Sam Shamoun Vs Matt Slick: Is Limited Atonement Biblical? EP 138

[Music] [Music] do you like this [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] all right all right thank you for joining me in this episode of the gospel truth. i'm your host martin wilson, and i thank you for joining me today. we have a great show for you today. i have matt slick and sam shimon all with me, and we're gonna have a it's gonna be a a glorious, wonderful time here on the gospel truth, and i'm just excited and thank you, thankful for you for joining me today.

you know, like this is probably the biggest debate thus far on the gospel truth. um, and the audience has showed up, man, and i thank you for joining me. thank you for coming on. thank you for supporting the ministry. you know, one way you can support the ministry is by liking and following the gospel truth. if you can do that, man, i would appreciate you so much. hit that like, hit that subscribe, and hit that notification bell. please subscribe. please subscribe. please subscribe. hit it now if you plan on leaving that debate just very early. hit it right now so you do not miss on any shows that are upcoming in the future or any shows that are being uploaded. any, any content is being uploaded. so make sure you do that.

also, if you're someone who just like the listener on the road, rather listen to audio than video, this content is also all podcast. so hit the iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, and Spotify. make sure that you're going over there to that iTunes, the podcast, subscribing there, giving me a good rating too, man, so i can keep doing what i do, man. i want this show to be popular, man. this is a platform where we're engaging the culture of christian truth, and we do that through debates, interviews, and bible lessons. so make sure you are hitting that subscribe button so we can get this gospel out there.

with that said, i want to go ahead and go over a couple announcements to shows that i have coming up. let me set this up real quick. all right, all right, all right. shows coming up here in the future. i got coming up october 26th. i have george alvarado versus matt singleton. was jesus eternally or incarnationally the son of god? all right. it's coming october 26th at 6 p.m. pacific standard time. after that, i have dr. kurt gyros versus pastor doug wilson. does god decree all evil? this is going to be a big debate. it's going to be a great one. october 27th at 4:00 p.m. pacific standard time. that's 7:00 p.m. eastern standard time. so make sure that you have flown over there and subscribing and liking. make sure you hit the bell on that one. after that, i have c.r. cali versus real laster. should abortion be criminalized? that's coming on october 30th at 12 p.m. pacific standard time. make sure you stay up on that one. and then lastly, i have a presidential debate. you know, i had to bring up the presidential stuff, man. you know, i had to, man. my brother, this is my brother carl wilson. that's me. that's, that's, that's my kid folk right there. all right. uh, versus leandre williams. the [ __ ] base trump abiding. who should we vote for? who should be president? all right. this is coming up the day before election day, november 2nd. so it's 6 p.m. pacific standard time. so make sure you're hitting the like, subscribe on the gospel truth so that you can stay in the loop. everything with the gospel truth has gone on.

that said, i do want to bring these guys in, man. y'all knows matt. y'all know sam, man. these guys both have been on the show before, man. both have been on interviews and been on debates on this show. so i'm just glad these fellas decide to come on back, man. a couple of heavy hitters in the christian worldview. he's some heavy, these some heavyweights right here, man. what's up, fellas? what it is? what's going on with you? doing all right? hang up. how are you doing? well, man, doing well. yeah, y'all ready to tackle this, man? y'all ready to do this? what's up? i'm ready. i don't know, man. yo, you guys are you listening? uh, can you guys hear me? just curious. my sound right? i want to know. hey, you brought quaco back on, huh? i did. i did. he, he debated him alone, man. he didn't bail. no, he didn't bail. he didn't bail. he stayed with us, man. he stayed with us, man. and yeah, him and vocab got into it, man. so they went at it a little bit. so it was all good. it was great. it was great, man. yeah, it's all good, man.

so once again, as always, i want to give you guys a chance to introduce yourself as if you guys need that introduction. but i still, you never know. that maybe one, two, or three in the chat that don't know nothing about you. so i want to give you guys a chance to introduce yourself to the audience. start with mr. matt slick, man. go ahead. a quick introduction, man. all right. my name is matt slick. i'm the founder and the director of the christian apologetics and research ministry carm.org, which incidentally, coincidentally, will be 25 years old tomorrow. and, uh, on monday night, today after, i'm gonna be, uh, having a kind of an online shed and dig, just a bunch of people coming in and saying hi and stuff like that. and i'll be releasing the information on that tomorrow, probably. but anyway, uh, carm's had over 100 million visitors. i've written several books. i've been on radio for 16 years, five days a week. and you can go to carm.org forward slash radio for the information on that. and, um, debate a lot of atheists and catholics and, and stuff. and here we are, debating on an important topic, the nature and extent of atonement, limited atonement, with sam, whom i've known for years. so that's it. all right. thank you, matt. thank you, matt. all right, sam. give a quick introduction. all right. um, you guys know i'm sam shamoon. i'm the founder of big bald beautiful ministries. and i'm just kidding. yeah, sam shimon. i i run shimonian youtube channel. i used to write for answering islam website, answering islam.net. it's not, i don't write for it anymore. the owner has been too busy to update the website. so most of my articles are still there. it deals with muslim objections against christianity. but as you guys fully know, matt knows this, when you're dealing with islam, you're going to have to deal with the core doctrines of the christian faith and defend them by the grace of god. so even though it's answering islam, majority of the articles focus on presenting a positive case for the doctrines of the christian faith. and i also have my blog, answering islam blog dot wordpress.com. and there i try to update it regularly with articles on a variety of topics, not just related to islam. so that's what i'm trying to do by the grace and mercy of the lord jesus christ. and it's a blessing to be here with my older brother, matt. he's older than me spiritually and intellectually. so i'm, it's a blessing to share the platform with him. all right, all right. thank you both once again for showing up, getting here on time, and everything, man. so we about to get into this. the topic of the debate is, is limited atonement biblical? matt slick is already affirmative, sam shimon's argument negative. so this is the format. ten minute opening statements, five minute rebuttals, then we're gonna follow with a 50 minute cross-examination. the first 30 minutes will be 15 minutes each to ask questions. and then a final 20 minutes will be more of an open discussion where i may have some questions for you. after that, we followed up with a t, a five minute closing, and then we have q and a from the audience. sounds good? yeah. yeah. is my sound okay? so i'm saying that my sound was cutting off. everything good? you sound fine. yeah, you sound perfect, actually. yep. all right, all right. so with that said, matt slick, your argument affirmative. so let me bring you in, and then i will let you know when to start when i get your time set up. all right, all right. matt, you're, you're go for your open statement. all right. well, first of all, i want to say thanks for having me on. appreciate it. and this is a worthwhile topic. and i want to thank sam also for posting his notes on the debate ahead of time. it helped me, uh, focus on some of the issues. we can get to things quickly without wasting too much diagnostic time. my position on the nature and the extent of the atonement is that jesus only bore the sin of the elect in his body on the cross. in support of this, i look to christ himself. when jesus taught people to pray, he said, our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, etc. in the version of that prayer we find in matthew 6:12, jesus says, forgive us our debts. in the parallel account of luke 11:4, he says, forgive us our sins. so jesus equates sin with legal debt. now, john the apostle does this too. in first john 3:4, when he says that sin is breaking the law of god. so sin is breaking god's law. it is a legal debt to god. by christ's own words, we break the law, we transgress the law, and that's what it says. in light of this, i turn to colossians 2:13-14, which says, when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions. 14, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us, he's taken it out of the way, having nailed to the cross. in the nasb, the three english words, certificate of debt, in verse 14 is a single greek word, chirographon. it means a handwritten iou of legal indebtedness. now, logically, since the transgression is a breaking of god's law, verse 13, and since jesus canceled out the certificate of debt, verse 14, then jesus canceled the sin debt. but he could only have canceled the sin debt for the elect. after all, if he had to cancel it for everybody who ever lived, then that would require universalism, something i strongly deny. in fact, i use this verse, it might take one of my refutations of universalism. now, one objection to my understanding of colossians 2:14 is that it would mean that people are justified at the cross. not so. justification is the legal declaration with the righteousness of god, philippians 3:9, is reckoned to our account by faith. that's romans 3:28, romans 5:1. this occurs when god grants that we believe, philippians 1:29. after all, our believing is the work of god, john 6:28-29. i affirm that the sovereign, infinitely knowledgeable god elects, predestines, and atones for the elect. he doesn't waste his blood. god then infallibly brings to faith those who are elected from the foundation of the world, ephesians 1:4, because he works all things after the counsel of his will, ephesians 1:11. the elect are the ones given to jesus by the father, for john 6:37 through 40 and ephesians 1:4. their sin debt is removed at the cross. they become justified when they believe. the canceling of the sin debt and the justification of the believer are two events that happen at two different times. now, in sam's notes, he went to colossians 1:20, and, and that's, you know, it's a worthy discussion. that verse in his context, sam tries to refute limited atonement by appealing to that verse, which says, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross, through him, i say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. now, in sam's notes, he said, quote, reconciliation refers to the restoration of fellowship between god and sinners, close quote. in his video, the extent of christ's atoning death, september 19, 2019, at approximately 52 minutes, sam says that quote, all things is not just the elect. it means everything that exists. of course, i have no problem with that. after all, the sacrifice of christ is the reason for the new heavens and new earth, the redemption of the elect, the judgment of the wicked, etc. but we have to ask, what does it mean that christ reconciles all things to himself? are those who deny christ also reconciled? are those who have died and are damned also reconciled? are satan and the fallen angels reconciled? are they to be saved? sam's answers of the questions will have a profound effect on his argument. maybe he'll answer them. maybe we'll get to it later. nevertheless, colossians 1:20 is about god's work in christ as it relates to reconciling all things. colossians 2:14 is speaking specifically about this certificate of debt in the context of the forgiveness of transgressions, and that has to do with people, not objects. they are different topics. so colossians 1:20 is not a challenge to limited atonement, as it clearly, as is clearly implied in colossians 2:14. so i asked sam, exactly what is the certificate of debt that was canceled at the cross? i hope to hear that answer. now, in his notes, he also went to hebrews, excuse me, 10:29. how much severe punishment do you think you will deserve who has trampled underfoot the son of god and is regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and his insult to the spirit of grace? in sam's notes, he raises this verse against limited atonement. his basic argument is that those who are sanctified are true believers, and that they have trampled underfoot the son of god and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified. therefore, they must have lost their salvation in this refuge, limited atonement. but not so fast. can a true christian, who is justified, regenerated, and indwelled by god, trample underfoot the blood of christ that saved them? is that even possible? there are many verses that speak of being secure in christ eternally, such as jesus' own words in john 6:37-40 and john 10:27-28. we don't have time to go through it all. in addition, first john 2:19 says, they went out from us because they were not really of us. for if they had been of us, they would have remained. you see, we're not here, unfortunately, to debate eternal security, though i think they are related. a limited atonement at it, so might be getting into that a little bit more. who knows? but furthermore, when we look at the whole chapter of hebrews 10, we find that it says something very interesting in verse 14. for by one offering, he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. now, sam implies in his notes that to be sanctified in verse 29 means they're saved. so if he's perfected for all time, those who are sanctified, and that implies they can't be lost because they're perfected for all time. has perfected is a perfect tense. it means that the actions have been accomplished in the past and still has effect in the present. so the sanctified are not perfected. furthermore, in the same chapter, it says, god will remember their sins no more, verse 17. if god is going to remember their sins no more, does it mean that if they're saved and then reject christ, that god will remember their sins again? it doesn't make any sense. that's another topic. so if hebrews 10:29 is speaking of someone who's regenerated and justified and yet loses his salvation and thereby denies limited atonement, how does this relate to hebrews 10:26? just three verses earlier, which says, for if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. paul the apostle said, for the good that i want to do, i do not do, but i practice the very evil that i do not want, romans 7:19. like paul, we have all sinned after receiving the knowledge of the truth. are we then automatically lost? well, of course not. so hebrews 10:26 seems to best be understood as talking about the jews who had received the knowledge of the truth of the sacrifice of christ but were rejecting it, not that they were saved and then lost their salvation. they had been sanctified as part of the covenant community, a very important topic. they were set apart by god, but it does not say they were justified and actually saved. this is further supported by verse 28, one verse earlier, by the phrase, the law of moses. verse 29 talks about the blood of the covenant. obviously, the writer is speaking to jews who understood the old testament covenant requirements of their faith, but it does not mean that they were saved as sam asserts in regarding verse 29. remember, if the sanctified were saved, then they were also perfected forever per hebrews 10:14, and also in verse 17, god said he'd remember their sins no more. so i don't believe that sam's position makes sense in light of this. let's jump to ii peter 2:1. but false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false prophets among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. so sam's position is that if the false prophets will go to hell, were bought by the blood of christ, it means that christ's sacrifice included them, then limited atonement is false. but does that work? nope. in his two epistles, peter referred to the old testament at least 36 times. in second peter chapter 2 alone, peter refers to the false prophets who arose in the past and talked about how god had not spared the fallen angels. he mentioned sodom and gomorrah. he mentioned noah, lot, balaam, balaam's donkey, and quotes proverbs 26:11. now, this is just chapter 2. given the focus of the old testament, i see no problem in continuing peter's old testament referencing to include deuteronomy 32:6, which says, do you thus repay the lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is not he your father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. Moses was addressing the rebellious Israelites who are turning away from god. Is he not he your father who bought you? That is, god didn't redeem them. That didn't, he's asking, didn't god redeem them from the tyranny of egypt? Yeah, he did. But among those who were bought were also false prophets. They weren't true believers. They weren't bought by god's deliverance, uh, in a salvific sense. And this is what peter's referring to. He's talking about it generally. There's more information on this, but I can't get into. Don't have enough time. Now, let me finish this, hopefully in one minute. So let me close by by addressing this. Uh, I hope sam can get to some of this stuff. The idea that Jesus did not bear the sin of every individual who ever lived is supported by his own words. Jesus said that he lays his life down for the sheep, John 10:11 and 15. But he also said to the Jews that they do not believe because they are not his sheep, John 10:26. If he lays his life down for the sheep, and those Jews are not his sheep, that he did not lay his life down for the sheep, for those sheep that the Jews. Now, in addition, when we look at first samuel 3:13-14, we find god saying something very interesting. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and did not rebuke them. Therefore, I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. Therefore, it could not be the case that Jesus bore the sins of Eli's house. He did not bear everyone's sins. It's limited. Furthermore, Jesus said that blasphemy of the holy spirit, spoken of in matthew 12:22-32, will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. It makes no sense to say that Jesus would atone for sins that cannot be forgiven. It would be like saying that someone paid for a debt that cannot be paid for. Makes no sense. Hence, he did not bear all sin of everybody. Instead, he only bore the sin of the elect. He canceled their certificate of debt at the cross, and they're justified when they believe. That is my position. Thanks.

