Kelly Powers VS Andrew Wilson: Is Protestant Reformation "A" Cause of Modern Dysfunctional Society

All right. Check, check, check, check, check. Anybody out there? I'm just looking for Is Andrew here already? Is Andrew commented in the live chat yet? How y'all doing? Hope you're all doing good. All right, Andrew is here apparently. Okay. All right, Andrew, this is the link for you. Yep, there's a link right there. Uh, the link is in the the chat. There's the link again. That's for Andrew. Well, while we're waiting on Andrew, I have put out the link there a couple times, so hopefully um he's just getting set up here. Hope you're all doing good. Welcome here. If you're new for the first time, thank you for being here. So, today should be interesting. It'll be interesting to see how this goes. So, all right.

So, still waiting for Andrew. I'll post the link again. Um, what's going on here? All right, I'll post it over here. So, sound is good. While I'm waiting on Andrew, welcome here, whoever's here. I'm sure I got to have a a lot of people here definitely rooting for me to get destroyed, crushed, annihilated. That's okay. So, is anybody seeing Andrew in the live chat? There he is. No, that's not him. So, waiting for Andrew. Waiting for Andrew. Yeah, this is only for uh me and Andrew today. How you doing? Welcome here, whoever you are, though. But thank you. Come back another day, whoever you are. This is only for me and Andrew. So, I'll just go into preaching mode here. If I don't get Andrew up here soon, I have no problem with preaching. All right.

So, we'll try again. If Andrew is in the chat, then here's the link, please. Okay. Okay. Hello there.

>> Hello. Yeah, you never sent me a link. I wasn't sure how I was supposed to join exactly.

>> Oh, no worries. I I did leave a comment saying that I'd give it to you when we were live, but that may have gotten lost somewhere.

>> Well, yeah. I just I just didn't get one. So

>> Oh, no. I didn't I didn't post the link publicly because I asked you about the email and you just said just go ahead and share it uh on the day of. At least that's what I thought you said. So

>> yeah, via DM. Just DM me on X. Yeah.

>> Oh, that's what you meant. All right. I didn't do that. So yeah. Okay. So, well, Andrew, welcome here. I've actually been wanting to talk to you for quite a while on other issues. So, um I agreed to this one. So, anybody else is popping up here, guys. Don't don't come up here, please. Nobody else in the background. Okay. I knew I was going to do that. That's how that was going to work. So, Andrew, welcome here. Um, what are your thoughts of how the format's going to go? We didn't actually have specifics. Do you have just like a free-for-all? You want an opening?

>> I don't know what else to do except a free-for-all. I didn't prepare for a formal debate because you didn't tell me that's what you wanted. You said you wanted me to come on here and have a conversation with you.

>> Okay, fair enough. Fair enough. So then um yeah then we can just have a conversation. So you if you can clarify for me then um your position um I did change the thumbnail and I did change the wording. So what is your exact position of what you're saying about the big hand of the Protestant Reformation and our modern society being dysfunctional? Can you explain that?

>> Yeah. Ultimately, it just works like this. I'll give you an analogy and then I can launch into a bit of the history. So, um I think I remember from a stream that you did that you were in the military. Is that correct?

>> No, I've never been in the military.

>> Okay. Well, then I got that wrong. Um if you if you were to take military cohesion uh the thing that keeps a military organized his hierarchy and leadership positions of authority that's what keeps it organized. I want you to imagine for a second that you have a uh device which is designed to secretly disseminate orders among military personnel and it also has a decoder ring. But the problem with the decoder ring is that everybody's getting different messages when they uh use the decoder ring to figure out the secrets of this device. And you what what do you think that would do to military cohesion? Well, it would destroy it. It would completely annihilate military cohesion. And the reason it would annihilate military cohesion is because it begins to work on the function of hierarchy itself. Right? Uh suddenly we're not getting proper messages. Perhaps some people were using their decoder ring and they come up with a message that um this guy is actually not a colonel. He's a general. Perhaps this guy has no authority at all is what this person's decoder ring says, right? The that's basically how that would go. And so if you want to tie this in to uh Protestant theology, it comes down to and I'm not arguing, by the way, I'm not here to argue whether or not it's true or false. I think that that's irrelevant. I think that the relevancy here for the debate is what it did. And so what Protestant theology historically did was it eroded ideas of authority and blended. The Protestant Reformation happened before the Enlightenment, but it paved the way for it. And the way that it was able to do this is by the erosion of centralized authority. And enlightenment philosophy is all based around egalitarianism and the destruction of centralized authority. And Protestantism paved the way for that. And how does that intersect with modern problems today? The main way that it does it is it erodes institutions over time and the authority of institutions over the time for the idea of self and the idea of egalitarianism uh over an individualism over the idea of having actual authority or some sort of centralized authority around governance. And so that's how it links in with problems of today.

>> Okay. So in your opinion then what you're saying is you're just saying that the protest reformation had a hand in it. But what would be in your opinion then the major cause for our dysfunctional society today? You wouldn't say it is the pro reformation would you?

>> It's a well I wouldn't put anything in a monolith. But I I think it's a it's an it's a whole bunch of different issues together. But I do think that the Protestant Reformation had a large hand in it. Yes. because of the starting point of the erosion of centralized authority which is still a tradition kept to this day by most mainstream Protestant denominations.

>> Now what in your opinion if you remember and and I know you don't like to debate Bible or theology so I'm not going to try to that's not my intention to force that on you anyway. Um why did the Protestant Reformation happen? What what was the reason? Do you know?

>> Yeah, it was because there was problems going on within the Catholic Church around things like remittances and other problems and those were things which Martin Luther and Protestant reformers were trying to address corruption in the church.

>> Do you know what specifically though like a couple things that maybe pop out?

>> Well, he had hundreds of objections. Martin Luther had hundreds of objections. So I think remittance probably a couple that were probably the the big ones though like

>> or not remittances the remissions remissions of sin things like this um but yes the I I don't know what that has to do with anything though

>> well one of them was the papacy right the authority of the the pope right

>> sure but that had been something which had been already fought over with the orthodox eastern orthodox and for years that's something that we would actually have something in common there of that common ground, right?

>> Yeah. Well, yeah, sure. Of course.

>> Okay.

>> But the distinction the distinction there would

>> there's another one though too that I wanted to say is also one of the big reasons also wasn't just the

>> the papacy but also the

>> indulgences. Yeah.

>> Um that was a big one back in the day. I I don't know exactly. I haven't done this research. I don't think the Orthodox Church does indulgences, right?

>> No.

>> Okay. Yeah. So I know those are a couple big reasons. So So would you say what was taking place during the time if we go back 500 years with these people like your Martin Luther, your Calvin's, your Wigglies, these these different people who were breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church because they saw corruption. Would you say initially they started off good?

>> No. the idea. Well, so this is the the central idea that is distinct between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and what became Protestantism that that erosion of authority still was not present in Catholicism. They saw a distinct different authority. So we had the filioke was one of the problems and then the pope was another problem. Mhm.

>> But they were they were trying to centralize a distinct different authority, but they did not want the elimination of church authority that that was uniquely Protestant.

>> Okay?

>> And because of that, it led it led to the erosion of centralization of authority over time in all of Europe, including to the point where Anglicans fled here in order to be able to govern themselves. And uh many Protestant sects actually fled here because they wanted to govern themselves outside of church authority and part of the foundation of the United States which was contributed by many many deists which is that occult part that I'm talking about. Um you know those those things were based on enlightenment principles not on Christianity hardly at all. Now there was plenty of Christians who were here but the idea was there was a blending between these these two philosophies Christian ethics and enlightenment. So going back to what I was saying though, like so you you're saying that them actually breaking away and not wanting to submit to the Pope's authority and to keep on going along with the indulgences. You don't think that was a good thing for them to stand up against?

>> That that has no bearing on anything. Whether I think it's good, bad, or indifferent.

