some count slowness if you read the context is the mockers.

The mockers who are mocking in the last days about his second coming.

Correct.

And then.

He says.

But his patient toward you.

Right.

That's that's a direct object.

Hamas.

And then you have.

Not willing for any to perish.

But for all to come to repentance.

Any.

As you.

Yeah.

You. Right.

And if you again.

If you go to chapter three.

Beginning of chapter three.

This is my second letter.

First Peter.

Tells you.

That is written to.

The elect.

Exactly.

And so.

When it says any and it says all.

Both of those terms are in the exact.

Same form.

As the you.

So they're grammatically connected.

They're. All to each other.

So it would be like saying any of you.

But.

All of you to come to repentance.

That's the form of the language.

So.

I like to give the analogy.

You know.

James White is our teacher.

And he comes into our class and goes.

Hey, is everyone here?

No one's going to go.

He's asking if everyone from Adam to the last man is there.

He's asking if everyone who is supposed to be in this class is present.

That's the analogy I like to give.

And that's what's happening in second Peter three nine.

It's he's.

He's saying that.

God desires that all of his elect would be saved.

Before he returns.

And that's that's because part of his promise.

Just is that he's going to save all of his elect.

So that that's the what I see to be second Peter three nine.

Yeah, I agree fully.

Right.

And anything you want to say about it.

Now, I think we're good.

All right.

Well, I think we'll close it down there.

I want to thank everyone for for tuning in.

If you haven't watched what took place.

Go and watch it again.

You'll see me get very, very aggravated.

And I apologize.

But man, I just it was driving me crazy that they were not like

answering the text.

And they were just scooting around everything and just using their own opinions without drawing it

from the text.

And brother, you did a lot better than than I think you realize.

I think you feel like you got too heated.

But brother, I would have been way worse than you.

I would have been.

Trust me, if I could have jumped through the camera.

Well, I'm just playing.

Just playing.

And it's just, you know, it really comes down to this, that, you know, we might

have different perspectives on the order of Seleutis.

We might have different perspectives on a lot of different things in Scripture.

But we're brothers in Christ and we might have disagreements like

Barnabas and Paul, you know, and that's OK.

You know, and sometimes we let arrogance and pride get involved.

And that's why I wouldn't come on the debate, because I'm a complete jerk when I debate.

I'm a jerk, you know, and I'm like a real

jerk.

And I don't want to misrepresent our position, our God

and Covenant Reformed Baptist Church.

You keep mentioning Covenant Reformed Baptist Church that you're going to be teaching there in December.

Is that a good church?

Yeah, it's a butt church.

You know what, dude?

I just made the Happy Calvinist

Bigfoot chili recipe I brought and my butt is

still hurting from it.

I tell you what, man, you ever see this Bigfoot shirt we're going to design?

Yeah.

Can I have one, brother?

Oh, yeah.

It's going to have Patty.

It's going to have Patty right here.

And it's going to have Exist.

And underneath it's going to have the Bible verse which says, On the evidence of two or three witnesses, a thing is

established.

1 Timothy.

1 Timothy.

Chapter 4 says, Do not.

I think it's in Chapter 4.

1 Timothy 4 says, Do not let your mind be taken away with stupid myths like Bigfoot.

I'm going to say something.

Hold on, I'm going to say something.

Everything turns into Bigfoot.

Let's see if JP and Miller want to have

a debate on if Bigfoot is real or not.

I'm done with having discussions.

If it's a formal debate, I'll have a discussion.

I'll have a debate on Bigfoot.

On Bigfoot?

Yeah, absolutely, because it's based on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

Okay, so I want to ask a question for John and Paps real fast because we don't need to talk about Bigfoot.

He doesn't exist.

There's no reason.

It's stupid chatter.

You don't hold to scripture.

Look.

He's a demon.

He exists in that way, but he's not a real thing.

Mormons believed in Bigfoot.

Yes, they did.

That's why you don't believe.

You're trying to get rid of everything Mormon in your life.

The guys that are accusing me with everything that sounds a little bit like John MacArthur, me being like a John MacArthurite, and yet

you guys are trying to be more and more Mormon by saying Bigfoot exists.

No, Bigfoot was around before Mormonism.

I got a question.

One question.

Is it true the Mormons believe that Joseph Smith killed all the werewolves?