all right, all right. thank you, matt. all right, sam. you got it, man. i think you muted. sam. okay. am i okay now? yeah, you're good. okay. should we begin? yeah, you got it. okay. let's go. praise be to god and father of our lord and savior jesus christ. i trust the lord to give me the grace to speak clearly and accurately for the glory of jesus. in jesus name. now, i'm going to take the passages he quoted and work my way from the last cited passage and slowly i'll deal with each one of them because each one of them actually backfires against matt. and matt again assumed what he said to prove. he assumes eternal security and therefore assumes that if hebrews 10 says what it says, it can't mean what it says in light of his understanding that hebrews teaches eternal security. i'd love to debate him on that. lord willing, we we may do that in the future. but let me give you an example of what i mean. first samuel 3:14 backfires against matt slick. and i'll tell you why. eli was the high priest. and i'm going to ask matt slick to address this when we have cross-examination. up until the point of first samuel chapter 3, up until that point, eli was required to make sacrifices for the nation, himself, and his family. for example, leviticus 16, as the high priest, he would make national annual atonement for himself, his family, and then for israel. those sacrifices, in light of hebrews 10:4, provided a temporary covering of the sin, which is why they had to be repeated. but up until that point, god was accepting those sacrifices as a temporary covering for the sins of eli and his household until they reached a point of reprobation, where from that moment on, god no longer would accept the sacrifices. so i want to ask matt, how does that reconcile with your view of limited atonement when up unto that point, god was accepting the atoning sacrifices as a temporary covering for someone whom god knew would be cut off indefinitely? so that doesn't support your case. it supports the unlimited atonement position. now, he went into second peter 2:1, which is ironic because he actually read my article. he's not arguing against me. he's arguing against john calvin. john calvin, and again, five points of calvinism, it's named after him. let me show you how john calvin interpreted second peter 2:1. and even in his attempt to connect with deuteronomy 32:6, that backfires against him because he assumed that though god bought the entire nation, that could not mean he bought the false prophets. where does deuteronomy 32:6 make that qualification? on the contrary, deuteronomy 32:6 says the entire nation was bought, even the false prophets, which made their sin more grievous and thereby deserving the judgment that befell them. so that doesn't support matt. that again supports unlimited atonement. but let me read calvin. calvin's on my side. let me read what he says in second peter two, verse one. so matt's wars against john calvin here. is what he says, they then who throw off the bridle and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness are not unjustly said to deny christ by whom they have been redeemed. let me repeat what calvin said. the clear, plain reading of the passage, these people are those who deny christ by whom they have been redeemed. so i'm going to ask matt, deal with the fact that whoever these individuals are, you want to say they're not saved, that actually confirms my position that much more because christ redeemed those who are not saved but would be destroyed, thereby refuting limited atonement. now, let's go back to colossians chapter 2, verse 14. and i have to say again that this is matt's misreading of the passage. and i say this respectfully. i'm not trying to be disrespectful to the brother. if you read colossians 2:14, paul is specific. when you read paul in context, he doesn't simply state that god nailed this written certificate. he says that god did it for those who believe and were baptized in christ. and that was my point in bringing up colossians chapter one. if we read these passages the way matt reads them, then it's going to end up proving too much. it will prove universal or universalism if he's consistent. thank god he's not. so now let's read the contextual meaning, not taking 14 out of context, making it say something that paul had no intention to communicate. let's start colossians 2. we're going to read verse 11. having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with him through faith. you through faith and the working of god who raised him from the dead. when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and ha, and has taken it out of the way, having it nailed to the cross. it does not say what matt wants it to say. paul is talking to believers who through their faith in baptism have been united to christ, raised to spiritual life. and paul is telling them of the benefits of their union of christ. here is what christ has done for you, for us who believe and been raised. he nailed that certificate to the cross so that there are no more charges leveled against who? us who believe and then raised from the dead. so no, man, this does not support your position. yes, it will support it if you misread it. so again, i'm going to invite you, let's read it clearly and contextually. now, coming to colossians 1. colossians 1, again, let me explain to that he's confusing two issues here. he's confusing jesus accomplishing redemption for every creature and redemption being applied to every creature. even matt believes the redemption of christ is not applied apart from faith. so yes, the text says what it says. christ has reconciled all things in heaven and earth and has made peace by the blood of his cross. but that doesn't mean it's applied. and this is the fallacy that matt is operating under, a fallacy that i used to operate under when i used to believe in limited atonement. because though christ accomplished redemption, a redemption is not applied apart from faith. and matt knows this because he does not believe, and he said it, that the elect are born reconciled to christ, united to christ, justified, and made alive until that moment when the spirit regenerates them, moves them to believe, and thereby unites them to christ. so even he believes that the elect must believe. but what is his argument? they will infallibly come to saving faith because that is the creed. but that's their element to the point. the text says christ accomplished redemption for everything in heaven and earth. it says it. it's there. man has to wrestle with it. so let me read it. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. all things have been created through him and for him. tapanta. he knows the greek better than i. he is before all things, pantone. and in him all things hold together. he is also the head of the body, the church. he's the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself will come to have first place in everything. for was the father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him. and through him, here's the point, and i'm going to ask matt to address this, to reconcile all things, tapanta, to himself, having made peace, romans 5:1-2. i'm going to bring that up in reference to this, having made peace through the blood of his cross, through him, i say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. now, i hope i don't need to prove to matt that contextually, the all things that jesus reconciled, all the all things he created, what is exempted from the all things? if in verse 16, all things in heaven and earth means every creature, contextually, and if we're going to be consistent, then the all things on earth and heaven that are reconciled, making peace by the blood of his cross, has to be every creature. so the dilemma falls back in matt's lap, not me. matt, you need to address this. you're the one who's arguing on the basis of colossians 2:14 that jesus nailed the cross the written charges irrespective of faith has nothing to do with your faith. he did it. and therefore, that means if he did it for everyone, everyone saved? well, likewise, consistency demands that if we're going to read colossians 1 the way you read colossians 2:14, it's your reading, man, that i'm using against you. in colossians 1, everything that jesus made in heaven and earth are the very things he reconciled, making peace by the blood of his cross. and it has nothing to do with your faith and repentance. so if you're consistent, that means you're now left with universalism. you're left with it, not me. because i make a distinction between christ accomplishing the redemption of everything and that redemption being applied to to those that it was made for. you're collapsing and confusing the categories. redemption accomplished is not redemption applied. but now i'm going to demand you be consistent, man. according to you, he did it by the blood of his cross and none with your faith repentance. i'm reading it the way you read colossians 2:14. you're stuck. will you not admit that the way you're interpreting colossians 2:14 ends up with universalism? my position doesn't. he accomplished it, but it's not applied apart from faith. that's why even satan and demons will end up in hell because they will not appropriate what christ has perfectly accomplished, which is why they must be cut off and destroyed. because at the end of the day, everything must be reconciled to god, and those who do not accept the gift of reconciliation must be destroyed with an everlasting destruction. so matt, hopefully, we'll see if you're going to be consistent in the way you've interpreted colossians 2:14.

all right, thank you both for those opening statements. now we're going to transition to our rebuttal round, uh, which will be a five minute rebuttal. so starting with matt slick, you are up for your five minute rebuttal. all right, hopefully we get through this. took notes while he was talking. he says three, uh, first sam 3:14 backfires against me because eli, the high priest, would make atoning sacrifices for his self, his family, and israel. how does that reconcile my view of limited atonement when up to that point, god was accepting the atoning sacrifices as a temporary offering? because it was a temporary sacrifice, it was not a sacrifice that actually removes sin. because we know from hebrews 9:10, 9 and 10, that the blood of goats and bulls and stuff don't reconcile. they don't atone. has to be the blood of christ. so there's no problem there whatsoever. second peter 2:1, the entire nation was brought, bought, even by false prophets. answered. it doesn't refute limited atonement. okay, sorry. the entire nation was bought. you see, when you say bought, we have to understand that that, uh, and the issue of being bought here, paul the apostle goes back and, well, peter is probably referencing, as i said, uh, deuteronomy 32:6, when they were bought, it does not say that they were justified. it's not a redemptive thing. and any atoning sacrifice, and this is what we're talking about in the context of second peter 2:1, when you quoted john calvin, that's fine. a lot of people quote john calvin. i don't read john calvin. i don't study john calvin, and i don't believe everything john calvin said. he's not the end all of everything. i just use the word calvinism because it's just an acronym that we, or a quick summation word. so second peter 2:1 is no challenge to me whatsoever because it's not an issue. agorazo is not an issue. they're being bought in a redemptive sense. it doesn't make any sense to say that it was particularly when he's referencing the old testament so much. and then he refers to the issue of of the prophets, the false prophets who arise and deceive people. and that's in reference to exactly what happened in, uh, deuteronomy with the false prophets, uh, who were bought out of egypt. but it doesn't mean that they were redeemed and atoned for. so that just doesn't work. colossians 2:14. we're going to be sticking on colossians 2:14 tonight. and you said that my interpretation of it leads to universalism. no, it does not. and with respect, uh, sam, no, it doesn't. because that's, i believe that jesus only bore the sins of the elect per colossians 2:14. now, you said he rightly went into the context, looking at bearing, being buried with baptism, being raised up, etcetera, having been made alive, he's forgiven us all of our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate, certificate of debt. paul is talking to believers who through their faith is what you said, have been united with christ. no problem. paul's telling them the benefit of their union that christ says for them. no problem. well, you see, the thing is, what is the certificate of debt that was canceled? and it was canceled at the cross. just as my sins were canceled at the cross. they're not canceled when i believe or when i get baptized. they're canceled at the cross. you have to demonstrate what it is exactly. is the thing that was canceled, the certificate of debt, the chirographon? it's a hypothetical domino, a word that occurs only once in a body of text right here. it means an iou of legal indebtedness. what was it specifically that was canceled by jesus at the cross? if it was a sin debt, did he cancel it for everybody who ever lived? you have to answer that question. if you say yes, you support universalism. if you say no, like me, you don't support universalism. this is going to be something we're going to have to get to later. in colossians 1:20, he says, i'm confusing how jesus obtains redemption for every creature, being distinguished, being applied to every creature. no, i'm not confusing those. colossians 1:20, as i stated in my opening statement, is about how jesus christ by his sacrifice did everything necessary. and i gave the listing, new heavens, new earth, redemption, judgment, all of this. but colossians 2:14 is a different context and is talking about a different thing, the certificate of debt that is canceled. see, the text, excuse me, the text says christ's accomplishment, rejection for everyone and heaven and earth. that's what i agree with. i have no problem with that. but what does it mean to reconcile all things? see, this is the thing. you got to answer that, sam. you say he reconciles all things. does he reconcile those people who are in damnation? what does it mean to reconcile? because if satan is reconciled, well, then how can that be? since i've read in your notes, reconciliation means be brought in a proper, put in a proper fellowship relationship with god. so what does it mean, according to colossians 1:20, for jesus to reconcile all things? the demonic horde? and you mistakenly said, I love you, brother, but you mistakenly said that the demons have to approach, cannot, or will not appropriate the redemptive work for themselves. you do not understand the issue of the kinsman redeemer, spoken of out of ruth. Jesus had to be god incarnate, made under the law, to redeem his brethren. had to be for us. the angels have no atoning sacrifice. they cannot be redeemed. as an error on your part to say that they will not apply the redemptive work of christ, that it was sufficient for their redemption as well. it is not, because he did not bear their sins in his body on the cross. first peter 2:24. this is important. it's critical. we'll be going over it again later. and i think i'm out of time. i got kind of lost. time is that my time now? i think it's five minutes. you're ticking down now. yeah, matt. measure good enough. good timing. okay. all right, cool. all right.