>> I'm telling you what is a couple of the main reasons why they kind of protested. That's

>> Yeah. I don't care why. I'm telling you what is

>> Do you think it's okay to just go along with

>> Do you do you understand that me telling I do understand stop no please don't tell why a thing is

>> I didn't interrupt you when you talk let me talk for a second okay

>> you're strawmaning that position I didn't interrupt you I let you talk freely give me a second here I'm trying to get from you

>> I'm trying to get from you

>> just an honest answer

>> it's irrelevant

>> you may not agree with

>> Protestants irrelevant to the debate No, that's the whole point you you brought up.

>> Yeah. You can't even admit the origin that they were going against the Catholic Church of doing wrong things.

>> Then how can you say the Catholic Church does anything wrong at all?

>> It's irrelevant. What's the debate topic? No,

>> it's not irrelevant.

>> What's the debate topic?

>> Perfectly the debate topic. What is it?

>> Well, we're going back to the origins of reparation, right?

>> Debate topic. Borian. Hey buddy,

>> this is not my first rodeo and I'm not going to get bullied by you. I'm not going to get bullied by you. I want to have a conversation with you topic. Can you tell me?

>> All right, you can make yourself look like a [ __ ] That's fine.

>> Tell me the debate topic.

>> I'm trying to have a conversation with you. I'm not Mer. I'm not these other guys.

>> Can you just tell me the debate topic?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Can you actually answer a question?

>> If you answer what the debate topic is, I'll answer a relevant question.

>> This is not talking about the process for reformation. Yes or no?

>> No, it's not specifically brought this up, my friend. Who put the words brought us the reformation had a big hand in our thing. So I'm going back to where it all started.

>> Tell me tell me the debate.

>> So you have to prove from when it started as soon as you tell me the debate topic the problem.

>> Tell me the debate topic.

>> You have to prove that.

>> Tell me the debate topic.

>> You tell me the debate topic.

>> Okay, great. I'll tell you the debate topic. Did the Protestant Reformation have a hand in problems of modernity? Whether Protestantism justified or not has nothing to do with that [ __ ] topic, dork. Now, do you want to argue the topic?

>> Well, the language I knew you couldn't last too long without language.

>> You want to argue the topic or not?

>> No, I do. I want to get to the origins of why they protested. So,

>> it's irrelevant.

>> Can you at least to say originally started with

>> it's irrelevant, right?

>> Okay, tell me. How is it relevant?

>> Because it's biblical. We're talking about what

>> has nothing to do with the debate topic, dude.

>> No, no, it does. The Pro Reformation started because of what they believe the Bible teach because of the papacy's bad authority.

>> That's nice. What does that have to do with the debate topic?

>> Are you going to have any type of decency here?

>> Yes. As long as you stick to the debate topic that we agreed to.

>> Yeah. But I'm not going to play by your rules. I can ask

>> whatever that means. You can ask questions that are relevant to the debate topic.

>> I can ask questions that go back to the origin of when it first start and just ask you simple questions. I don't think it's that

>> Yeah, you can ask me simple questions that are relevant to the topic of the debate. So, so you don't think it's relevant to know why it originally started, but you can criticize Protestant Reformation, the last 500 years because you just think you can criticize them.

>> Let me ask you a question. During the Holocaust, did 6 million Jews die?

>> Uh, yes, it didn't. Yes, it did.

>> Okay. Is it relevant to for you to know that to know how World War II started or not?

>> Can you tell?

>> The answer is no. You don't need to know how World War II started to know that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. see how that works.

>> Well, actually that would be Why did it start?

>> Don't play that game. Why did it start?

>> Uh, World War II started for a whole bunch of

>> Why did World War start? Tell me why.

>> I would say I would say it started around Hitler invading Poland.

>> And why did he do that?

>> Uh, because he wanted to see a reunified Germany.

>> And why did he want to do that?

>> For well, he had a whole host of reasons. Uh, the Treaty of Versailles, things like this.

>> Uhhuh. What?

>> But none of that's relevant. What's the cause? But if the debate topic, Laurian was

>> What's the cause? 6 million Jews die in the Holocaust, the cause of the war.

>> Why did 6 million Jews die?

>> Have no bearing. It would It has no bearing on the top.

>> Why did six million Jews die?

>> Cuz they killed them.

>> Why did they kill him?

>> Why did they kill him?

>> For a whole host of different reasons that they justified.

>> Can you come up with at least a good one?

>> Uh because they they wanted him out of the country. They wanted him out of the nation or they saw him as a threat or any number of different reasons. You know, I I hope that you would agree with my my my answer here. It's because we are a fallen humanity. We're depraved. We are sinners, right?

>> I don't care about your preaching, dude. I don't care about the debate topic.

>> You came to my channel. That's all my channel is about.

>> Channel you told me that you want

>> If you don't want to answer a simple question of why we are fallen,

>> not relevant to the debate.

>> No, no, no. We are all fallen people. Yes. How's that relevant to the debate topic?

>> No, it is perfectly relevant. We're talking about a we're talking about a dysfunctional society.

>> Great.

>> It is relevant because we're sinners. Correct.

>> Uh even if I grant it still wouldn't be relevant to the debate topic.

>> You can't even grant that we're sinners.

>> Yeah, sure. We're sinners. How's that relevant?

>> What does Romans one teaches about man?

>> How is this relevant to the

>> because that's the anything that's relevant of dysfunctional society has to do with what? Sin.

>> Okay. Sure. But there's going to be a sequence of events which also lead through a historic prism for us. Andrew, what causes them?

>> Great. Okay. So, what happened with Noah? Did God have to wipe out? Why did God have to wipe out the whole world almost with Noah? Andrew, why do you have to do that?

>> I'm glad that we establish.

>> Were they dysfunctional then, Andrew?

>> What caused World War II? Soon,

>> were they dysfunctional with Noah?

>> World War I soon.

>> What about the Korean War?

>> Andrew, were they dysfunctional with Sodom Gamora? Uh who? The Sodom. The Sodommites and the and the uh Sodom and Gomorrah.

>> Yeah. Yeah. What about it?

>> Were they Were they a dysfunctional society back then?

>> Yeah, sure.

>> Why were they dysfunctional?

>> Uh because they weren't adhering to the edicts of God.

>> What does that even mean?

>> It means that uh essentially they broke the idea of hospitality and tried to essay an angel. And so when they did that, God got really mad and he blew them up.

>> Okay. So they were

>> sinning, doing homosexual activities.

>> Uhhuh.

>> Same thing with Noah.

>> Great.

>> What was the first sin in that in the Garden of Eden with with Adam and Eve? What did What do we see the origin of all this?

>> I Why does this have to do with the debate topic?

>> Because if we're going to talk about a dysfunctional society, we have to get to the root of it.

>> Okay. So, you're just saying that the pillar of this is sin. Great.

>> Do you agree or disagree? But sure, what does that have to do with the debate topic though? How does that tie into the Protestant Reformation, erosion of authority, which has led to most of the modern I would say, well, maybe not most, but at least many.

>> Give me the proof that you think the big hand

>> in our modern society is caused by Protestant Reformation. What's your proof of that?

>> The fact that it eroded central authority inside every single western nation. Okay. Do you want to go don't say it prove it? Sure. Do you want to go through the various philosophers who were Protestants who reached egalitarianism?

>> Best evidence that Protestant Reformation is the big hand of cause in our modern day society. Because the historians broadly agree that the idea behind why it is that most central authorities began to become questioned moving into the enlightenment period was due to the Protestant Reformation unempowering the church by moving away from the church and arguing against centralized authority when it came to scripture and the gospel.

>> And and which church was that? The Catholic church. Right.

>> The one that they moved away from. Yes.

>> Right. And and was that a good or bad thing in your opinion?

>> Um what does that have to do with anything?

>> Well, if it was not good means they should have still kept, you know, listening to the false teachings and authority has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. What has everything to do with it? Nothing.

>> It has everything to do with it.

>> What does it have to do with it? Anything.

>> What does it have to do with anything? Has nothing to do with anything. You either have to say they made a wrong decision and they should have stayed.

>> Why do I need to say that? This is a descriptive claim, not a prescriptive claim. Good and bad or not.

>> We challenge you, Andrew, to prove you're the one that made the claim.

>> Do you want me to make Do you want me to utilize historians? Do you want me to utilize historians? Because what you're trying to What you're asking me for is a normative claim. That's off.