I've never heard that.

No, I don't think that's true.

I heard it on Cultish, man.

I don't know. Maybe. Probably.

I'm going to call Andrew Sandcrantz.

Or I'm going to call Jeremiah Roberts.

You just call somebody that you have more trust in than myself.

That's fine.

I understand what you're saying.

Back, back, back.

How's it going, John?

Yeah, go ahead.

Brandon, I really respect your opinion on scripture, just not on Bigfoot.

And whenever you start running your mouth about Bigfoot, I really have doubts on your scripture.

Fair enough.

There are some things involved that are hard to understand, brother.

So, Haps and John, so if I was to ask you, and I'm not asking for every point of the debate, but for

T, I'm going to ask for every point of the discussion.

T, who do you think won?

I think it was obvious it was you guys because they didn't actually engage with what you presented.

So, in terms of dialectically.

Right, right, right.

So, unconditional election.

Haps, who do you think won?

And I know that I'm asking this to people that are on our side on this, but who do you think won on that, on you, unconditional election?

Unconditional election, I got to say that it was a

toss -up.

Toss -up?

Okay.

John, who do you think won?

Um, I would say it's a little bit of a toss -up, but I think you guys did ultimately better in terms of the dialectic.

So, I would give the point to you guys.

Irresistible Grace.

Haps, who do you think got it?

I know it was two things, irresistible grace and impersonation of the saints.

Who do you think got the last two points?

I don't give any points.

Yeah, I got to go with John right there.

I'm sorry.

I just, it was too scary.

I think that if both sides were to take time to work through what

they actually thought and believed, you know, and, you know, just really pulled

from the text instead of putting our whatever into it, and it was a formal

debate, I think that we would have definitely come out on top.

I think that the perseverance of the saints was a slam dunk for us.

But, um, I mean, also Irresistible Grace, um,

I think could have been expounded more upon, you know, because I just think that it just, it

wasn't, but Total Depravity, I think that we nailed that.

Yeah.

So overall, you're saying that, that there was a couple of things that maybe could have done and done a little bit better from our side, but

overall, you think that we presented a better argument for Tulip?

Yeah.

And also if we were able to expound on that argument, not, not in 15 minute

increments, you know?

Right.

Yeah.

And I would say dialectically, you guys did better.

Yeah. Yeah. Totally. Totally.

Cool.

Yeah.

You know, I'm keeping it straight up, you know, you know, like I, cause I, I know what you guys were

saying and I totally, you know, of course I totally agree and everything.

I just think because of the format and because of the, the way it was all

presented and asked and, and everything, I'm so used to a formal debate that

it just seemed like, um.

I have to disagree with everything that y 'all just said, because I don't feel like they conducted themselves and answered the

text and just answered the questions.

Yeah. I.

The questions wasn't answered.

We, we gave, we presented our position and gave a text and an

explanation that was never given on their side.

Even if we were, even if we're wrong, which I don't think we are, even if we're wrong, they still didn't win because

they did not do those three things.

They didn't present a text.

Go ahead.

They did not win.

What I'm trying to say is, is there has to be a part two.

It will not happen by way of discussion.

Formal.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

With, with a formal debate, you know, like where, I mean, proper.

Brayden, you're making yourself look like an idiot.

Who is?

Who is?

Oh, I'm sorry.

My camera's lifted down there.

Whoops, my fault.

Oh, no.

By the way.

Brayden's a hunter and he killed a bear and then he named his son after the bear.

How else do you do it?

Okay.

My battery is going to die, guys.

All right.

I love you guys.

Love you, man.

I want to thank everybody for watching again.

We will not be doing an open air theology Thursday.

I've taken this night to.

What?

I got to study.

Like, I got a Sunday's coming and I have a sermon to study and prepare for.

It's great for you, brother.

So I got a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and maybe

Tuesday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday to get my sermon done.

All right, because I don't have the weekends to study.

I don't get to study on the weekends.

I devote my Friday, Saturdays to my family.

So I got to get it done early in the week.

And then Sunday morning, I'm in the office trying to remember everything I put down.

Yeah, I know.

So.

So.

So this is it.

I can't do anything Thursday, but we'll try to be back next week.

I'm about to cut his mic off.

All right.

We love you all.

As always.

Hallelujah.

Hallaback!