sam, you are up for your five minute rebuttal. okay. glory to jesus christ. now, notice what matt did. we're reading first samuel chapter 3, verse 14. and we have to understand it in its immediate historical context. what he did was saying, well, no, yes, the high priest made atoning sacrifices for a temporary covering of his sins, but it's not talking about the atoning sacrifice of christ. matt, what we need to do as bible students is understand statements in their own immediate historical context. in first samuel 3:14, jesus's atoning sacrifice is not even in view. so my challenge to you is, how would an israelite read first samuel 3:14 in its immediate historical context when there is no new testament, there is no incarnation, no death of christ? they would have understood that the atoning sacrifices that the high priest was making up to that point, from that moment onwards, would no longer be credited to eli and his household. so no, matt, it actually proves my position against you that god is permitting sacrifices to be made for someone that he knows will be cut off. and it's when he reaches a level of reprobation that sacrifices are no longer to be made for him and his household. so no, it doesn't help your case. it helps mine. now, matt, again, you're saying I don't understand the kinsman redeemer concept. believe me, I understand it. goel. I've written on it. but that's simply an evasion tactic. I'm not saying this to be disrespectful. so sometimes when we debate, we speak, but you understand that I love you. because the text of colossians is not speaking of Jesus redeeming his brethren, redeeming humans. it's talking about him reconciling all things in heaven and on earth. last time I checked, Matt, Jesus' kinsmen were not in heaven. and if you read colossians 1 contextually, verse 16 says, by him all things were created in heaven, whether thrones, dominions, personalities, or authorities. last time I checked, that was the spirit realm, spirit rulers. on what contextual basis do you reject colossians 1:20 that says the very things he created, wherever they're at, in whatever sphere, heaven and earth, he reconciled? and you keep focusing on reconciled, but you don't focus on made peace by the blood of his cross. man, that's the point. you need to focus on blood of his cross. what does the blood of Jesus do if not redeem, atone, and reconcile? so it does backfire against you. because if I interpret colossians 1:20 the way you do, where Jesus did it irrespective of appropriating the work of Christ by faith, then that means you end up embracing universalism. satan's going to. origen was right, Matt. origen was right. using your method, origen was right. everything gets saved at the end because he did it apart from your faith and repentance. so let me repeat again, this poses no problem for my position. my position says what Christ accomplished will not apply apart from faith. and then he asked me about the sin debt. Matt, I don't know if you're aware of this. again, backfires against you. because notice, you said what he nailed on the cross was the sin debt. last time I checked, part of the sin debt include the sin of unbelief. that means again, Matt, if you're going to be consistent, if you're going to be consistent, that means the elect are born not children of wrath or disobedience, as ephesians 2 verses 106 say, because Jesus nailed their sin of unbelief to the cross, which means god has no reason to be angry with them. that means they have no reason to be objects of wrath because there is no sin for god to impute to them because Christ nailed their sin debt on the cross. but you don't believe that, man. you believe that even the elect are children of wrath and need to believe in order to appease god's wrath against them and be reconciled, which is exactly what colossians 2:14 is saying. the sin debt is nailed for those who have believed in christ and are united to christ. their sin debt is nailed. so no, man, it doesn't say what you wanted to say. you're forcing the text to say something by taking it out of context. paul didn't write one sentence. he wrote an entire paragraph. so we don't want to chop paul into little pieces, making him say something he had no intention to say. so no, it doesn't support your position at all. now, coming back to second peter 2:1. Matt, I don't know what you mean by saying, well, yeah, well, when he redeemed them, it, it wasn't the same way as the way. again, I don't know what your interpretation of second peter 2:1 happens to be. so I'm going to have to ask you, what do you mean when god redeemed israel? it was the blood of the passover lamb that resulted in their redemption. their redemption is a picture of a greater redemption, Jesus redeeming us from bondage to sin. but when god redeemed israel, he also redeemed false prophets from their bondage to slavery, the very false prophets that god ended up destroying, which serves as an excellent parallel to what peter's saying, that Jesus bought even false teachers. he bought them, wound up being destroyed. but according to your view, limited atonement, Jesus only bought the elect, and they'll never be destroyed. so second peter 2:1 does backfire against you. and why, why appealing to john calvin? because calvin knows the bible, right? I mean, he knew hebrew, he knew greek, he knew latin. and it's not a fallacious appeal to authority. it's a bona fide appeal to authority. and yet he could read the greek of second peter two and agree with me. Jesus bought those whom he came to save, but because of their unbelief, he destroys them. so it supports my position. my timeline. yeah, sam. you're good. you're good. all right.

guys, uh, thank you for that. all right, so now we're going to transition into our cross-examination portion of this debate. uh, everyone's favorite part of the debate. so we're going to jump in about 50 minutes. it'll be 50 minutes. uh, first 30 minutes will be once again 15 minutes each to ask questions. uh, then the final 20 minutes will be more of an open discussion where i may have some questions for you guys. and we are ready to go. so audience, as they're interlocuting, make sure you are getting those questions in so we can ask these guys some questions that i know they can answer at the q and a. all right, with that said, matt slick, you're up for your 15 minute cross-examination. all right, so when jesus instructed his disciples how to pray, our father art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, matthew 6:12, he says, forgive us our debts. and luke 11:4, he said, forgive us our sins. do you agree that jesus equated sin with legal debt? of course. i have no problem with that. okay. so in first peter 2:24, it says that jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross. what does it mean that he bore our sins in his body on the cross? that he took the penalty that our sins bring upon the consequence of our sin, which would be death and alienation from god. that's not what it says. it says he bore our sins, not the penalty of our sins. he changed it. it says he bore our sins in his body on the cross. doesn't say he bore the penalty of our sins. so what did he bear? are you saying sin, something physical and tangible that was stuck to his body physically and literally? you can ask that when it's your turn. i'm asking you. i would like me to bear. what are you bearing on the cross? how did he do that? yeah, we're bearing our sins. obviously, sins are not something physical, tangible that were stuck to his body. so if you're taking it literally, you're twisting the passage because sin is not something critical. bearing our sins in his body means that he bore the consequence and the punishment of our sins. but if i interpret it hyper literally, that means sin is something physical, tangible that was stuck to his body, which he nailed to the cross, and then it got stuck to the cross. okay. i don't think anyone would. no, i, no, that's not what it says. it says he bore our sins. if sin is a legal debt, legal debts could be transferred. they were imputed to christ. he bore our sin in his body on the cross. that's simple. it works perfectly. and he only bore the sins of the elect. verse is very strong. what exactly, what exactly did jesus cancel on the cross in colossians 2:14? you canceled the certificate of debt. what exactly is that certificate of debt? well, let me go back to what you said about debt, because you went to first peter. i'll challenge you to show me that peter, who defines the sins that jesus bore in his body as legal debt. you took a.