>> I'm asking for proof.

>> My turn. My turn. Hang on. Calm down. asking me for a You're asking me for a normative claim. That's ought should That's normative. I'm talking about descriptive.

>> Descriptive is not ought. Stop. Stop. Descriptive is not ought. Descriptive is not should. Those are normative claims. This debate is about descriptive claims, not normative claims. So if you want to ask for a burden of proof, that's fine and fair and I should stop and I'll provide those.

>> You can't just say stop. I'm almost done. Then you can talk, dude.

>> Just fine. Just stop, dude. 5 seconds so I can finish and then you can talk.

>> My goodness. What point is

>> I thought your point is bad.

>> When you make a normative claim, right? This isn't about normative claims. My is or mys have nothing to do with this. This is about descriptors. So if you want descriptive evidence, we can go through the descriptive evidence. Yes.

>> Just give me something. What's your best evidence that you would say in our modern day was caused by the Protestant Reformation of a dysfunctional society?

>> Didn't say it was caused by. I said it had a large hand in it because matter big hand. So what is your biggest evidence for that?

>> I would use his the historic standard for this and what history historians broadly agree on. Well, if you give me a second, I can pull up the historical standards that I would appeal to.

>> I think I think that that's fine. Okay.

>> So, if that's what Google want a second you're asking me for formal evidence. You want me to freehand it?

>> You You're the one that gave me the descriptive debate. I thought you had become prepared for this.

>> I I am prepared for it. But formal evidence, then you got to give me a Google it. Can't you just tell me?

>> Why am I googling anything? I'm just pulling it up something up. So, I just want to make sure I just want to make sure that you want me You don't want me to use any formal sources or you do.

>> I'm asking you to prove your claims. You're the one

>> Why don't you let me do that and close your mouth?

>> So, we're going 26 minutes now.

>> I just like I don't get it. Do you want me to prove the claim through a historic standard or not?

>> Come on, man. Give me something.

>> What do you want? What do you want for the claim is

>> What is your evidence? I'm using the historic standard

>> and that is

>> that Protestants that historians broadly agree there's consensus that Protestantism led to in to the adoption of enlightenment principles. That's not even a dispute by most mainstream historian reformation.

>> That's the greatest thing that I've ever heard in my life.

>> Can't blame that on that. That's

>> ill. World War II came after World War I. You can't blame World War I for World War II. Genius logic, bro.

>> Brilliant logic. Your logic is man, you have you have laid me low, sir.

>> It's funny. You haven't provided a single evidence yet for your claim. It's funny.

>> Well, every time I begin to you already begin with a reputation, which is do you do you agree that

>> do you agree that historians agree with the standard or not?

>> Historians have disagreements. They're not all question. That's my question. What is your question, Andrew?

>> Do historians agree? Is there a broad consensus that the Protestant Reformation paved the way for enlightenment principles?

>> No.

>> That's your Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are some.

>> You're sure there's some.

>> You don't think that there's broad consensus for that?

>> Yeah. But here's my point. Let Let me talk for about 30 seconds to a minute, please.

>> Sure. So myself as a born again Christian and I'm looking at the Bible and I look throughout history and I see how cultures like I mentioned Noah uh Sodom Gomorrah we see the book of Judges Judges 21:25 says that everyone did what was right in their own eyes because there was no king. Solomon said in Proverbs 14:12 that everyone a man does what's right in his own eyes yet the way there is death. Jesus warned that before he came back that there would be wars and rumors of wars and love of men would grow cold. Even Paul wrote about these things. We live in a fallen world. Nothing is new under the sun. So in order for you to blame in our modernday society of the dysfunctional issues and to say it's the big hand from the Protestant Reformation, I'm asking you to prove that assertion because historically we've had these issues before the Protestant Reformation.

>> Which issues?

>> The dysfunctional society.

>> Which dysfunction?

>> How about this? Tell me. Give me the list of what you think in our modern day

>> of dysfunctional society was caused by the Protestant Reformation. How about that?

>> The idea of positive rights

>> is dysfunction. Positive rights.

>> I don't actually know what that means. What does that mean, please?

>> Well, do you've read the constitution, the amendments in the constitution? Correct.

>> Yeah. When I was younger, I don't remember all that stuff. Yeah.

>> Well, let's just take one that you do remember. It's not a trick. It's not a trap. Uh you're aware of like the second amendment for instance, right?

>> Sure. Okay.

>> Okay. That that means you can own a gun. Yeah.

>> Okay. Yeah.

>> Okay. Great. So if we're talking about that, do you have a duty to own a gun though?

>> Do I have a what?

>> A duty to own a gun

>> in our modern day.

>> Just period. As as far as that right is concerned.

>> So I understand you're saying a duty like in regards to an obligation. Is that what you're saying?

>> Mhm. Yeah. Duty and obligation can be synonyms for this. That's fine.

>> Sure. Um

>> I don't think it's a duty. I think

>> that seems fair.

>> I also agree with you broadly that uh the first amendment you have the freedom of speech but you don't have any duty to speak out. Right.

>> Okay.

>> So these are all things which are um assumed with no duty. So that's not the way that rights ever traditionally worked. Not even in Christianity that they were entitlements which were given. They were duties which were asserted and then you would assume the right from the duty. Let me explain how what that means.

>> Okay. Go ahead.

>> I as a Christian am not allowed to murder you. Right.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. So therefore you have a right not to be murdered.

>> Agreed.

>> Yeah. So you see how the right that you entail to yourself is coming to you from the idea that I have a duty to not do the opposite of that. Right. That's where you're inferring that.

>> I think I'm tracking you.

>> So, when you say god-given rights, what anything that you would appeal to as a God-given right would likely be in the context of that. It's not just that you have some entitlement. It's that you have a whole grouping of duties and those would be the entailment of the entitlement to other people. So, you're not allowed to um I don't know, you're not allowed to murder. You're not allowed to steal. That's a good one, right? You're not allowed to steal, right? according to the word of God. Amen. According to the laws of our land, yes.

>> Okay. So then if you stole from me under any governmental system that you would come up with under Christianity, even if it was just like you and 10 people and I came to you with a grievance, hey, this guy stole from me, you would be forced to concede then that I had a right to not be stolen from. Right.

>> Based on what you said, sure.

>> Makes sense, right? That's how we would infer right.

>> Makes sense. I would agree. Yeah,

>> the Enlightenment disagrees with you.

>> What the Enlightenment is talking about with egalitarianism is that there's ideas of natural rights which are entitlements that come with no duty.

>> That is one of the key provinces for almost all problems in modernity.

>> Now, I have to give an answer so you understand what I'm giving you a response here even though you may not like the answer. Okay? I come from a biblical point of view with a lot of what you're sharing. And so I base my decisions and what I do in my life, my morality is to first the Lord. Okay? And just like when Jesus said render to Caesar what Caesars and render to God what's God's. So I base my decision what you're talking about here duties, rights, whatever. I'm I'm putting the Lord first. Going back to some of the original conversation here about, you know, what I was asking you the question about back in the early days with the Protestant Reformation. Was it right or wrong what they did? You think it's irrelevant? That's your perspective. But I believe biblically speaking, we're not to be robots. We're not to be machines. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of thought. And we can actually challenge people who are so claiming to be in authority, right? And if they're doing something that goes against what God's has taught or given us in his word, then I believe that is an appropriate thing. So going back what I was asking about the pro reformation,

>> but do you have a duty to do that?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Bible says to contend the faith.

>> So then do you do you see how then what you're doing is you're making an appropriation of rights based on duties. But that's not how enlighten the the idea of enlightened rights work. those work based on the entailment of entitlement. I'm entitled to this with no duty. There is no duty. I just am I'm just justified in this thing becau because I am.

>> That's a whole concept of natural rights by the way.

>> Yeah, let me finish my answer please. Yeah, let me finish.

>> You just did. You just did finish it.

>> I did. No, I wasn't done. I wasn't done.

>> Okay.

>> What I was trying to say is according to scripture, we are told to contend for the faith. We are told to actually study the scriptures. We are told to test what people claim.