statement from one passport and then you're imposing it on another passage. and I'm not saying that's totally wrong, but we first need to understand statements in their own immediate context. and in the context of Peter 2, he's not defining sin as a legal debt, but as something that brings about God's punishment, which is why it resulted in Jesus being killed on the cross. right to correct you on that, but going back, you're incorrect. what did he cancel? my question about Colossians 2:14. what did he cancel? the certificate. what did he cancel? I'm getting there, if you let me get there. I'm agreeing with whatever definition you have of the written debt, because some would say it's the law and the violation of the law. I'm open to whatever view you have. give me what your view is so I can turn it against you. what's your view? no, I asked you, what is it? I'm asking you. you can ask me that question later. what is it that Jesus canceled? what is the certificate of death? the sins of people that Christ atoned for on the cross, which will not be appropriate to them apart from their faith, which is what Colossians 2 says in context, even though you're trying to rank it up. he canceled his people's sins. okay. did he cancel everybody's sins? whoever lived? yes. so if you cancel everybody's sins, whoever lived, how can anybody go to hell? because God then requires faith to appropriate what Christ has accomplished on the cross, and apart from faith, no, not even the elect. that's biblical teaching. but faith is obligated to, but you're obligated to believe per the law, in, in the Ten Commandments. have faith in God. faith. if you don't have faith, you don't believe in God, that's a sin. all sins are paid for. so therefore, if you cancel the sin of all those people, then, then whether or not they believe or not is irrelevant, because the sin that doesn't exist anymore, they can't be held responsible for sin that exists. your view leads to universalism. mine does not. you don't understand what I'm saying with the text. so respond. yeah, aren't they? no, you don't believe that, and you hold to this position inconsistently. let me tell you why, because now I'm going to take your own words, Matt. hear yourself. what you said, if he's nailed the sin debt, that's also unbelief, and that means there is no sin debt to be leveled against anyone. so I, and I'm going to ask you this, but this is part of my response now. I'm not asking for you to answer, but I'm going to ask you in my cross-examination. then how in the world are the elect born children of disobedience? leave that for your time. I'm asking you a question. if the sin debt is canceled at the cross, all of it, it doesn't matter if you believe or not, there's nothing to be held against you. no, you're giving me your own opinion, interpretation. the Bible says faith is necessary to appropriate what Jesus accomplished. this problem said they believe in 29. keep me off, man. stop cutting me off. I want you to answer the question. I am just, let me finish. he said he canceled the certificate of debt, and you said he canceled it for everybody. how can anybody go to hell if their sin debt's canceled? because God requires faith in what Jesus accomplished on the cross in order for what Jesus did to be credited to their account, much like in the case of the elect. let me respond without you interpreting, interrupting me. just like the elect that you believe will definitely come to faith because it's decreed, are not forgiven of their unbelief and are still children of disobedience and children of wrath until they believe. so the problem is on your side, not mine. because if Christ removed the debt of sin for unbelief for the elect, that means the elect should be born already reconciled to God, God not having a problem with them, they're not being children of wrath. but we know that's not true. if he's wrong. yeah. so you're saying then that they have to be, uh, to believe, which I do believe. Philippians 1:29. God grants that they believe because God requires that they have faith in Jesus. they have faith or not faith. if they don't have faith, and there's no sin debt that can be held to their account, how can God judge them? how can God rightly judge them if there is no sin debt? hold on. this my question is that you're the one who said Colossians 2:14 says that they can't. he canceled everybody's sin debt. I'm asking you from your biblical understanding, you're the one who said Colossians 2:14 says he canceled everybody's sin debt. everybody's canceled. it's gone. from that, I'm asking you from that position, how is it that God can hold anybody responsible to go to hell if there's sin that doesn't exist? don't tell me it's not biblical. you want to repeat it another ten, ten times, I will, because the Bible, when you read it in its totality, says though Christ accomplished the redemption and paid the debt of sin, God requires faith in Christ to appropriate what Christ accomplished. you are butchering Colossians 2:14 out of its context and the overall context of scripture. so if you want me to, ten more times, I will. your argument's not biblical. it's unbiblical and it's masqueraded as biblical teaching. you cannot be saved apart from faith in Christ. so whatever Christ accomplished will not be credited or appropriated apart from faith. that's what God set up. you said, I said, that's not what I'm asking. you said, you asked very clearly. you very clearly stated that the sin debt of every individual is canceled, period. how is it not unrighteous for God to send people to hell for a sin that, that doesn't exist? there's no sin. we'll talk about the faith of justification later. but how is it, do you understand the problem? I don't. I want you to think. I'm repeating my question because your answer isn't sufficient. your answer doesn't work. your answer leads to universalism because you see God is one of the grants that we believe. Philippians 1:29. he's the one who grants it. he's the one who does that. God will probably, God will infallibly bring them to faith. you're the one saying that Colossians 2:14, everybody's sin debt is canceled. how can they go to hell if it's canceled? how can they be judged? Matt, are you preaching to the choir? are you asking me a question? because you're taking too long and are tickling your question. I'm asking you how God can righteously condemn someone to hell if their sin doesn't exist. if you're going to keep talking over me, I'll just sit and let you preach to the choir. so go ahead. okay. if God cannot hold anybody's sin against them, just as you said, or sin that's canceled, how can he do that righteously? the sin that doesn't exist, how can he judge him for sin? go ahead, keep preaching to the choir, because every time I answer, you cut me off. sure, that's fine. okay, that's fine. okay, guys, guys, guys. all right, let's, let's allow Sam to answer that question. uh, you got it, man. Matt, I know you don't understand the answer because your threat and your man-made tradition. so I'm gonna repeat it again. Jesus accomplished the salvation of every creature and paid their sin debt on the condition that you have to believe in Christ for what he accomplished to be credited to him. that's biblical teaching. knew yourself inconsistently believe it, and you even admit it. sure, you must believe. so when I come to my cross-examination, get ready to answer why does anyone have to believe in order to be united to Christ and saved if Christ canceled out their sin debt, even their sin of unbelief? because the Bible doesn't argue your theology, it refutes your theology. because what Christ accomplished in canceling the sin debt is conditioned and being applied to those who believe. without faith, what Christ accomplished will not be credited to the person, and that's what God said in his word. I know it doesn't agree with your man-made tradition, but you need to then repent of your man-made tradition. that's the answer. so let's move on to something else. can you guys hear me? what happened? and Matt, are you muted? sound like you went out. the sin debt is different than justification. you keep saying, you're kind of condescending and insulting, Sam. so, you know, please likewise. well, I apologize. no intention meant for that. sin debt is canceled at the cross. my position is simple. Jesus canceled the sin debt at the cross, and God infallibly brings to faith those people for whom he has canceled their sin debt. if he canceled it for everybody, then they cannot be held responsible for sin that, that doesn't exist anymore, whether they believe it or not. your position would have God be unrighteous because you would be saying that God is sending them to hell for sin that, that doesn't exist. it's not for them. then you come back and you say, well, that'd be justified by faith. justification only works in my position where God will, in, uh, without error, infallibly grant that they believe. Philippians 1:29. so that they then receive the righteousness of Christ. Philippians 3:9. by faith. Romans 5:1. this makes perfect sense. yours doesn't make any sense because you're preaching now, and I'm not going to be responding. I did. okay, that's what we're doing. Matt, again, I'm sorry, and I don't mean, I'm not trying to put you down, honestly, but I, I'm sorry you don't see that your argument backfires because there is nothing to justify if the elect's sin of unbelief has been canceled out by Christ. so hear me out. if this sin of unbelief of the elect has been canceled out, there's nothing for them to do, not even believe, because there is no sin debt over them, not even unbelief. that means there is no reason for God to condemn them or require them to be justified. if the way you're interpreting the Bible is consistent, and I know you don't see that, you're inconsistent. so let me repeat it one more time so it can be clear. I'm being honest. if we interpret the passage the way you do, Matt, that because Jesus canceled the sin debt would also include the point of unbelief, and he does it only for the elect, I'm going to grant that argument. only for the elect, there is nothing left for the elect to do, not even believe, because there is no anger or wrath over them because there is no sin debt for them. why then they need to be justified? you're inconsistent and you don't see it. I'm sorry you don't see it. justification is different than the imputation of our sin to him. justification is a legal declaration of righteousness. that's what you receive by faith. it's different than the atonement. Sam, with response, with respect, you don't understand the difference. now, we'll get into this later. Colossians 1:20. you said he reconciles all things. is Satan reconciled to God through Christ? now, Colossians 1:20, you keep looking. reconciled. it's the blood of his cross that made peace. it protects everything on earth and in heaven. and that's the parallel to Colossians 1:16. this is the text, and I'm going to repeat the text. Colossians 1:16 says that by him all things are created in heaven and on earth, and then it goes on to say in verse 20 that all things that he had created in verse 16, which he sustains in verse 17, are all things that he made peace by the blood of the cross. so in reality, that's a problem for your way of interpreting scripture. but for me, I can't account for the answer to that question. I'm, yeah, well, I'm trying to finish it. you cut me off. I'm not going to finish it. for me, Jesus accomplishing the redemption of every creative thing poses no problem with Satan going to hell because you need faith to appropriate it. but since Satan won't appropriate it, what Jesus did to redeem the entire creation, nothing exempted from the context, even though you don't want, you want to run from the context, everything reconciled, made peace by the blood of his cross, but will not be applied to any creature, not even the elect, apart from faith. so yes, Matt, it's a problem for you, not for me. that's time. you know, please stop saying running from the text. I'm not running from the text. okay. well, I'm going to say, okay, let's go to Colossians 1:20. here's my question. in light of Colossians 1:16, 1:20, all things in heaven and on earth were made, created by him. all things on earth and in heaven were reconciled, and he made peace by the blood of his cross. made peace. it's not simply reconciled, which in Romans 5:8-11 would would be justification. but can you tell me what's excluded and exempted from the all things that Jesus made peace by the blood of his cross contextually? well, you would require contextually. what you're doing is putting a, a, a semi-required, uh, I guess he's gone. I don't know. let me get right here to the thing. all right. I have to get some. I'm right here. the question is, as I asked you, is Satan included in reconciliation? now, the thing is this, if God is going to make peace with his blood, you have to understand the blood of Christ cleanses us of our sins, not Satan of his sins. kinsman redeemer, which you say you know about, requires that Jesus become God and man, but he is God in man to offer an infinite sacrifice to God and a sufficiently sacrifice for people. there is no sacrifice for Satan. the all things that are made peace cannot include, for example, Satan. I can show you many places where the word "all" is very limited, particularly in reference to the redemptive work of Christ. but if you're going to say that Colossians 1:20 includes Satan, that he is, that God has made peace with Satan through the blood of Christ, well, that would be a ridiculous thing to hold to. Satan has no redemptive ability. he will never, he's insanely evil. he will never come. you will never be able to be your team. sure. yeah. okay. let me repeat it again, because you're not dealing with the context. so I'm going to repeat it one more time. in Colossians 1:16, it says, by him all things were created in heaven and on earth, and all things were created through him and for him. and it even makes it specific, all things were created by him in heaven and earth, whether thrones, dominions, principalities, authorities. then it says in 20, he reconciled all things on earth and in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. maybe you'll answer it this time. since in 16, the all things that he created in heaven means the spirit realm, Satan and demons, in verse 20, on what contextual grounds do you reject that Jesus made peace by the blood of his cross for every spirit creature in heaven, when this is the parallel to 16? can you consistently address the point? because you didn't. you just told me Satan won't be redeemed. I agree, but I have a different reason why he won't. I need you to answer this contextually. you haven't. I did. you weren't. I guess you weren't listening. uh, no disrespect meant, Sam, but, uh, I said that the incarnation was necessary. Jesus, the hypostatic union of two natures, God and man, to be able to offer sacrifice on behalf of people. Satan does not have any sacrifice offering for him. he cannot be redeemed. there is no redemptive work, sacrifice to remove the sin. no, but that's a fact. because you talk about reconciliation by the blood of Christ, which is the sacrifice. Satan doesn't have a sacrifice. I'm giving you the theological reason why he does not. therefore, it cannot include Satan being someone who was reconciled to God and then God's at peace with them. because you said, because the verse says made peace by the blood. so are you saying then that Satan is at peace with God and God was at peace with Satan? of course not. okay. I've given you the issue. your problem. please brought leads to many problems. your issue does. okay. but Matt, again, I want to say, I'm gonna ask you the third time, then we'll go to something else, because I don't want to just stick on one passage. there are other passages that I need to answer. that's not what the text says. you keep telling me what you think the text says. it does say he reconciled all things on earth and in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. making peace. you keep saying Jesus only redeemed human beings. kinsman redeemer. that's not what Colossians 1 said, nor is that what Romans 8:19-25 say. so I'm going to ask you again, in the context, making peace by the blood of his cross, that's his work of redemption on the cross for everything on earth and in heaven. what is excluded contextually, when all things in heaven are the things we created, including Satan? how do you get around it contextually? you didn't answer. you keep saying, no, he didn't. he did. that's what the text says. please address what the text says. the text says what it says, and it can't include Satan. okay, that's good enough. if that's what you believe. okay. all right, brother. I'm not gonna argue with you, but all right. can we look at another passage if that's okay with my time? sure. how much time do I have? I don't even know. okay. Luke 19:41-44. Matt, you should know this because I read into my, I had in my article. now, as he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, if you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! but now they are hidden from your eyes. for days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation. Matt, Jesus is weeping over Jerusalem and her children because they did not recognize what made for their peace and did not recognize the time of their visitation. in light of Luke 1:68-69, Luke 1:68-69, 76-77, the visitation is God visiting them with redemption, forgiveness of sins. why is Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and her children? because they didn't recognize the visitation of Jesus to redeem them from their sins. if he only dies for the elect, and the elect cannot be destroyed, but must turn to him, Jesus was made under the law, Galatians 4:4, for a little while, Lord, and the angels, Hebrews 2:9, as a human being under the law. of course, he's going to weep. he's going to grieve for Israel that rejected covenantally the Messiah. it doesn't mean that limited atonement isn't true. it just means that as a man, he would weep, just as I know for a fact that my children will rebel against me, and I grieve over them. doesn't mean that it's not a real grieving when it occurs. God knows he's ordained whether he'll come to pass. Ephesians 1:11. he's even ordained by his decree that they would not see these things, and yet he grieves over them when they do not, uh, recognize what they ought to have recognized. it's not a problem at all for limited atonement. not at all. you focus on the wrong part of my question, Matt. so I'll repeat it again. Jesus is weeping because they didn't recognize what made for their peace and did not recognize their visitation. in light of Luke 1:68, Luke 1:68-69, 76-77, Jesus' visitation was visiting them to redeem them from their sins. you focus on Jesus weeping. I'm focusing on why Jesus is weeping, that they didn't recognize that he came to redeem them, when he didn't come to redeem them. whom he destroyed. he only comes to redeem the elect, and the elect will come to faith and will not be destroyed. that's the point I want you to focus on. why is he weeping over people who will be destroyed, even though he came to visit them to redeem them from their sin, when according to you, Jesus only redeems the elect and he won't destroy them? that's the point I want you to focus on. we don't have the verses memorized, but there are places in the scripture where God grieves over those people whom he has to destroy, where he doesn't want to, but he must. God, I can show you the verses that get a bit of, you know, some to you later. God arranges something contrary to what he desires. in fact, in Mark 4:10-12, Jesus speaks in parables so they will not be saved. and yet he wants all people to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9. we've got to go over that sometime. but he's weeping because they didn't recognize for who he was, and it's a covenantal aspect. Jesus was sent covenantally to Israel, not to everybody. Matthew 15:24. so he's weeping because covenantally they should have known better. they did it. they didn't. and so he's grieving over that. it's not an issue of whether or not he knows they're atoned for or not. it's an issue of he's weeping because they did not recognize who he truly was. that was their mistake. that was their problem. that's consistent with the doctrine of total depravity. it's not a problem. Matt, real quickly. he's weeping because they didn't know what made for their peace, peace, and didn't recognize their patient. it wasn't simply they didn't recognize who he was. they didn't recognize what he came to do to redeem them. Luke 1:68-69 from their sins. but according to you, Jesus only comes to redeem the elect. limited atonement. he doesn't come to redeem from their sin anyone but the elect. but these are people who are not elect to be destroyed. so now, could you explain how does that comport with your theology? easy. they didn't recognize what Jesus came to do. you said you want to focus on the issue of the redemption of their sins. what you're doing is reading a small bit into the text and saying, this is why we want to focus on this. no, we don't have to focus on that. that's not the necessary issue. they didn't recognize who he was covenantally. they should have known. that's the covenantal aspect. his covenant theology. that's the answer. he was no, well, doesn't happen by God the Father. he was supposed to fulfill the law. he did. Israel was supposed to recognize the Messiah. he, they knew he was the redeemer. they knew he was the deliverer, the Messiah to come, but they rejected Christ. he grieves over them. that's all that's going on. you're just doing way too much with the text. no, I'm not, man. I'm reading in the concept, context of Luke. God sent him to redeem them and give them peace. visitation. and I keep giving the context of Luke, what the visitation is. and your answer is not an answer. Matt, I'm being honest with you. he came to make peace and he visited them, not to destroy, but to save them from their sin. and I keep giving the references, Luke 1:68-69. so I'm not reading a piece of it. I'm reading the whole context of Luke, Luke 1:68-69 and 76-77. so maybe this time you'll answer why are people being destroyed that Jesus came to redeem from their sins, when if your view is right, he only redeems the elect and they won't be destroyed, but they will be saved. I'm still waiting for the answer. he came covenantally to Israel. this is something you need to study within the covenant community. there are the elect and the non-elect. this is covenant theology. I honestly believe you're very weak on this. he sent them. God sent Jesus to redeem them and give them peace with the nation. and it says, as you quote, for he visited us and accomplished redemption for his people. it doesn't say that he redeemed every single people, every single individual. he's talking covenantally. the people of Israel. that's what he's talking about. no one's excluded. I know you want it to be excluded. but since you wanted, no, no, no, no. the nation. the nation of Israel. exactly. who's excluded from the nation of Israel? and what you read, show me. everybody is included in the nation of Israel covenantally. does it mean that everybody's redeemed mentally? no, it does not. because the certificate of debt that's canceled is canceled at the cross for God's people. and if a sin debt doesn't exist, they can't go to hell, which is inconsistent. well, I'm not trying to cut you out, but you want to say good time. 2 Peter 3:9, which you mentioned. 2 Peter 3:9. the Lord is not slow about his promise, as some counselor, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. now, I'm going to read this commentary. but he means that Christ was denied when they who had been redeemed by his blood. I'm sorry. let me go into the next fact. that was wrong. I apologize. but the Lord is not slack or delays not. he checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason that is that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. and then it goes on. we must think exactly the same as the life of every individual, for God prolonging time to each sustains him that he may repent, in order to give time to all to repent. all mankind to repent. do you agree with that? no. well, that's fine. there's a sense of what God. that's okay. there's a sense in which God commands. uh, now let me put this way. he wants all to come to repentance. who's the all? let me show you something here. there is a. well, it says all right. who's the all? right. I'll show you with people. I'm saying John Calvin. why is he wrong in seeing that it means all mankind, and why are you right? he was reading the same group you're reading. he can. God can want all mankind to be saved and not arrange for all men to be saved. because Jesus says in Matthew, in Mark 4:10-12, he says he speaks in parables so they will not be saved. if, as you say, 2 Peter 3:9 says God wants everyone to be saved, then how do you reconcile that with Jesus' words that he speaks in parables so they will not be saved? you have to harmonize these, and I can harmonize them very easily. well, you're asking me questions. I'm going to show you when it says that he wants all. who's the all? all that have that the Father gives me will come to me. John 6:37. in Romans 5:18, the second part of the verse, it says the resulted justification of life to all men. the all can be everybody ever lived. and 2 Corinthians 5:14, it says Jesus died for all, therefore all died. the all who died can only be a reference to those who died in Christ. it can't be everybody ever lived. the word of God itself, even speaks of the all in a limited sense of the redemptive work of Christ. I can show you that. I didn't deny all as a limited scope. so again, I'm not saying you're doing deliberate. that's a straw man, and you can ask me about 2 Corinthians 5, because it doesn't support your position. it supports mine. but you can ask me that. what I'm asking you is, yes, you gave me passages where "all" referred to a limited scope because of the context. why is John Calvin wrong, who reads the Greek and seeing that 2 Peter 3:9, "all" means all mankind indiscriminately? why is he wrong when he knows the Greek and you're right? I said that God can want all in one sense. God can want all people to be saved, but not arrange that all people are saved. and I brought up Mark 4:10-12, where Jesus speaks in parables so they'll not be saved. the question we have to ask is, what is going on when it says God wants all to be saved? is it the all who are given by the Father to the Son? is it the all of the sense of all the world, but God's not arranging for the redemptive work? these are the questions we have to ask, and I've gone through these verses, and we could have a great Bible study on this. so are you saying last time right there? all right. so now we're going to transfer to a more open discussion. 20 minutes of open discussion. so I have, but I do have a couple questions for you guys to sort of get this, get this open discussion going. all right. so my first question for you, Matt, how is God loving? how's he? the Bible continuously says that God is all love. he is love, right? uh, so how is God loving if he limits the atonement only to certain individuals? he elects. uh, the issue of love does not, um, require that God atone for everybody ever lived. so when people say that to me, they say, well, God loves, he's gonna atone for everybody. what rule are they in contact with that says that if God loves, that he must atone for everyone? there's nothing that says that. what's the Bible says in John 3:16, let God's love the world, and the world there is all the nations, because Jesus was not sent to all the nations. he was just sent to the house of Israel. so he loves his elect. he hates people as well. Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5. God hates all who do iniquity. so it says, it says that God is love, you know, 1 John 4:8. it doesn't mean that he's going to bear the sin of every individual and then remove it and cancel it at the cross, as, as, uh, Sam admitted occurs. what's your, well, what's your thoughts on that, man? yeah, well, I mean, I would agree with Matt that the Bible does say that though God loves, there is, there is a point in which that love of God will turn into righteous hatred, and there are plenty of passages. so I don't disagree with him on that. but the way he defined John 3 again kind of surprised me because he said here it means all nations. so I'm assuming that when it says for God so loved the world, he takes it to mean all nations, not every individual. contextually, that cannot be the meaning. contextually, it does mean every single individual that makes up the world, the elect and non-elect, use his terminology. how do I know that? because in John 3:18, it says, he who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, why? because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. now, contextually, this only makes sense if Jesus was offered for every individual that makes up the world. because if Jesus is only offered for all nations, but not every individual from the nations, but those believers from all the nations, then how does God justly, using Matt Slick's reasoning, justly condemn those who don't believe in the name of the only begotten Son, when the only begotten Son was never given to the unbelieving ones, only the elect will end up becoming the believing ones. so contextually, God does love every creature, but it doesn't mean he will love them indefinitely, because they can reach a level of reprobation where God hands them over and then justly hates them for it. all right. yeah. you see, Jesus says in John 15:24, he says, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. the house of Israel, Israel. and so that's what he said. so when he said the idea of the Jew, Jesus the Messiah being the sin bearer delivered for all the nations, that was ridiculous to the Jews, because they understood covenantally it was only for the Messiah, only for Israel, which is what Jesus said in John, in Matthew 15:24, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. it's a phrase of nationality. so when he says he loves the whole world, you know, Sam's got to prove that the word "world" means every individual. well, contextually, the Jews understood, hey, he's only for the, for the nation of Israel. but no, he's for the whole world, for all people groups, all nations, all ethnos, the whole bit. when you go to John 3:18, he believes it's not condemned. that's correct, because God grants it. they believe, and he grants it only to the ones he decides to grant it to. Philippians 1:29 doesn't grant it to everybody. so, you know, he does. and I also did not say that he was offered for the nations. that's something I do. Sam said I said. I didn't say that he's offered for individuals. okay. yeah. go ahead. can I respond to that though, real quick? yeah, go for it. I actually did respond contextually. it has to mean every individual because in John 3:10, notice again what he keeps assuming, and again, we all bring our assumptions to the text. no one's free of assumptions. John 3:18, it's in the context of, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and that has to be sacrificial language because it echoes Abraham giving his one and only son, especially in the immediate context of John 3:14-15, where there Jesus said, as Moses lifted up the serpent, so too shall the Son of Man be lifted up, and all who look, look to him shall be saved. so in the context, it's sacrificial language. that means that God loved the world to offer Jesus for their salvation. and it can't just mean nations, even though he's saying, I'm not saying nations. I know you're not. you're saying the individual believing ones from the nations. and I responded to that. contextually, it can't mean that because in 18, you can't condemn unbelievers for rejecting something that wasn't offered to them. John 3:18, they stand condemned. why? for they did not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. that makes no sense in light of what you believe, because Jesus wasn't offered to the non-elect, only the elect will end up becoming the believing ones. but John says they're condemned for rejecting and refusing to believe in the name of the only begotten Son, that only makes sense if Jesus was offered for all individuals from all nations, and yet not all will believe, and therefore they'll be justly condemned. so you can read into it irresistible grace and unconditional election. I'm just going with the contextual meaning. contextually, it's everyone, even the so-called non-elect. can I respond to that? I'll go back and forth because you don't understand what irresistible grace is. I do with the redemptive work of God. it, and it's not, uh, you misapplied it, right? so the world that gave his only begotten Son, whoever believes on him would not perish. verse 17, for God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but into the world he sent it into the world that the world might be saved through him. he who believes in him is not judged. he does not believe, he has been judged already, because he does not believe the name of the only begotten Son of God. this is the judgment that light has come into the world. he's talking about the, the, the planet, the people groups, the world, the whole thing. and you keep ignoring, Sam, you keep ignoring what I bring up in Matthew 15:24. Jesus said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. he was not sent to all the nations. he himself said he was sent only to Israel. this is why when you go to John 3:16, it says, God loved the world. so the reason that he loved the world, because it's a prophecy out of Genesis 12:3, and speaking to Abraham, in you all the nations shall be blessed. Paul quotes that as the gospel in Galatians 3:8, because Israel rejected the Messiah covenantally, we the Gentiles are grafted in. praise God. glad they didn't. you know, sorry for them, but good for us. so this is what he's talking about. the world there means all the people groups, all the nations, everything, not just Israel. it's simple. makes perfect sense. all right. can I get a question? yeah. finally, I have another question for you, Sam. yeah. okay, because I need to answer this. uh, again, it's, I'm not a growing Matthew 15:24. Matthew 15:24. I know what it says. and it's also stated in Matthew 10:5-6, when he sends the disciples and he says, only go to the sheep of Israel. for now, that is irrelevant to what Jesus' point is in John 3. yes, he can be sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, but still tell his followers that God loved all individuals of the world, not just all people groups, as you're interpreting with. because John 3:18 says what it says. it says that Jesus Christ was given up for the world so that the believing ones who believe in his name will not be condemned, but the unbelieving ones who don't believe in his name will be condemned. that makes no sense contextually if Jesus is only given for the elect from all people's groups, because he's not offered to the non-elect. but here it says the reason why the non-elect, quote unquote, using your term, are condemned because they did not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God, which makes no sense if he wasn't offered even for them. but again, this is not my interpretation. let me read something for you again. John 3:16 and 17. let me read this. and he has employed the universal term "whosoever" both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. so, regular also the import of the term "world," which he formerly used. for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ. let me repeat that again. when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ. John Calvin. and again, John Calvin in John 3:17, the word "world" is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded if you only keep the road of faith. so John Calvin is again on my side against Matt. so I don't know what it is that John is seeing in debris that Matt doesn't see or not seeing in the Greek that Matt sees. so I got John Calvin on my side. it says what it says. well, incidentally, in, uh, John 3:16, it doesn't say whosoever. the Greek word for whosoever is hostes. that's not what's there. it's possible. I'm just telling what the Greek says. it does not say whosoever. do your own homework on this later. do your own homework. look up the word. okay. where again it says the not believing ones. and then verse 19 that says that judgment is this, that the light has come into the world. does the word world mean every individual? all right, guys. all right. so all right. so this question for you, Sam. all right. so would you say that the, that Christ's atoning death, would you say that that atoning death covered the sins of the devil as well? Satan as well? well, my point is, I can only go with the context and see contextually what the point means. you keep asking me the question when the context is there. I don't know how many times I'm going to repeat the context. Galatians 1, Colossians 1:16 and says what it said. I'm not saying Satan will be saved because he will not believe and he'll be justly condemned. that's also confirmed in Matthew 25:41, and it's also confirmed in Revelation 20:10. but that ignores the point of Colossians 1 and how those who believe in limited atonement get around it. my view can account for the context. I'm still waiting to see how a Calvinist who believes in limited atonement, which by the way, not all Calvinists do historically or even now believe in limited atonement. so I just want everyone to know, not every Calvinist believes in particular redemption. you have many Calvinists who've rejected it today and even historically. but coming to the issue, Marlon, in Colossians 1:16, it says, for by him all things were created in heaven and on earth, whether thrones, dominions, principalities, or authorities. all things were created through him and for him. he is before all things, and in him all things consist. I do not know, even truth. question, who's a coward who's attacking me in the comment section? he's a friend of mine, not for long. I do not know of any Calvinist who would say, who would say that all things in heaven and on earth excludes any creature. it includes everyone, Satan himself. then now, I'm gonna ask you guys to be consistent and truth defender. my body, but not for long. to be consistent in Colossians 1:20, it says, he reconciled all things to himself, making peace by the blood of his cross, yes, whether on earth or in heaven. who's excluded from that category? all things on earth, all things in heaven, which parallel all things in heaven, all things on earth being created by the Son. now redeemed by the Son. so contextually, I'd like to know which creature is excluded from the work of Christ's reconciliation, making peace with his blood. no one. so then does that mean Satan will be saved? no, because this is the point throughout the debate, unlike what Matt Slick believes, though Jesus accomplished redemption, it will not be applied until someone believes. but because Satan will not believe, he will never apply to him, which makes his judgment even worse, that even this rebel that Christ created and it sustained, and by the way, you'd both have to admit the fact that Christ sustains the devil, that's common grace, because the life that Satan has is the gift of God's grace. and then in fact, even reconciliation could be made for someone like that, and yet he refuses, makes his judgment all the more deserved. so I'd like to know how you guys get around it. how do you, how do, hey Matt, how do we get around that, man? as a Calvinist, how would you get around that? what's, I mean, because if, if time is correct in saying that, uh, the atoning death, uh, from the Calvinist perspective of the atonement leads to universalism, and that, you know, even the principalities, that, you know, what's going on there, man? how, how do we get around that? what's going on, man? um, Sam is actually teaching heresy. and, uh, he needs to repent of his heresy. you know, I love you, brother. I'm gonna tell it to your face. you can tell it to my face. that's right. love you too, brother. but you're preaching heresy. you're teaching that Satan himself, his sins were put upon Christ, and that Jesus canceled his sin debt at the cross. this is what you're saying. that's what Paul said? you say Paul said that? I don't agree with that at all. theologically, theologically, this is the answer to this issue. the re, I'll say it again, I've said it before. this is biblical theology. Jesus was made under the law, Galatians 4:4. he fulfilled the law perfectly. 1 Peter 2:22. he never sinned. there. he was made a little while lower than the angels, Hebrews 2:9. he had to become like his brethren in all things, and he became our king's redeemer, the kinsman redeemer, to be like us, to redeem us. that's what the Bible says. so he has two natures, God and man. he had to be God in order to offer a sacrifice to God, and man to bear the sins of men. it does not say in any place at all that Jesus bore the sins of Satan and the demonic horde. nothing in scripture teaches that. that's a heresy. if it is the case that from what you're saying, that Jesus bore the sin and canceled the sin debt of Satan at the cross, and you say this is a way you're trying to get out of it, but he's got to believe it. well, that's just something you're adding in about Satan. I've always taught that justification is something that is received when we believe, and God grants that we believe. he only grants it to people he chooses to grant it to. Philippians 1:29. and he moves the heart of the king where he wishes it to go. Proverbs 21:1. so what we're seeing here is a simple fact that Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. he only bore the sins of people. you're gonna have to have, you're gonna have to explain how Jesus bore Satan's sin. show me some scripture there. show me some scripture where it says he bore Satan's sin. it's, this is, it's just heresy. you're teaching here. notice you dodged the passage. then all you could do was add hominem, which is okay. I forgive you, brother, but that shows how weak your case. you ran from the passage. you went Hebrews 2, which backfired against you, because in Hebrews 9:23, it says that Jesus purified heaven with better sacrifices. that's Hebrews 9:23. they're heavenly tabernacle were purified with better sacrifices than these. you are stuck. you can ad hominem all day.

all night. But then people see that that means your position is bankrupt. So I'm going to ask and repeat the question, which you did not answer. You didn't answer. You went to Hebrews 2, verses 9 to 16. You went to other passages. But even Hebrews 9:23, Matt, read it. It says, "The heavenly tabernacle was purified with better sacrifices than these." Since you keep talking about the kinsman redeemer, the goel concept, which you think I don't know, or the covenant. What covenant did Jesus make with heaven that needed to be purified with better sacrifices than these?

Now, coming back to Colossians 1, which you did not answer. You didn't answer it, sir. I'm sorry, you didn't. So I'm going to hold your feet to the fire out of love. Did you call me heretic? I'm going to lose sleep. No. Not Colossians 1. Clearly says what it does matter. I know you don't like Colossians 1. Live with it. It's time for you to repent of your man-made theology. It says, "all things on earth and in heaven were reconciled by Christ himself, being made the peace of the blood of his cross." I'm going to ask you, what are the "all things on earth and in heaven" in light of 1:16-17? And prove to me that in 1517, Satan is excluded from being created by Christ, for Christ, and sustained by Christ. You won't go that far because you'll admit that includes his creation. What contextual reason? I'm going to repeat it again. What contextual reason, since you say I love scripture? I love scripture. Well, let's see if you do. What contextual reason do you exclude anyone and verse 20, when it says "all things on earth and in heaven"? And those "all things in heaven" are the "all things" mentioned in 1:16, which definitely includes you. You need to reconcile it, not me. You're the heretic for denying the passage, not me. Now go ahead, try to reconcile them. Waiting for your answer.