>> So this is actually what the Bible does teach.

>> So

>> well I'm going back to what we're talking about the origin of the pro reformation. So what I'm saying is when they started off good,

>> just because there may be some bad apples over the years, that doesn't mean necessarily that the cause or the big hand as you like to say is from the Protestant Reformation. Because again, I I'm I'm a biblical person. So you may not want to argue this way. I get it. But I'm looking to the origin, to the root. We by nature are depraved people, right?

>> Yeah, but you can't you can't limit every cause.

>> Let me just I'm not trying to

>> eventually you got to let somebody else talk, dude. You can't filibuster.

>> You're you're being silly. I let you talk a lot already. I'm just trying to finish my statement.

>> Okay.

>> Throughout history and different civilizations, there's always been immorality. There's always been people who've done what they want to do right. And nothing is new under the sun. We live in the same age today. So what I'm trying to say is for you to try to pin this on the pro reformation. You've got nothing to really prove that. It's just your assertions. That's literally a lie. I just told you that I can appeal to the historic standard of universal empirical agreement by scholars for where enlightenment principles came from. And I'm willing to pull up a list of scholars that you can look up yourself if you disagree with this claim that nobody disagrees with. But wait, my turn. I just let you go. My turn.

>> So, the next thing that's funny that's funny about this and it's actually hilarious to me is great. We could just say that about everything, can't we? Only Only Fans cause is that there's sin in the world. Great. Oh, prostitution's cause is there's sin in the world. Oh, girl, thank you. That's so helpful. Oh, the cause of me falling down the stairs is that we live in a fallen state. Great. Why replace the floorboard then? After all, I mean, that's just the way the nature of the world is corrupt, you know? I mean, that's just how it goes, bro. No, we obviously are going to look for correlating factors and explanations, including in the natural world, for cause and effects when it comes to social and societal impacts. You just going, "Well, hey, bro, there's sin in the world." It's not helpful. It tells us nothing. It doesn't get us to any of these causes. It does nothing for us.

>> You just said cause and effect, right?

>> Yeah.

>> So, the effect is dysfunctional society, right?

>> Well, I mean, that's that's not the only thing that made society dysfunctional. I'm saying I'm saying yes, it's a reason. Yes, it's a reason for dysfunction. Yes. Correct.

>> The effect is the dysfunctional society. Correct.

>> No, the effect is at least partial responsibility for dysfunction in society. Why everyone asks the harder question. What's the cause of it? What's the cause of a dysfunctional society?

>> Uh there's a whole host of correlating factors.

>> Mhm.

>> Mhm.

>> Give me some, please.

>> Uh like for instance, um let's say that the sun, right, disappears in Europe and they have a really bad famine. Are you saying that that's because they sinned or could there be a natural explanation for that?

>> Can you say that again? Sorry. Let's say that they just don't get a lot of sunshine in England for a year and it causes a famine. Is that due to sin or is there just is there a natural cause for that?

>> So like you like to use the word that's irrelevant. That's not even answering what I'm talking about.

>> Uh it is there a natural cause for that or are you just going to say well there's sin in the world?

>> That would be uh obviously not a natural part of God's natural laws for this world. So whatever the

>> be a natural natural law for the world the weather the weather is not part of the natural world we as people are what do you mean that's not a normal what do you mean that that's not God's natural plan for everything that we do in this world moral dysfunctional wokeianity whatever it may be because you like to you know do your politics debates with a lot of the people on the woke side which I probably have a lot of agreement with you but the problem is why are be dysfunctional? Why do we do what we do?

>> Did I I just gave you a reason that you could appeal to for a natural cause of dysfunction that has nothing to do with human behavior.

>> That's so irrelevant to what I'm talking about right now.

>> It does because not all forms of dysfunction have to do with human behavior.

>> The Bible is very clear, my friend. We all sin. Correct?

>> Has nothing to do with what I just said. Do you agree with me that there are cause there can be causes Stop. There can be causes of human dysfunction that are not sin based. Right? Can people sin without

>> Answer my question, dude. Answer my question.

>> Imoral lives. Sorry, let me ask you. Can people have immoral lives?

>> No more answering until you answer my question.

>> No, no, no. You're you're then we'll just sit here and stare at each other for a while.

>> And let's do that. I'll listen to heavy metal. We'll stare at each other till you learn how to answer a question and then ask one.

>> All right. Go ahead and listen to heavy metal.

>> All right, I'll do that. It's Metallica. It's really good. No, I'm good. Got Ah, pardon me. I have to switch the song. Can't play him for too long on YouTube. woman, bring me a beer. Just do a music stream right here. Wait a second. This dude's gone. I have his stream all to myself. Well, oh, he's back. Never mind. Oh, wait. He's playing peekab-boo. He left again. Great. All right. Now, as the official hijacker of Kip Oh, he's back. Yeah, you can send in your super chats. That's fine. I can read them. Yeah, I don't I don't know why he's burged. I don't know. Don't ask me. I agree. It was a big opportunity for him, but you don't want to do it. At some point, we'll find propw worst than can can actually make an argument. I doubt it. I doubt you're ever going to find one that could even stick to the topic, honestly. Yeah, if you could actually prove your point.

>> Well, wait. I don't understand. Are we done now? Are we done? I thought you weren't going to talk till Are you going to answer my question now?

>> Playing around playing games.

>> Yeah. Do you want to answer my question now? Are we going to go back to this?

>> You actually having a conversation?

>> If you're willing to answer my question first, I'll answer yours. That's

>> So, you still haven't proven your point.

>> Yeah. So, demonstrated that scripturally speaking, historically speaking, we're all screwed up. You can't prove you can't prove the Protestant Reformation is the cause or a major cause of our dysfunctional society today.

>> You still haven't proven it.

>> Still haven't proven it.

>> Uh what? That the Protestant Reformation is the cause of what?

>> What you said. The big hand in our dysfunctional society.

>> Yeah. What dysfunctions in society?

>> Well, you're the one that said it. You haven't proven it yet.

>> Proven what though? What is it? Yeah, I just I gave you a whole host of information. So, starting let's start let's start with my question. Hang on. Let's start with my question.

>> No, no, no. I'm being nice. Okay. Well, then just sit there when you're done. When you're ready to answer one question, then we'll get back to

>> your assertion. Now is the time.

>> Answer my question. Prove Now's the time.

>> Either prove it or leave.

>> Either Either answer the question or kick me.

>> Can you Can you answer Give give the answer what the best evidence you got? What is it again? I already told you it's the entirety of the historic standard and all of the scholars to back it up.

>> The best you got. That's the best you got.

>> Yeah, that that's I I would think that that would be all I would need for an empirical claim. Now's my turn. Answer my question.

>> Well, you don't have a turn. We've already been talking.

>> Oh, okay. So, you're not going to answer my question.

>> What was your question that I didn't answer?

>> So, I'm going to try again. Is it the case that you can have a natural cause for thing that's not rooted in sin?

>> Oh, that's irrelevant. That's a stupid question. Go back to what you're supposed to do.

>> Just answer the question, dude.

>> No, no, no. Go back to the topic.

>> Answer the question.

>> Prove your

>> I'll tell you why it's relational. I'll tell you why it's relational.

>> Prove your assertion,

>> I'll tell you why it's relational to the topic. Here we go. The reason The reason it's relational to the topic and the reason why it's important to the topic is because you said, look, the cause and root of all things is sin, man. All the things that are bad, it's because of sin. Sin causes all of it, right? It's like, okay, great. However, uh, if I bang my knee on a floorboard because I just lazily didn't pin it back down the night before, is that due to my sin or is it due to like just me being a dummy?

>> So, in the Garden of Eden, when we

>> answer my question,

>> McFly, your shoes are untied. Yes, the answer to your question is because of the fallen nature, we all do things that our bodies are corrupted and falling apart. So, the answer to everything is sin. sin.

>> The answer to everything else.

>> The answer is still sin.

>> So the answer to all problems is sin.

>> How about that?

>> Mhm. So there you you wouldn't give any positive explanation. The reason the pipe broke in your fridge are dysfunctional outside of sin.

>> Yes. Did your pipe did your pipe

>> How can we do things outside?

>> Did your pipe the pipes break in your house because of sin?

>> That's irrelevant to our action.

>> Answer the question.

>> No, no, no, no. You're not going to play that game. in our society of dysfunctional people of immorality of homosexuality of abortionity what is the problem?

>> Yeah, when you're talking about empirical claims and that's what we're making here is an empirical claim.

>> What is the cause of a dysfunctional society?

>> So it's going to be a whole host of different reasons and some of it may not

>> there's only one answer.

>> No, it may not have to do with sin and a tsunami may have nothing to do with sin. That that has nothing to do with a dysfunctional society. Andrew,

>> could Yes, it could. [ __ ] Yes, it could. [ __ ]

>> It does not.

>> Oh, I see. So, if a tsunami hit the eastern seabboard in New York City, that's because of sin.

>> Sleeping around doing abortions, lying, cussing, all these different things. You think that's going to cause a tsunami?

>> No, dummy. That's my point.

>> Are you smarter than that?

>> Aren't you smarter than that? I thought you were supposed to be this big bad wolf debater and you still haven't proven a single thing.

>> All you do is filibuster. How would you know what I can prove? You don't answer any questions. You refuse to engage in what I'm even saying.

>> Cause for all of our problems in society.

>> Well, let's just start with this steel man. What my position actually is?

>> I don't even know what your position honestly.

>> And why are you making commentary on it, [ __ ]

>> No,

>> you're the one, Andrew, who you're so dumb. You're the problem. You're the problem here, not me. You didn't want to have anybody with an IQ is a problem for you.

>> Cursed at me, cursed at me, called me a bunch of names, then said,

>> "I didn't call you any I didn't call you anything, which was not which was in any way vulgar. I called you a dork and said you were a moron."

>> Both of those things are true.

>> You didn't say I was a gay mullet kind of person.

>> Yeah. After you called me after you called me a potty mouth. Yeah, cuz you cussed all you cussed here earlier.

>> Yeah, but I mean potty mouth is very potty mouth is

>> that's vulgarity.

>> A potty mouth is one who vulgarly speaks language all the time.

>> No, no, no. Saying potty mouth itself is vulgar. You're saying that I speak [ __ ] You're saying I speak [ __ ] Oh, you being a gay dork is a fact.

>> That's called facts, my friend.

>> And you being a dork and low IQ is a fact.

>> Okay. So, you can't prove just to get direct. You can't prove your assertions. I can from the Bible that the origin of all our problems is sin.

>> Okay. You want you want to get right down to sources? Let's start with Luther's freedom of conscience, shall we?

>> Who? What?

>> Luther's freedom of conscience.

>> What does it have to do with our modern dysfunctional society today?

>> Because the my whole claim my whole claim my whole claim my whole claim is really

>> What are you Pentecostal? My whole claim, my friend, is that Luther and the Protestant Reformation merged with later enlightenment principles to cause modern dysfunction. Okay, let's start with Luther's problem. Let's start with freedom of problem of our modern. Number one, when Luther had a high rule of authority, he was definitely not for women a type of authority. How could you assert that type of claim?

>> What what type of claim am I asserting? dysfunctional society, egalitarianism. That was in your description.

>> It is. Yes.

>> How is how is the Protestant Reformation a cause of egalitarianism when the origin of the

People were not in that kind of mindset for women in authority? Prove that.

>> What? What do you mean? What does that even mean? What are you talking about?

>> They were not for women in authority or teachers like egalitarianism like we today. You claim it goes back to the problem of reformation.

>> It does.

>> Well, so it starts immediately with the erosion of central authority. That's the point.

>> Yeah. And so again, the Bible actually tells us we can challenge

>> people who are teaching false things. That's a biblical

>> which has no bearing on this debate at all. Whether that's true or not true, Andrew, that's the whole point of reformation.

>> It doesn't matter what the point of the Protestant Reformation.

>> It does matter.

>> It doesn't matter. Why? Why does it matter? Why

>> it does? You can say it doesn't matter all you want. It doesn't matter.

>> How does it how

>> How does that have any bearing on whether or not it led to a cause if it was enlightenment? We're not to be doormats. We're not to be robots. And if somebody is teaching something false, biblically speaking, we are instructed to stand up against that.

>> Yeah. What does that have to do with whether or not it is in fact the case that the Protestant Reformation that led to proven?

>> I just let you go. So again,

>> let me know what

>> this led into enlightenment principles. Do you agree or disagree?

>> That doesn't prove anything. Do you I'm just asking if you agree with that.

>> There's people all around the world who aren't even Christians are dysfunctional in enlightenment. That has nothing to do with the reformation.

>> Agree or disagree that that Protestants pave the way for enlightenment principles.

>> No way.

>> Disagree.

>> No way.

>> They didn't.

>> No way.

>> Okay.

>> They would have been against that.

>> They were against enlightenment principles.

>> They would have been against all that mumbo jumbo.

>> They would have been. Huh. Do you even know what they stood for?

>> I can't wait for you to tell me how they would have been against enlightenment principles.

>> H how did they

>> pave the way

>> in their teachings?

>> How did they pave the way for the enlightenment?

>> By questioning by questioning standardized central authority.

>> Oh, no way. Cuz the Bible actually teaches you're supposed to question people.

>> That has no bearing. That that just makes my point. It does.

>> That would just make my point. That would just make my point. That would just make my point. That would make my point. That just makes my point.

>> No, you have no point.

>> No, you're just making my point over and over.

>> You're just [ __ ] unbiblical. As Christians, no matter what it is, if it's unbiblical, we're told to stand up against that. That's what they did. It has every bearing to where we're at today.

>> Okay. How?

>> How?

>> Yeah.

>> How? What? How how how does whether or not the Protestant Reformation was justified have to do with whether or not the Protestant Reformation led into the series of events for the takehold of enlightenment principles? The justification has no bearing on that, dude.

>> Well, number one, prove what you claim there. Number one. Number two is biblically speaking, we are told to stand up against false teachers, false prophets, false apostles, those who are teaching. That's exactly what the reformers did early on. Whether you agree or disagree, they put their faith and belief based on the word of God going against a religious institution that was teaching things of corruption.

>> So,

>> so same thing with the Orthodox Church. So,

>> yeah. So, what? It has no bearing on the debate at all.

>> Know what? No bearing. I know, right?

>> Yeah, I know. Yeah. Nothing to do with anything.

>> Nothing to do with it.

>> Yeah. How does it have anything to do with anything?

>> It has anything to do with it.

>> It doesn't. It doesn't.

>> You're gay. Yeah. You got nothing there, do you?

>> I got nothing there, do you?

>> You know, one thing about you, Andrew, you know, you are funny sometimes. I will give you that.

>> I will give you that.

>> You are funny sometimes.

>> Yeah, you messed that one up, didn't you? Couldn't.

>> So, let me ask you question. You could repeat that, could you?

>> Andrew, honest question. Time for an honest question. Do you want to continue this conversation? Honestly,

>> I would like to if you would actually answer questions I and I'll answer yours in good faith, but don't don't do the thing. Look, hang on. Just hear me out. Hear me out.

>> Seriously,

>> if you really want to have a conversation about this and you really want to listen to what I have to say, you want to hear what my side of this is,

>> right?

>> Then actually listen.

>> I have and I'll listen.

>> Okay, great. Then just tell me what my position is, dude. your position. Honestly, again, I actually don't understand what you're trying to argue completely.

>> So then let me just

>> and I'm actually being honest with you.

>> Let me just try to give you the let me just try to give you the position, dude.

>> Try again.

>> Then you'll understand.

>> Try again.

>> Okay. So if we're when we're talking about modernity and problems in modernity, Andrew Wilson believes that many of those problems come down to the idea of the assignment of natural rights, the idea of rights absent duty that can be traced back to the Enlightenment, okay, and enlightenment philosophy. The Protestant Reformation directly had a hand in leading to the Enlightenment and many Protestant later reformers attached themselves to Protestant ideology including many of the churches right the second still practice enlightenment ideology when it comes to the idea of rights and things like this.