Yeah, um, Hebrews 9:23, "necessary for the copies of the things that happens to be cleansed." It doesn't say Satan was cleansed. Um, it doesn't say. I know it doesn't say that. Satan's. You've brought it up. I'm responding to it. You go to Colossians 1:20. "Colossians 1:20, reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through his blood of his cross." Made peace through the blood of his cross. I said this before. I guess you didn't hear it. I don't know what happened. Your view is that he made, he reconciled all things, including Satan, to himself. How? Made peace with the blood. So what you're saying is that, according to the text, that Jesus, through his blood sacrifice, made peace with Satan. That's what it says. Now, your answers say "all things through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace." Saying that it's done in the past. Through the blood of Christ. All things. You're the one who says "all things" must include Satan. So what you must conclude from here is that you're saying that Jesus already, by his sacrifice, made peace with Satan. Can you show me contextually what is excluded from what Paul says? You didn't answer that. You keep promoting what you're saying. And I'm asking you, what do you do again? What is excluding "all things"? What's excluded? I'll use this as a representative thing. Satan. Satan doesn't make peace. In verse 16, is, is say, "No, wait, wait, wait. Is Satan included?" I don't believe so. Is he included in "having made peace with the blood of his cross" in verse 20? Hold on. Okay. In verse 20, did Jesus make peace with Satan through the shedding of his blood? Yes or no?

Sam, Matt, let me say it louder, with more passion than you. If "all things in heaven" means the spirit creatures, including Satan, yes, contextually, Jesus would have procured the redemption of every creature he made in heaven, including Satan. But no, it's not applied because he won't believe. Matt, you haven't answered how this comports with your contextual reading. Someone ask it again, Matt. It means 1:16, Satan is not excluded in the "all things" that Jesus created in heaven. How then, apart from your assumption, and I don't want to say, ma'am, I don't want to get you upset, assumption that it can't be possible, Jesus can't redeem anyone, what we like than human beings? How then, contextually, do you exclude anyone from the things in heaven that Jesus reconciled and made peace with his blood? I have an answer. You don't. Which is why you can't answer. You keep saying, "Sam, are you? Paul is saying it." Matt, prove me wrong. Prove me wrong. Paul's not saying that. You're saying Paul is saying that. And you're, you're ignoring what I'm bringing up about the context itself. You're the one who's saying that he made peace with his blood of all things. And you're saying, therefore, you're saying, therefore, it includes Satan. If what you're saying is true from verse 16, if what you're saying is true from verse 16, "all things" means Satan is included, then by your logic, you have to say that Jesus made peace with Satan. It says "having made peace." "Having made peace," which means it was done in the past. So let me ask you, did Jesus make peace with Satan by Christ, by his own atonement? Did he? Let me repeat, because you keep talking at the past as if it's relevant. If you believe, as you do, that this past work of Christ includes even the future generation of elect, it's irrespective if it's in the past because even you believe that Jesus' past work, obviously Paul is going to talk about what he did in the past because he's writing after the fact. Matt, what Jesus had done in the past on the cross brought about the reconciliation of every created thing in heaven on earth and made peace. Every created thing would have to include Satan if you're consistent. But in my view, what Jesus accomplished is not applied. This is now the umpteenth time I said it. You keep assuming that if he accomplished it, it has to be applied. Stop begging the question. If you accomplished it, it doesn't mean it's applied until you believe. But because Satan won't believe, it will never be applied. So he stands condemned. And in a way, you believe that, Matt, because though Jesus accomplished peace for the elect, they're not born in a state of peace. They're not born reconciled. They're still children of wrath until they believe. For you're making my case for me, and you're not able to get around the clear contextual meaning. Can you answer the question I'm asking you specifically? Did you hear that? You didn't hear my answer 20 times. I answered him.

Sam, Sam, yeah, it says "having made peace." That's past action. It's already done. Oh, yeah. Why? Because the thought was past. The basis and foundation of the peace-making was the cross. Still ongoing. When Paul is, is Jesus at peace with Satan? Let me try it now. The 21st time. When Paul said, 22nd answer. Can I answer now? When Paul said, "having made peace by the blood of his cross," of course, he's talking about what Jesus accomplished in the past because the cross was in the past from Paul's perspective. When he died, that death procured the salvation, redemption, reconciliation of the entire creation that he created. But it's not applied unless someone believes. So if I let Paul speak, and not tradition of men, not traditional men, Paul has in view the reconciliation of every creature in heaven on earth, including Satan. But Paul doesn't believe it's applied to anyone apart from faith, which is why Satan won't receive what Christ accomplished in the past because we won't believe. So you want to repeat it the 22nd time? I already answered that. You haven't answered it contextually. You've been evading it. Sam, you're evading yourself. Romans 2:1, you're guilty of the things you accuse others of. You're the one who's saying that "all things" here means everybody, including Satan. If we go with what you say, Sam, "all things through him," the record says, "to reconcile to him all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross." "Having made peace" is the aorist active participle. It means it's a past action. It's continuing. It's a past tense. That's what it means. So, "having made peace through the blood of his cross to all things." You're saying that Jesus reconciled all things to himself. And you brought up, and you focused on this, "made peace through the blood." So from your logic, in your saying that Jesus reconciled Satan to himself and made peace with Satan through his own blood, that's what you're saying. That's heresy. Well, hold on. Well, yes, you can say heresy. Not my judge. God will judge you. Are you okay? But not let me show you why you're the heretic, not me. Let me explain to you. Okay, now I'm going to ask you a question. I want you to answer. Since Jesus already made peace by the blood of his cross in the past, even for the elect, does an elect person, when he's born, is he born at peace with God, in union with God, or is he still a child of wrath until he believes, even though what Jesus did for him was already accomplished with ongoing benefits? So, is the elect born already at peace because of what Jesus did for the elect in the past? Yes or no?

Um, I'm going to answer that, uh, with you, with what, with what you said. Here we go. There's a concept called "all," uh, the, the "now" and the "not yet." The "now," "no," "not yet." You said in your notes, "the already, not yet." Same thing. Pattern of New Testament eschatology. What's the "not yet" aspect? Why? I'm trying to explain it. Good brother. The issue of the "now" and "not yet" theologically for people is such things as we're sanctified in Christ, yet we're being sanctified in Christ. We're redeemed in Christ. We've been raised up with Christ, yet we're going to be raised up with him in the future in a resurrected body. We have in theology, which you correctly assessed, the, the concept called the "now" and the "not yet." Everybody look it up. You can see it. When God predestines people, he chose them in Christ, Ephesians 1:4, before the foundation of the world. He gives them to the Son to redeem. The Son said that he came to do the will of the Father. He said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me." That means they're pre-selected, elected, and predestined from the foundation of the world. They will come to him. John 6:37. Jesus then bore the sin of the ones given to him by the Father. He did this 2,000 years ago, which means that all the people in the future don't even exist, and yet the sins were imputed to Christ back then. So when a person is born, he's born under that state of condemnation because we are by nature children of wrath. Ephesians 2:3. And God infallibly brings that person into faith, grants that they believe. Philippians 1:29, because they're chosen for salvation. Second Thessalonians 2:13. And they're called to be born again. First Peter 1:3. And when they do, that's when they're justified. This is the "now" and the "not yet" concept. You yourself already acknowledge it. It's not a challenge to me in my position at all. Yes, it is. You're not answering the question. You went into it. I just did. Can I make my point? Okay, you just want to preach to the choir in order to evade the plain answer to the question.

Moderator, moderator. He keeps reading my heart, telling me I'm evading, I'm doing all this stuff. This is, this is acceptable. Yeah, let's, let's make sure that we, let's make sure that we don't. Yeah, go ahead, Sam. Let's, let's keep it cool. I didn't get offended. Marlon, let's be honest. I didn't get offended when he said "heretic." I don't care if he says that. So can I teach him heresy? Okay. All right. So let's, let's, let's be cool. That's right. I, I love the brother. He can say what he wants about me. But my point is, he didn't answer. So I'm going to ask it again. Matt, please. I'm saying this because time is running out. Please answer instead of going into what you believe at the Calvinist. When the elect is born, is he born already in a state of peace? Focus from the "not yet," not the "already." What Jesus did, I already know that. Are they born at peace with God? If not, why not? When Jesus already accomplished it for them? Can you answer that directly? They're not born, uh, at a place of peace with God because they're in the place, they're at a place where they're into condemnation. Then, now, in the night. I'm trying to answer. And now, emphasize what you just said one more time. They're not. What I want everyone to hear, you, because I'm listening. You know, when I begin to speak, I have the thought. You interrupt me. The thought goes away. Now I have to start all over. I don't even remember what the issue was. You know, I'm serious. Sam, I already told you about this issue of the "now" and "not yet." I gave you my answer. And what you, you know, what you, I'm just saying it. Say, Sam, I give you an answer. You dismiss the answer. And then you go in and you say the same question. Now, I'm going to tell you, when a person is an atheist, they can be elect and have their sins be atoned for, canceled, because you yourself, even said that he canceled the sin for everybody. I just believe it's canceled for limited. The only difference between you and me is the extent. That's all. And you would have to say, and as I likely as I agree with you, that justification, which is not the same thing as a sin debt being removed, justification is different. And I believe you keep conflating them. You're confusing them. God will bring into faith because he grants it. They believe. Philippians 1:29. Those whom he atoned for. Between the issue of the atonement, where he canceled their sin debt, and their place of redemption, and they're born. Say, a person gets saved at 50 years old, and during that first 50 years of life, he's under the functional condemnation of God. But if God doesn't condemn them ultimately, just like he didn't condemn Israel ultimately, because their appreciation of the sacrifices they had on Yom Kippur, many of them were still in a state of condemnation, but they weren't being treated as that. It was a sin propitiation for everybody. And the issue of, um, of Israel, when we see this applied to Christ here, it's going to be the redeemed in Christ. All we're seeing is something very simple. He bore their sin. First Peter 2:24. He canceled the sin debt. Colossians 2:14. He grants that they believe. Philippians 1:29. When they believe, they're justified. Romans 5:1. Between the time of their birth and justification, they're functionally under stated condemnation. But God can't make any mistakes. He's not going to make any mistakes. He's going to bring them into a place of peace with him. That's completely manifested. But this still doesn't answer the question. When we get to the issue of Colossians 1:20, when it talks about the issue of you're saying that Satan is has been atoned for, and that's Jesus having made peace by the blood sacrifice. You have an answer. Is Satan at peace? Is Jesus at peace with Satan? I keep asking you that question. All right. And you've not answered the question.

Okay, let me come back. I want everyone to hear what you say. You said they are not born at peace. They are condemned. That's what I wanted them to hear. You say I want to be functional condemnation. Can I finish the point? Matt, I'll let you speak because when I cut you off, you're saying that you get discombobulated. So I respectfully let you finish. So let me know. I want people to hear it because you just made my case and refuted yourself. You just said the elect are born condemned under God's wrath. They're not at peace. But what you say is because God has decreed they will infallibly come to faith, what Jesus accomplished will be applied to them later when they believe. Thank you, Matt. That's been my answer throughout this entire time. I just kept saying, and you just made the same argument, but you don't want to see it. That's okay, brother. I mean, you don't see it because, you know, we're committed to our own positions. I kept saying that what Christ accomplished is not applied until a person believes. You just said the same thing, but you try to then justify saying the same thing by saying, well, the elect will, in fact, come to saving faith. But that still means until they do, they are condemned. They're not at peace. They're children of wrath, even though Jesus in the past accomplished their peace, but it won't be applied until they believe. You just made my case. So what's the next question? No, I didn't make your case. You made mine. Thank you. All right. Okay. And you, you misrepresented my position too. You said condemnation. I said functional condemnation. There's a difference. And I say this regularly. It's functionally. It doesn't mean they are under that permanent status, but it's a function of the condition that they are in that state until they're justified. Or born under the functional condemnation. Now, allow Sam. Let's allow him back his response time because you asked him. Why? Let's, let's go ahead. Go ahead, Matt. Go ahead. Respond. A person is not justified until they believe. And I keep saying this. Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1. They were not justified until they have faith. And God grants that they have faith. Philippians 1:29. I've said this many, many times. That the issue here that I'm raising to you out of Colossians 1:20 is something you keep, you keep ignoring. I'm asking you specifically. You said, "Ah, crap." Hold on. You said at Colossians 1:20, you quoted this because you want to say that "all things" means that everything in heaven and earth, all things, including Satan, are reconciled. And then you brought up "having made peace with the blood of his cross." So I'm keep asking you, it's a yes or no question. Is Jesus at peace with Satan? Because it says "having made." Now, your response is, well, you have to apply it by my belief. Okay, the justification that you keep bringing up by faith, I agree with. But it's not applying to Satan. It applies to people because Jesus didn't bear the sin of Satan. He bore the sin of his people. The kinsman redeemer. Colossians 1 says, "man." But okay, can I answer your question again? You just said, okay, Jesus is no more at peace with Satan than he is with the elect who haven't believed. Let me repeat it again. I'm going to use your own argument against you. Now, listen carefully, man. Jesus is no more at peace with Satan than he is at peace with the elect who are born unregenerate children of disobedience before they come to faith. So, yes, Jesus is not at peace with the elect who haven't believed, and he's not at peace with Satan until they believe. So I just answered. Can we move on to something else?