>> Can I ask one question on that?

>> Yeah, go ahead. Sure. So, can you give me a specific example of what you're saying there that led

>> You would have to start with Luther's freedom of conscience.

>> Let's start with the word freedom. Martin Luther wrote wrote a missive called the freedom of conscience. Have you ever read it?

>> You you've read it? You've read it?

>> I have. It's been years, but yeah.

>> Okay.

>> But the idea is you have when you when you say freedom that's in that sense a freedom of conscience. Do you agree that that's an entitlement? That's something that you're like entitled to.

>> Freedom. Freedom.

>> Yes.

>> Freedom of conscience that we're entitled to.

>> Yeah. Are you entitled

>> as human beings? As human beings?

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. I do. I'm not a Calvinist.

>> Okay. So, that that makes sense to me, right? Um when you're using when you're using

>> Yeah. Yeah. Sure. But when you're using freedom in this sense, when you use the idea of I'm free, that has a bunch of entailments in it, that means there's no real authority outside of you. Do you see what I'm saying? When you say, "I'm free."

>> How so?

>> If you if you got fired from your job and you said, "I'm free." What you're saying is, "Nobody has control over me now." Right? That's what you're saying.

>> That's what people are saying when they say, "I'm free." when they say when a person says I'm free that means there's no authority over me.

>> So if I get fired and I say I'm free that claim that the claim is I have no authority over me.

>> That's somebody else doesn't have authority over you.

>> But what if my authority and you and you know just let me give you my answer please.

>> But what if my authority ultimately is the Lord not some employer?

>> Don't well that that would make sense to me right? You're not saying but he would never say I'm free of the Lord. Right.

>> Well, I am free in the sense that God has created me with freedom of choice. Freedom of

>> But you're not free of the Lord.

>> What do you mean by that?

>> It means like let's say tomorrow uh Satanist wakes up and he I don't know he curses God and uh and says that you don't even think that God's real. He's still not free from God. Correct. God has authority whether he likes it or not.

>> There's nothing there's nothing

>> because God is sovereign and God is creator. Yeah, exactly. In that sense, yes.

>> Yeah, he has authority. So, you would never declare freedom from God.

>> In that sense, I would agree. In that sense, when you make a declaration of freedoms in general, you're

>> Hang on. Hang on. Just hear me out. But when you make of freedoms themselves, you're usually making a declaration you're free from authority of some kind.

>> I'm trying to agree with you, but I'm just trying to clarify. So I I would agree in the world as as creator the god creator the triune god he is in authority all of us whether we know this or not even atheists right no doubt

>> but as still as human beings I believe that he's given us the freedom to either obey do reject or don't right so we still have our own choices that we can make now whether we choose to follow after the Lord that's a choice we make that does that make

>> but that's a choice that God God allows us to make

>> sure

>> because he made us

>> choice he made us with with free will right

>> agreed

>> okay so if you're made with free will you have the choice to choose someone you say free that's saying there's no authority over your choice but you

>> no that's not what that means not for me anyway

>> then who has authority over your choice except you. Otherwise, how could you choose?

>> Well, then you couldn't choose the Lord.

>> No, you're misunder to choose the Lord. You couldn't the Lord.

>> So, you misunderstand what I'm saying.

>> I don't think I am. And I'm back and then you tell me if I'm wrong. You saidain. Okay.

>> I'm just going to explain. Okay.

>> You said I don't understand, but won't let me steal man it to see if I even understand it. Okay.

>> That doesn't steal it before. You have to steel man it. If you say you don't understand, then I think it's appropriate for me to say, "Let me steal man it because I think I do understand."

>> Okay, Andrew, can you please steal my position?

>> Yes. Your position is that God created us with free will. I agree with this. And that when you say free will, you mean that you're free to choose. Well, if that's the case and you're free to choose and make choices to reject God, not reject God, I know, go beat your wife, not go beat your wife, drink a beer, don't drink a beer. If you're free to choose, then the authority to choose is is yours. You have the authority to choose. God is he. If he took that authority and autonomy from you, you could not choose him, right?

>> So, that's wrong. So, so if you're trying to steal, man, that's not completely accurate.

>> So, let me try to explain.

>> All right.

>> Most not everything, a lot of what you said actually I agree with. Okay. Just because we're free doesn't mean we are our own authority. Doesn't mean that we're our own self, if you will, master. Just because we're free and we can still make choices. We're still in as at least in I'll use my example as a Christian. My allegiance is to the Lord, right?

>> No, that's an illogical position, dude.

>> Can I can I give you an answer, please? Is that okay?

>> Yeah, but it starts with a false premise that I reject immediately.

>> How how is it false?

>> Because you said just because I have free will doesn't mean I I'm free to choose. But it does mean that it has to because otherwise you misunderstood that again.

>> So let me try again. So let me try again.

>> All right. So because God is God and he has created us in a way to be able to make choices. Are we on the same page so far?

>> God created us, your exact words, in a way to make choices.

>> Do you agree with that?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So we're on the same page. So in that God created us with free will, yet God is the creator and master of all things. Correct? Uh, so your position is God created us with free will.

>> I'm just I'm we're I'm just trying to do what you like to use as logic. So we both agree we have free will.

>> Yeah. So God created us in a way that we can make choices and God created us.

>> God is still ultimately sovereign. Correct.

>> Um not over your will.

>> Sovereign meaning ruler and authority.

>> Not over your will. Otherwise you wouldn't be free to not choose him. So a person who has free will, God is not their master. It

>> it can't. Do you see? This is why I said that I reject a premise.

>> Can you hang on? Hang on. You're Let's pretend. I'm trying to tell you, dude. I'll tell you. I'm going to I'm rejecting your first premise because it's illogical.

>> No, it's not. But okay, go ahead.

>> Okay, it is. And I'm going to explain how. If you have the freedom to choose but then say somebody else has authority over the choice. You don't have freedom to choose.

>> I have a freedom to choose whether I agree or disagree or obey or disobey.

>> Then you don't then you have freedom of choice. You have freedom to choose.

>> So let's say we're in a land where how about this? I'm American but I live in Canada, right? And my wife's Canadian.

>> Yep.

>> And I'm out in the States. I have the freedom to go down the road, right? I have the freedom to drive on the highway and let's say the speed limit is 75 miles per hour. Now, I have the freedom to drive 75, maybe they might even let me go up to 79, whatever the cop might allow. I have the freedom wherever I want within a certain miles per hour. But if I exceed that and a cop sees me, he has the right to give me a ticket. Even though I had the right by choice to choose what I want to do

>> to break the law,

>> but if somebody else made the choice for you to break the law, you didn't have a choice, right?

>> Who would make the other choice if I'm the one driving?

>> I don't know. Somebody with a gun to your head. I guess

>> that again, that's not what I'm trying to communicate. Now you understand. But what you're communicating here has a logical disparity on its face.

>> Not really.

>> If you break the speed limit, whose choice was that?

>> Mine.

>> And if you did it without duress, then who was the authority who gave you that choice?

>> Without what? Without what?

>> Without duress. Meaning you're not being forced to.

>> Yeah. So it's by my choice, right?

>> Then you're the authority over that choice.

>> But I still have to obey in regards to accept the ticket.

>> If I get a ticket from the authority, right? have to obey that either.

>> I can't just tell the officer, you know, today I identify as a police officer.

>> You can you just have to accept the consequences for that just like you do when it comes to God.

>> That's my whole point. There's still an authority, but I still have the freedom to choose to

>> only authority for the consequence.

>> There's authority with everything we have in life.

>> Yeah, but what about the choice? What about the choice?

>> So free will does not make myself a master over God.

>> I didn't say it makes you a master over God.

>> Then what are you trying to say, Andrew? God has a nature and he has chosen to abide by this nature.

>> God is omnipotent and omnisient. You agree?

>> Absolutely.

>> Okay, great. Then this means that God can do anything and has all power to do anything, right?

>> Well, that goes within his character and nature according to

>> his nature, right? And his nature is No, he can lie. He doesn't lie.

>> No, the Bible says he can't lie.

>> No, it says he doesn't lie. No, the Bible says he cannot lie.

>> Okay. Well, then you have a problem with omnipotence in your logical worldview. How can God Okay. Can God make a taco so big he can't eat it?

>> Can God make a taco so big he can't eat it?

>> You were doing good. Can we try to go back to being answering?

>> Can we try a taco that's so big?

>> Okay, I can start talking about a file.

>> Answer the question. Don't make a taco so big.

>> Bring up a file talk if you want me to.

>> I'm trying to go back to the free will.

>> No, I need you to my question. Answer the question, dude. Stop winning.

>> Come on. Can we go back

>> a taco so big you can't eat it?

>> Let's just go back to the free will thing.

>> No, let's go back to my question. Can God make a taco so big he can't eat it?

>> You can't have a normal conversation longer than

>> I want you to answer. You All you do is pivot. I'm going to hold you to the question. Can God make a taco? have a normal question.

>> Can God make a taco so big you can't eat it or not? Kelly,

>> seriously

>> answer my question. Kelly,

>> can God make a rock so big you can't pick it up? Why don't question know that? That's that's illrelevant to the

>> You don't know that? You don't know about the confines of God's nature?

>> It goes against his nature. That's my answer.

>> So he can make a taco that's so big he can't go against his nature. Could he actually do something he couldn't do himself later? Of course he could. Come on, be real.

>> Wait a second. God can't. So go if God can't do

>> God create could create a taco he couldn't eat.

>> Uhhuh.

>> So that he's going to create something he can't do. He can't create something he can't do. That's that's silly.

>> So then how's he all powerful, Kelly?

>> Because he doesn't go against his nature, his character.

>> Then what you're doing is you're saying that God

>> You want to play the Bible? You're going to get busted.

>> You're saying that God is going to do the Bible game. You're not going to do very well. Let's go back to normal. you're saying is you're literally saying to me

>> trying to give you a lifeline here,

>> Kelly. You're saying to me that God limits his nature.

>> So you're telling me the Bible is false when it says God cannot lie.

>> Is that what you're saying?

>> God doesn't lie.

>> Why?

>> Because that would violate his nature.

>> How powerful what I just said, Andrew.

>> Yes. But Kelly, your problem there is that you seem to think that it's it's outside of the realm of possibility if God wanted to change his nature.

>> Impossible for him to like it. That goes against his character and nature.

>> Yes. His nature, right? But he's still all powerful, right?

>> Of course.

>> So then he just confines himself to his nature.

>> Still makes him all powerful. Correct.

>> Then if that's the case,

>> we still have freedom of choice.

>> Yeah. So then

>> yet he's still sovereign and it doesn't make us our own master.

>> Now we've gotten somewhere. So if God confines himself to his nature, part of that nature is

>> logic, right? That's why God isn't making rocks that are so big he can't lift them because that would be a contradiction and it's not within the confines of God's nature to to be contradiction. Right.

>> Sure. So back to free will.

>> So that's why we that now I'm tying it all the way back to free will.

>> Sure. That's why when when you say something as absurd and illogical as uh well no see God has sovereignty over my free will uh but I still get to choose that's illogical because it would violate his nature. His nature is to let you his nature is to let you choose to choose. Andrew

>> his nature is to let you choose. Stop trying what you said. How can we have free will and not the ability to choose?

>> You would have to have the ability to choose. That's my point.

>> So then you're not arguing against me. You're agreeing with me.

>> No, dude. You if you would just listen for 5 seconds without opening that lava mouth of yours something here. This is just Phil 101. This is philosophy 101. You're right.

>> Great. Then chill out and listen to what I'm saying.

>> I'm chill.

>> When you say uh I have the freedom to choose, but God is still the authority over that choice. You're actually creating a vi a nature violation by saying God inserts himself with authority over your will because that would eliminate your choice.

>> Okay. And then my turn. So because we have free will and choice, he is still my master.

>> He's still the one I have allegiance to.

>> My choice.

>> So he's still the one who would govern my my choices and I'll have consequence. But I still have free will.

>> Yes, I agree. That's my whole point. My whole point because my point reduces to the illogical nature of the thing you said prior. The illogical nature I'm going to tell you if you calm down

>> the illogical thing that you said prior was that you are are not the authority over your choice. You say God is the authority over your choice.

>> I didn't say that.

>> You did. I can give I'll literally pull it pull it for me. Play it for me.

>> I No, no, no, no, no. I said I still have consequences for my choice. I can make my own choices. I'm not a robot. Right? You're not a robot.

>> By choices, there are consequences. If I choose to do something that follows God, praise the Lord. If I choose something goes against God, I have consequences.

>> Yeah, I I agree. But that's that. So, but wait a second. Just so you know, then when we're talking about the idea of free will, right? You have the choice. You're the authority over your choice, right?

>> No. H how am I my own authority? Then how do you have free will authority when God gives me the free will to follow him or reject him? How am I my own authority?

>> Who gets to choose to do that?

>> It goes back to free will. It's this is very basic.

>> Who gets to choose to do it?

>> What do you mean who gets to choose?

>> Who gets to choose whether to follow God or not?

>> Who's on first? What do you mean who gets to choose?

>> Who gets to choose you? When when you choose God. So if I get to choose something, I get to choose something, right?

>> Yeah, you.

>> If you choose something, you choose something, right?

>> Right. So then

>> complicated about that, Andrew.

>> Because the authority then would be you.

>> Why is it my authority?

>> Because you're the one here who has the authority.

>> I'm just making a decision.

>> And you're the only one with the authority to do so. Then whose authority is it?

>> It's a choice. It's freedom to do.

>> Whose authority? Under whose authority are you making the choice?

>> Authority. I'm under the authority of God, but I still have free will.

>> Authority.

>> How do you not get that, Andrew?

>> Listen, man.

>> How do you not get that?

>> Is God making the choice for you

>> right now?

>> Yeah.

>> So, you that you just proved to me right now you don't listen because I'm not a Calvinist or reformed person. I actually believe in free will. Are you listening?

>> Yeah, I'm listening.

>> Okay. So, who who has the authority to make Kelly's choices?

>> I have the authority, and if you want to use that word,

>> I have the right

>> to choose to either follow God or not follow God. But in that, I am not my own authority because I still have to answer to the one who is in authority over me. That's authority over consequences. Who has the authority over choice?

>> I'm not my own god.

>> But who has the authority over choice?

>> We've we've done this over and over.

>> Yeah. Because the supposition makes no sense. It's illogical. You say you don't have authority to make your choice, but only but only I'll give it to you in a syllogism so that you understand it. Premise one.

>> Premise one. God has the authority God has authority over my choices. Premise two, only I can choose. Sure. And and this is going to be totally to cook me in a second. I I I I know what you're going to try to do. I already know where you're going.

>> If you just Okay, great. Well, then it should be easy to defend against. So, premise one starts with Kelly saying, "God's in authority of my choices." Premise two, Kelly says, "Only I can choose."

>> What?

>> I'm sorry. Does somebody else

>> is there is there is there a three somewhere in all this?

>> No, I would just hit with the conclusion.

>> You stop with you, right? Well, the conclusion be unsound because I would reject two as being a violation of P against one.

>> Okay.

>> Who has So, do you have a right, Andrew, to drink a beer?

>> Uh, in what way?

>> You are drinking a beer. You have You smoke cigarettes at times. I'm not going to judge you. I'm just saying you do. Do you have the right to do it? Yes, sir.

>> Under under the law or

>> for yourself by yourself? In your backyard, in your car? Do you have the right, yes or no?

>> Under the laws of the land, sure.

>> What about under God?

>> Uh, yeah. I have the right to make the decision to do that.

>> So, are you your own authority?

>> Over whether or not I drink a beer? Yeah.

>> So, you are above God then.

>> That's wouldn't place me above God.

>> Wow. Andrew or the great I am. Okay. Thank you.

>> That wouldn't place you above God.

>> That's what you've been trying to prove this all.

>> Do you have the authority to preach scripture?

>> Do I have the authority to preach scripture? Absolutely.

>> Well, that puts you above God.

>> No, I've never said that.