So then how is it said to be in Colossians 1:20 that he, "having made peace," the aorist participle? I'm really honestly confused. You still didn't get the point. You just made yourself. What I did? You said, "Now you're done with me." What he accomplished, even in your view, is not applied on performance beliefs. What don't you get? No, I did not say it's not accomplished. Yeah, I keep getting this wrong. No, I did not say that what is accomplished is applied when he believes. I did not say that. So the elect are the peace of Christ applied to the elect when they're born? Let me explain. The certificate of debt, the sin debt is canceled at the cross. The righteousness of Christ is applied to a person when he believes. They're different. I've told you this several times. Philippians 3:9. I mean, Philippians 3:9. I'm explaining it. He keeps missing this question. Okay, can I ask you a question about that? Does the sin debt also include the sin of unbelief? Yes. Okay. Now you said yes. Why are the elect born condemned and not reconciled to Christ when their sin of unbelief has been done away with? Why are they required to believe in order to appropriate what Jesus nailed to the cross? Matt, see, when they, when they were born, they could be born, they grow up being an atheist. They have unbelief. And they went, when they believe, that sin is obviously canceled at the cross. The sin of unbelief is already canceled. You have to hear what I'm saying. You keep missing this. Okay, brother. The, thank you. Atoning sacrifice that canceled the sin debt is not the same thing as being justified. It's not the same thing. You keep confusing them. Sin debt was, ju, was canceled at the cross. That's what the Bible says. Colossians 2:14. Justification is the legal declaration where we are declared righteous by faith. How is that accomplished? The righteousness that Christ accomplished and obtained is accounted to us. Is given to us. This is why it says in Philippians 3:9, "we have a righteousness that's not our own." Not our own. The righteousness of justification we have is not our own. It's from Christ. What Christ did was, he bore our sin in his body on the cross. First Peter 2:24. He canceled the sin debt on the cross. Colossians 2:14. That's different than being justified. You keep conflating them. So went between this, this place of when Jesus actually atoned for the sin and canceled it, and but, and this place of justification, between there, there's non-existence. Then there's existence where they can be unbelievers. During that place of unbelief, their sin debt is canceled, even if it's an atheist who's denying it has been canceled at the cross because of what it says is canceled at the cross. Then when God grants it, they believe. Philippians 1:29. That's when they're justified. That's when the righteousness of Christ is given to them. It's not the same thing as a sin debt. You keep confusing them, which is why you keep going back to this.

Okay, Marlon, you won't have any other questions because we're spinning wheels here. Anything else? Are we going to go to Q&A? No, I think we're going to go to Q&A. Man, um, can I have a bathroom break? Go ahead, my brother. I love you, Matt. Thank you for supporting me. Yeah, you guys got it, man. Let me know what you guys are backing. Entertain the people and sing for them. Don't be a hater. All right, man. All right, guys. So, yeah, we're having a very interesting discussion. We got some interesting comments in the live chat, man. Um, you know, some of you guys are a mess, if I could be completely honest. Some of you guys are just a mess. And I say that, and I say that in the most humorous way I can, because I see some of these comments, man. We need to be cool with each other, man. Um, and, uh, not be so critical, if that makes sense, man. Um, you know, uh, these guys are passionate. These guys really care about what they believe. And it's, it's, it's important, uh, to just allow them to articulate themselves in a manner that, uh, that so we can all communicate, right? And, you know, I know everyone has their positions, everyone has their presuppositions they bring. Everybody has a person they're rooting for, you know what I mean? So let's just be chill. Let's be cool in the comments, man. And much love to y'all out there. You know, it's a gang of folks on here right now, man. We got a total of 413 concurrent viewers. Uh, and, uh, it's a lot of folks on right now. Um, and I thank you guys for the support. Um, and, uh, the love you guys are showing the channel. You know, if you can, go ahead, share this. Share this content if you can. Um, and just hit that like, subscribe button. And, uh, just do your thing, man. Please continue to support. It's awesome. And, um, this is a great debate, man. And these two guys are just passionate about themselves, passionate about what they believe, man. And I knew, I knew this going in, man. I knew Matt and Sam was gonna bring it, man. I knew this was gonna be a great debate. Um, and they both can handle their own, you know what I mean? They could both handle their own. They could both do their thing, you know what I mean? And it's not a game with these guys, you know? So they go, they go edify the body and make sure we understand their positions. And it's, uh, it's cool, man. So make sure you guys hit that like, hit that subscribe. Please get that, hit that joint. Hit it. Hit it. Hit it. All right. The phone is bad. So, yeah. So the fellas is back, everyone. So we're gonna jump into this Q&A. And we got some, got some good questions that come in this Q&A. And let me see what we got to start with. My super chat coming up at the bottom. You guys see at the bottom of the screen from Derrick Morrell. What's up, brother? Thank you for the super chat. Five dollars. This question is for Sam. Christ died on the cross 2,000 years ago. Was it his intent to save everyone, past, present, future, even those he knew died without him? Yep. Well, if you're asking me, God's intent, the only way I can know the intent of God is by reading scripture. Scripture reveals God's thoughts and his will and his mind. So when I read scriptures where it says Jesus died for every creature that he made and brought into existence, and let's limit it to the earth, that means that Jesus's intention and coming to the earth was to redeem his creation, even those who in the past rejected him or may, may be asking why would he do that? In order to demonstrate his justice and judgment. And that here, Jesus even went to the extent of redeeming someone out of his love who refused to turn to God and thereby have his work credit him in the past. Because both, I think Matt and I would agree, and Marlon, but even the saints before Christ, right? Even though Jesus's death is in the future, still they were saved on the basis of what Jesus was going to do for them in time and space. Because Revelation 13:8, 17:8, as well as First Peter 1:20, says that Jesus's death was foreordained from the foundation of the world. So if I go by scripture, because scripture reveals God's thoughts, not me, I don't have access to God's thoughts apart from God revealing it, then the plain reading of scripture, not my view, not my tradition, as hubris, came to redeem every creature to demonstrate his love and his willingness to save them. But when they reject Jesus, that then demonstrates his righteous judgment in condemning them, showing their condemnation is fully deserved. All right, Matt, you have any thoughts on that question?

Well, I agree with the first part of what Sam was saying. But anyway, the question is, when Christ died on the cross 2,000 years ago, was it to intend to save everyone? I don't know the intent of God personally. But I'll go with what the scripture says. I would say no, it was not his intent. Because Jesus speaks in parables so people will not be saved. Mark 4:10-12. He sends a deluding influence on people so they will not believe the truth. That's Second Thessalonians 2:13, I believe it is. So there's plenty of places like that. Also in Romans chapter 9, 9-23, God even makes people for the purpose of destruction. And he does that. So I would say that God elected some people to save, to be saved in Christ. If you go to Ephesians 1:4, it's a very important verse. It says that "in him we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world." In him was a term of federal headship. In Christ, we were chosen for salvation in Christ before the foundation of the world. It can only be in Christ that our salvation works. That Christ died, we died with him. It means he represented us on the cross. It can't be that he represented everybody ever lived. But it wouldn't make sense. We haven't gotten to that aspect of theology, which is a whole other aspect. But like Sam, there's so much in our heads we want to start pontificating. So I'll just say no, it wasn't his intent to save everybody, past, present, and future. Now, just so I cannot close, Marlon, just I'll run surf. It's for me. And he responds. No response back. That's how it's gonna work. Yeah, no, no response back. Yep. No response back. All right. So the next question. This question for you, Matt. Another super chat. All right. Five dollars. Thank you. Cameron Photo Sentiment. Appreciate you. Matt, does the atonement cause the elect to be at peace with God before they come to faith? If no, that sounds like a point about Satan. No, it's not. We would not say that they're at peace with God before they come to faith. They're under functional condemnation. But Sam's problem is that he's saying that the peace is there in the aorist participle of Colossians 1:20, that is dealing with the issue of Satan himself having been at peace. That's the past tense. There's no time when it was ever the case. When we talk about this issue of God making peace with the elect, the elect, the peace is manifested when they believe, when the enmity of God is removed, when they believe and are justified. They're like, I said, functional condemnation, but not the actual. And there's a difference in that. Go ahead. Can I respond?

Two things. I, I want you to hear that he said they're not, which was exactly my point. Until you believe, you will not appropriate what Christ accomplished. And then he talked about the aorist. This is something in the past. And at no time in the past was Satan at peace with God. This ends up proving too much. Because although he kept focusing on saying, folks, let me redirect your attention to the context. It says, "Jesus reconciled all things on earth." Let's put Satan aside. If Jesus reconciled all on earth, that's every creature on earth. So we can get rid of Satan in heaven. Every creature on earth. It doesn't just say the elect, unless he wants to believe that the only things that Jesus created on earth were the elect. And he wouldn't say that. Jesus created everything on earth. And everything on earth refers to the same group that Jesus reconciled and made peace with his blood. So according to him, because it was past, at no time in the past did any of the non-elect on earth were at peace. So I don't really know what Matt is trying to prove. He ends up proving too much. Because if Jesus accomplished the peace for everything on earth, then according to him, even the knowledge will go to heaven. Or he's going to argue with me that unless they believe, they won't appropriate the death of Christ. So again, he made my point. And that's the point. All right. All right. Um, next question. But yeah, hold on one second, guys. All right. Another super chat. This is for you, Matt. Who's the authority of interpreting the Bible for a Calvinist? That slick. Is that for me or him? You see it. Who's the authority for interpreting the Bible for Calvinist? Matt Slick. I, um, I don't even know if the question makes any sense. Yeah, I know it's weird. It's a weird question because, yeah, because I don't need an authority to interpret the Bible. And it's not if you're a Calvinist or not. It's so I don't know. That question is kind of a weird question. So, there is no authority needed. If you go to John 11:35, "Jesus wept." I don't need authority to interpret it. Jesus wept. And Sam and I, we're not appealing to any authority because he's going to John Calvin. I'm not. I'm just trying. Our authority, I would say, is our best interpretation of what we can read the text to be. That's it. I don't know what to say. I don't know if you have any comment on that. I don't know how to answer that because that could actually be turned against anyone who's an evangelical Protestant. Because I'm suspecting it comes from maybe a different tradition. In other words, we're not infallible. So why should we trust our interpretation of scripture? So, all right. Okay. All right. Uh, let me see. I think a super chat just came in. I do want to get all my super chats in. See, I thought I saw one. Oh, yes, here it is. All right. Coming at you, Matt. What is God's glory in front of who is he glorified? If I cannot resist giving someone glory, what kind of glory is it? I don't know. I didn't understand the question. Yeah, what is God's glory? Wow. Uh, I don't know how to answer that. His majesty, his honor, everything is due to him because of who he is. And in front of who is he glorified? In front of creation. If he does not resist, if I cannot resist loving your wife because she's so wonderful, is that really love? Well, of course it is. In the presence of God, you're going to want to glorify him because he's awesome. And let me tell you, I've had an experience of the presence of God. I'm not going to talk about myself and all this great stuff, but I'll tell you, you freely want to glorify him, and it's awesome. So I don't know. There you go. Any thoughts on that, Sam?

Um, to be honest, I really didn't understand the way the question was articulated, so I don't know that really. But I guess Matt understood it. I don't know, really. But anyway, I faked understanding. These are my super chats, so I want to get my super chats on and give them some love. So if, hey guys, if you're out there dropping super chats, that's the least. If you can't, do me a favor, make those questions in line with the debate topic and let's phrase them so that the interlocutors, the debaters, will understand your questions. But I do thank you for your, your, your super chats. I appreciate them all. All right. Uh, let me have another one coming at you. Another super chat. Five dollars from Arthur L. Question for Matt. Why bother to evangelize? Please. This is fulfilling all the super chats. They seem to be from that man. They just mad questions, man. I gotta, gotta get them in. So, question, Matt, why bother to evangelize in the first place if there is a, if there is a limited? Just so you know, I evangelize a great deal. Okay? I do a great deal. Why do I evangelize? God told me to. And because it's the means by which God brings the elect into salvation. Okay. Any thoughts on that, Sam?

Well, to be honest, yeah, even when I leaned more towards Matt's position, I didn't think that was a good argument. Because as Matt said, not only is it a command of God, but we do not have knowledge of who the elect are. And God has ordained that through the preaching of the gospel, the elect will come to saving faith. So we have to preach indiscriminately. So I never thought that was a good objective. Okay. And make sure I got no more super chats on here. All right, cool. So I think we could be able to get to. And by the way, Marlon, not to catch up, how long, how much time do you give me for the Q&A? Just so I can find myself. Q&A, it'll be over about 8:30. Trying to get to as many questions as possible. Then I forgot to do the closing remarks. I want to give you guys five minutes to close. I totally forgot about that. We got right into the Q&A. So after the Q&A, I want to do, give you a couple minutes to close or something like that. So, all right. All right. This is for both of you guys. All right. Both speakers, give their interpretation of John 3:16 in the context of atonement and how, and how John 1:10 fits into their interpretation. Do you want me to go first, or do you want to go first? You go ahead, Sam. You got it. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah. In John 3:16, if we carefully read John 3:16, 18, and you read the entire chapter, every theme in John 3 is touched upon in John chapter 1. Because in John chapter 1, you'll find light in contrast to darkness, John the Baptist and his testimony, and then Jesus coming into the world that he made, and coming to his own, even though his own didn't receive him. What you find in John 3, John the Baptist is witness being, oh, and another point that I forgot to add, sorry guys, in John 1:12-13 talks about those who were born of God. So what do you find in John 3? What you find in John 3 is the born-again theme touched upon in John 1:12-13. The witness of John the Baptist theme touched upon in John chapter 1, verses 6 all the way to 8. Light versus darkness, John 3:19-21, theme touched upon in John 1. This is why when many people say, when you want to interpret the Gospel of John, John 1:1-18 is the lens by which you're supposed to understand all the statements that follow, because that's what John has given us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now, why is that important? Because in John 1:10, it says, "He was in the world, and though the world before him, it did not know him." I don't know of anyone who would deny, and again, I don't know anyone who would then in John 1:10, when it says, "He was in the world, and though the world was making him nothing," is exempt. Nothing is excluded. It's the entire world that he created. Now, why is that important? Because you go to John 3:16, it says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that the believing ones should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world that the world might keep in them, but be saved." Therefore, if John 1 is the interpretive lens to interpret John 3, the world that God sent his Son into to redeem would have to be the world that he created in John 1:10. If that's the world that he created, no one is exempt. That means Jesus came once again, like we find in Paul, to save the entire world that he made without exclusion or exemption, which comports again with unlimited atonement, not limited atonement. That's how I understand John 3:16 and a lot of John 1:10.