>> What a dumbass. What a stupid That is the dumbest [ __ ] I ever heard, bro.

>> All right, you're done. I've put up with you long enough. All right, bye-bye. I tried, folks. And I'll let them yell, scream, make fun of me, whatever. Um, I really tried. Um, yeah, you guys can call me a [ __ ] That's fine. I really tried to have a conversation. I really did. I really did. Now, whether he's smarter than me, whether he thinks he's got these certain gotchas, that's fine. That's fine. Look at these people here. Look at this. Run, Cali. Run. Right where that person go, run, Kelly, run. You think I ran? If I was running, I would have kicked him a long time ago. I literally gave him opportunities to try to have a conversation. Literally. Literally. You guys can blah blah blah. Uh Rachel says, "You want to ask a question?" Where' Rachel go? Oops. just this typing so fast. I don't have super chats and all that. So, um yeah. So, yeah, I'm running like Forest when somebody can't have a normal conversation, guys. Even if I'll even grant if he had something to refute me on, if he did, I don't think he did. Okay? Even if he did, I'm willing to actually try to have a conversation. He couldn't provide proof for his assertions. Now for me, I'll show you guys. I'll show you my proof. Okay? You want to know my proof? This is my proof. Okay? In the beginning, what do we see? The serpent deceived Eve and Adam. The fall of man. We see the story with Noah. Corruption of mankind. Sin. Sin has come in this world. We're all corrupt. We're all dysfunctional because of sin. You see Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Sodom and Gomorra, it went down if there was 10 people. It wasn't even 10 to save Sodom and Gomorrah there. Judges says there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes. Ecclesiastes, that which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there's nothing new under the sun. What we have today, a thousand years ago, 2,000 years ago, nothing is new under the sun. Proverbs 14:12, there's a way that seems right to a man, but what its end is the way of death. You read Jesus being asked by his disciples, the apostles, asking, you know, are you going to restore the kingdom? And what does he say? Many will, he says, see that no one mislead you, for many will come in my name, saying, I am the Christ will mislead many. You'll be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you're not frightened, for those things must take place. But that's not yet the end. Nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom. In various places, there'll be famines and earthquakes. All these things are merely the beginning of birth of pains. This has to do with what? Sin, right? What does Paul say? 1 Timothy 4, he says, "The spirit explicitly says in the latter time, some will fall away from the faith." What? Paying attention to deceitful spirits. What's that? Satan and his demons, right? doctrines of demons by means of hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding on men who forbid marriage and advocating abstaining from foods. That sounds like Catholic Church, Orthodox Church. Just saying, right? Which God has created to be gratefully shared by those who believe and know the truth. For everything by God was created as good. Nothing is to be rejected if it's received with gratitude. It's sanctified by the means of the word of prayer, word of God, and prayer. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3, realize this that in the last times will be difficult difficult times will come. Men will be lovers of self. This is our modernday society. This is nothing new. Lovers of self, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied power. Avoid such men as these. We see the Bible talking about these things. What does Paul say in 2 Timothy 2 or sorry 4 3-4? The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine. But what wanting to have their ears tickled? That didn't come from the Protestant Reformation. That's been around before even before the time of Christ. But this is obviously what Paul says it'll be coming as well in our time. And what happens? They will accumulate teachers in accordance desires. We all, every one of us fall to a trap at times. Every one of us does. We have to be careful of that, right? We have to be careful of tickling ears. What happens? They'll turn away their ears from the truth and what? Turn aside to myths. As I shared earlier, Jude 1, Jude, a bond servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. To those who are called beloved and God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ, may mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you. Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity. He's writing to normal Christians. I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith once handed down to the saints. As Christians, that is our calling, our duty, right? How do we do that? We preach the word. We share the gospel. We refute false teachers. What do we do? We go to the word of God. What does it say? For certain persons crept in unnoticed, those who were long before and marked out for this condemnation. Ungodly persons who turn the grace of our Lord, grace of our God, sorry, into lensiousness and deny our only master and lord Jesus Christ. So that's where I'm coming from. And I have good reasons for it. Did the Protestant Reformation have some bad apples at times? Sure. But you can't blame them. You can't say that all the issues of our modern society of dysfunctional today comes back because the Pro Reformation. Otherwise, if if for those of you who at least believe in the Bible, then believe it. If you don't believe the Bible, well, that's on you. You want to hold to your traditions, you want to hold to your own ideology, you want to hold to traditions of men, philosophies of men, have at it. Have fun. Good luck with that. Unfortunately for you, it's not going to be good. You need to be rooted in Christ. You've got to know the word of God. study to show yourself approved a workman not ashamed accurately handling the word of truth 2 Timothy 2:15 we are instruct this is what we live today and the ironic thing is this though for Andrew this was his challenge for me to prove that the pro reformation was the big hand big cause in our modern dysfunctional society and yet he didn't prove it he made assertions S people can do that all the time. You know why I know what the mo you know why I know what the problem is? You know how I know exactly why we have a dysfunctional society? You know what the root the problem is? You know you know you know where the answer is. It's in the word. It's in what Jesus taught. It's in what the apostles taught. It's what the prophets taught. The root is sin and nothing is new under the sun. And you can mock me. You can insult me. You can slander me. That's fine. But still, truth is truth. And he and I know Andrew will probably make all kinds of fun of me. Fine. He can do it. Have fun. Truth is still truth, friends. My allegiance is to the Lord. Yours should be too. Now look at this guy. You ran. I ran after the guy would not actually have a normal conver and then after he asked me a question about do I have the authority to preach made fun of me. Right? Like the guy was not serious. Now I will say this one thing. I will say one thing. I'm actually quite surprised. I'm actually surprised that Andrew actually kept his language in check today. I will say that. Right. I will say that. At least he kept his language in control. I will say that. I will say that. Well, you guys today, here's what I ask you. Hate me, slander me, have at it. My friends out there who are born again Christians, when this stream is done in just a moment, you leave comments. Don't let these guys overtake. Leave some comments. What do you think is the cause of our modern society today of our dysfunctional society today? Do you think it's goes back to the Protestant Reformation? Well, then prove it. Right? I believe what the Bible says. I believe that we have sufficient evidence to say even like Romans 1, right? What does Romans 1 say? Let me one more scripture. Romans chapter 1. What do we see right here? Again, it's quite obvious. What does Paul write? For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who what? who suppress the truth and unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them. God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature have been what? Clearly seen being understood through what has been made. So they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God. So they had free will at choice or give thanks. But they what? They became futile in their speculations. And their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise. We got a lot of people professing to be wise today, don't they? Don't we? Professing to be wise became fools. exchanged the glory of an incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and for-footed animals and crawling creatures. So watch this. Look at these next few verses. Therefore, God gave them over in the lust of their hearts. It goes back to us. Were the cause to the hearts of two impurity so their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creature rather than the creator who's blessed forever. So where's the root? Where's the cause? It's us. Because of sin. For this reason, God gave them over to what? Degrading passions. For what? For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. What's that? Women with women. Not that complicated, right? In the same way men abandon their natural function of the woman and burn their desires toward one another. Men with men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Pretty obvious, right? Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind to what? To do those things which are not proper. That's the world we live in today, guys. And it's been going on for the last thousands and thousands of years as well. Being filled with unrighteousness, all unrighteousness, sorry. Wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice. There are gossips, slanders, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are what? Worthy of death. They not they not only do this thing, but also give hearty approval to those oppressive. And it goes back to even like Isaiah. Isaiah 5 says, "Woe to those who say good is evil and say evil is good." Those are the facts. So, thank you for being here today, guys. I tried to have a normal conversation. Didn't go very well for him. Just like with Sam Shimmoon in the past. Same kind of thing, right? All right, guys. Lord bless you. May you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May you know him personally. Put your trust in him who died for you on the cross and rose again for you. Trust in him today by faith. He loves you. Died for you. Shed his blood for you. Believe him as your savior, as Lord, son of God, the I am sent by the father. Trust in him today. Not yourself, not your works, not some religious institution, but in him today. That's what the Bible teaches us, friends. Lord bless you guys. We'll see you guys again real soon. Till next time, Lord bless.