All right, Matt, you have any thoughts on that? John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him." Um, I would say that just means, you know, it seems really an interesting issue here because the world, what about the people in Madagascar? What about the people in Australia? You know, the world, and the world did not know him. And when I look at verses like this, I'm just thinking out loud because this is what I do. I look at this, I go, what does it mean, "the world did not know him"? Does it mean every individual? Does it mean the nation groups? Just these are questions I have to ask. Because he came into the world, but he also says, you know, "He is the light that lights every man," right there in the previous verse. "There is a true light come into the world that enlightens every man." How does that work? These are questions I don't have answers to because there's a lot of questions with that. But nevertheless, John, so when we go to John 3:16, as I said before, I believe John 3:16 is simply saying that the world, cosmos, is dealing with all the people groups because Jesus was covenantally sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It's a covenantal aspect. And then, um, so he, you know, he loved the world. He came to redeem people in all, the nation groups and things like that. That's what I believe the word "world" means there. That's all. All right. All right. So more super chats came in. So this is coming at you. We're making your money, home. There's gonna be a big show. Thank you for the super chat. Pelagian Lion. Pelagian Lion. Pronounced that right? Matt, how do you, or anyone else, know that they are elected for salvation? Oh, that's for me. Yeah. Um, First John 5:13, "These things are written so you may know you have eternal life." First Corinthians 2:14 says, "A natural man cannot receive the things of God. For the foolishness to him." The things that we're talking about here, the, the major issues about what it means to be saved, does not limit atonement, not predestination, not election. It has to do with the deity of Christ, his death on the cross, his resurrection, that we're justified by faith in Christ. The devil, even unbelievers, can understand these doctrines, but can't receive and trust in them. So we would say that those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ do so because they are granted belief. And unbelievers wouldn't do that. So I know I'm elect because I agree with and understand those doctrines in the scripture that the Bible says unbelievers cannot receive, but I do. And so therefore, I know I'm already elected because I certainly wouldn't be believing on my own. That's for sure. I need all the help I can get from God. Okay. All right. Sam, any thoughts on that?

I, I mean, really, the only thing I can say is that at the end of the day, only God infallibly knows who the elect are. So though Matt may have confidence, he's, he can't be infallibly certain because he can fall away. Like Demas did. "Demas has forsaken me because of the love of the present world." But at the end of the day, only God infallibly knows the elect. Even someone who thinks he's elect can be deceived and be cut off and condemned because he was never elect to begin with. All right. Another super chat here. And this is for you again, Matt. This is more of a personal, more on the personal realm. He says, "Matt, I sent you an email two weeks ago asking if you'd like to have a friendly discussion with an Eastern Orthodox Christian." Would you? No, I only like to have mean conversations with Eastern Orthodox people, not friendly ones. Um, no, yeah, I'd be willing to have a friendly discussion with Eastern Orthodox people on Discord. I've met a few, uh, more than a few. Some of them are obstructors, twits, but some of them are not. So, uh, I'd be willing to have a meeting, sure. But you'd understand, sorry, we're converting our site over from one format to another format. Got emails piling up. I got thousands. I'm just going to get to them all. That's why. All right. I sent it again. Sorry. You said it again. The info. And I'll check tonight. Okay. Don't try to respond. All right. I'm sorry. You don't want to respond to that, Sam? As an inquiring about Matt's availability? I'm looking, I'm looking at my email right now. Info@karm.org. Oh, come on, man. Everybody banging on me like this. It says, "Sam and Matt, do you guys have a feeling that the moderator here is not good enough for you guys?" Come on, man. Let me tell you something. Marlon is the best-looking, the coolest moderator on the planet. He's my homie from Wyoming. He used to kick it to my lady. No, Naomi. Now he repented and he's married. All right. That's okay. That's the joke, man. You better top that, man. You better top that. Well, I was gonna just say that, you know, um, Sam and I have each other's cell phones and we were texting back and forth during the debate, how horrible you were. So, but darn it, that was a secret. Don't bring me back anymore. Oh, you're, you're good. Fine, man. No, sir. Seriously, you're doing a great job and, uh, you're a great guy. I wish we're neighbors, man. I wish we were neighbors. It would definitely hang out, man. Definitely hang out, man. All right. All right. All right. Let's see what we got here. It's almost about ten minutes. Eight, almost 8:30. So let's try to bang these questions out. Another super chat. Uh, this is from Matt Slick. Can you answer Colossians 1:20 without mentioning Satan or what Sam believes? Could you answer what "all things" means? No, because, well, no, because we have to ask questions. Because "all things" means Satan. Does "all things" mean all dimensions? Does it mean all the planets? I mean, got to ask questions. And so I don't, I don't, decision or not ask questions about a text. So, no, nothing to add on my part. So I'm waiting for the email to come in from the East Orthodox guy. All right. He's.

Waiting. He's waiting. If you're out there, still, he's waiting. Get that question in, info@carm.org.

Okay, all right. Uh, another super chat here. Matt, if the atonement is not applied until faith, then how does this not apply to the non-elect? The atonement was paid for them, but is not applied until they have faith. My position is not that the atonement is not applied until faith. Okay, I don't hold that position. My position is that the atoning sacrifice of Christ actually canceled the sin of the elect at the cross. What's applied at faith is justification, not the atonement. Justification is being declared legally righteous. It's based upon the work of Christ, who committed no sin, first Peter 2:22. That's why the Bible says we have a righteousness that's not our own, Philippians 3:9. The Bible says we're justified by faith. It does not say that the atonement becomes real if we believe. The atonement has its own power. The atonement is its own reality. The atonement is what it is because Christ did it. That's the fact. Canceled, ascended at the cross. Sam agrees with me on that. We just agree to disagree on how many people it atoned for. Okay? And so the issue of what's applied at faith is the, the righteousness of Christ has applied to us at faith. I've said this many times to Sam, and no disrespect to Sam, but I think he's misunderstood me on this several times. And this is a good opportunity to clear this up. He says, "And how does this not apply to the non-elect? Atonement was paid for, but it's not applied till they believe." Yeah, so I don't believe that. That's not my position. Okay. Atonement occurred at the cross. Justification occurs at belief. Justification is not the same thing as atonement. Justification is being imputed with the righteousness of Christ, Philippians 3:9, by faith. All right, Sam, any thoughts on that?

Yeah, um, one thing, even though he says that the atonement distinguishes between the atonement being applied, but still the atonement is what procures all the benefits that Matt Slick believes is credited, imputed, granted to the elect alone. One of which is, one of which is regeneration, union with Christ, which comes by the faith that they will infallibly have in Jesus Christ because they're like them to decree such. So here's the problem with that position. If Jesus canceled out the debt of unbelief, the sin of unbelief, it's canceled out. That means the elect have no sin that can be charged against them. They can't be held accountable for their unbelief. Therefore, they should be born already reconciled, born from above, regenerated, united to Christ. But such is not the case. But it has to be the case if his position is sound. Because notice his position, it's the sin debt. Well, part of the sin debt is the debt of unbelief, but it's already been covered. So there's nothing for the elect to have hanging over them as part of God's judgment and condemnation. So why are they required to believe to be justified? And I know he's making a distinction, but it doesn't answer the question. If their unbelief is canceled, there's no reason for them to be justified because they can't be born unjustified because there's nothing that can be held against them and sever them from God. See, that's the point. Their unbelief has been canceled. They should already be born reconciled, born again, no condemnation, no wrath, no need for justification. But he doesn't believe that because you need to believe to appropriate the benefits of Jesus's atoning death. And that's where we're having the disagreement.

Oh boy. I could reply, but we're not going to because we're not doing that. Go ahead.

All right, so, uh, to answer your question, Matt, and Sam, now only to answer your question, Matt. Sam, the, the one holy catholic and apostolic church is the authority for interpreting the Bible, not you. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you for the super chat. I appreciate you. Thank you for watching that one. I got a question. By what authority does he judge that the Catholic Church is the only one with the authority to interpret scripture? I don't know where he gets his authority to make that statement and how he interprets everything to make that conclusion. Sam, any thoughts on it? Not really, no. But I'm sure Matt, you wouldn't mind having an Eastern Orthodox or maybe you guys discuss for Marlon's show, right? I'm sure about that. I'd love to discuss it with an Eastern Orthodox. I'd love to discuss Catholicism and how utterly apostate and false it really is.

All right, all right. Hey, uh, so Lutheran, the mortal, if you're there, um, you got some takers, man. So if you want to set it up, contact me. Contact my, uh, my Gospel Truth email, man. Yo, you'll find it on the description. All right. AFT. Okay, so we're there. All right, so we got another question. This is for you, Sam. Finally, a super chat for Sam. If, if, if a man never hears the gospel, never hears of salvation through Jesus, and dies, based on the scripture, is that unlimited atonement? Uh, what does it mean? It's unlimited atonement. I don't get it. What can you repeat the question? I'm not making the connection, maybe because I'm just dull. Could you repeat it again?

Okay, it says, "If a man never hears the gospel, never hears of salvation through Jesus, and dies, based on the scripture, is that unlimited atonement?" There's a problem with the way he's formally in question because I believe in Psalm 19, verses 106. Let me just give the references for the sake of time. Psalm 19, verses 1 to 6, and Acts 17, 24 to 31. That if someone gropes for God and seeks God, even though God is not far from any of us, because in him we live and move and have our being, like Paul stated, then what God will do is, we'll then bring that person the message of salvation. Because God is omnipresent, that's the point of Acts 17. Wherever you are, God is present because he's sustaining you. You're exactly where you are because God placed you there so you can grope for him and seek after him. And if you do that, then he will reward you by giving you the message of salvation. Hence, Hebrews 11:6. But now we can bring in Romans 1, and whether someone is able to do that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, and I would agree with Matt, no one can do that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. But time and place does not limit God in reaching someone who seeks God and cries out to him. So he'll make sure he gets the gospel. That would be my answer.

I think, I think Josh Fritz just gave a little bit more context to what he was trying to ask. I guess fundamentally, did Jesus die for them, um, if they were independent, not hearing the gospel or anything? Did Jesus die for them? Very easy. If the Bible says Christ died for every creature, then he also died for those who didn't hear. And the reason why they didn't hear is because they didn't seek after God. And then God gave them over to the desires of their heart, Romans 1. They suppress the truth and worship the creature instead of the Creator. So they got what they deserved. That's my position.

Okay, all right. So we got one more minute on Q&A, man. I'm sorry, everyone. I would not be able to get some questions. We got a ton of super chats, and I'm sorry. I do put my super chats in the front. Here's another question. This is for Matt. Well, he didn't answer that question. Oh, yeah. Matt, sorry about that. Matt, go ahead and, uh, give your thoughts on that.

Well, let's respond to some of the things he said, but I forgot what they were. But for the most part, I agree. Uh, if the guy, I would say the guy on the island, if he's elect, God, God has his way of communicating to people. Okay. Yeah, he, he can do what he wants. So, you know, that's what I would say.

That's generic. Very generic.

All right. And here's another super chat. That's for you, Matt. How do you interpret John 1:10? A lot of John 13:3. Reading John 13:3 first. Okay. John 13:3: "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, was going back to God." And verse John 1:10: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him." A question for brother Matt, how do you interpret John 1:10 in the light of John 13:3? Reading John 13:3 first.

"Under Father given all things." I think he made a mistake. I think he meant you can ask him John 1:11 and John 13:1. I think that's because I saw it in the comment section. I think he was off. Just ask him though. I think. And John 13:1, because I think he's referring, "He came to his own." Yeah. Okay. Yeah, because it says he wants me to read John 13:1 first. "Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come that he would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end." And verse 11: "He came to his own, and those who were his own did not receive him." Because John 1:11 is just talking generically. The nation of Israel did not receive, um, Jesus. It was a covenantal thing. Jesus was sent covenantally. It's a very important part of this whole thing. And they didn't receive him. And, but doesn't mean individuals didn't receive him. So it's a covenantal aspect, uh, and things like that. I don't see the problem there. It's just perfectly harmonious.

Sam, any thoughts?

Yeah, well, the only thing I would say about John 1:11, when it says, "He came to his own, and his own did not receive him." This again becomes quite baffling because not only touches unlimited atonement, but again, we touch on other areas of TULIP, such as unconditional election, irresistible grace, that those whom God has elected will come to Jesus by a work of regeneration done in them by the Holy Spirit. But here it says the people that Jesus is coming for do not accept him. I know it's the Jews. My question would be, and it's not asking for an answer, obviously. My question is, if Jesus only comes for the elect, the Jews, then the elect group will turn to Jesus. Why is it then he's coming for the non-elect Jews? If the offer of salvation is not generally made to them, hence unlimited atonement, and God's desire for the salvation of everyone, even those who are not eventually, quote unquote, part of the elect, whether predestined or by faith, which is anyway neither. But anyway, that's my comment.

I can answer, but, okay, so you guys, obviously it's already 8:32. I was gonna want to give you guys time to close it out and get your closing statement. Do you mind foregoing that and just answering a couple more questions that people that did? Yeah, we're just answering questions. That's fine. Okay. That's cool. Because I, some of these guys, you could ask this question like 20 times. Here you go.

Question for Matt. Calvinism subscribes to, uh, divine knowledge equals predestination equals God's essence. How can God will all to be saved and not predestine all to salvation or atone for all?

What was the question? Let me see if I could make sense of this. Calvinism subscribes to, uh, divine knowledge, which I don't know what divine knowledge is. It's absolute, uh, divine simplicity. Well, that's just deals with the ontological nature of God and, uh, perichoresis. Not a problem. Foreknowledge equals predestination? No, foreknowledge is not equal predestination. Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined. Uh, uh, prognostico. And no, it's not the same thing. Equals God's essence? No. Foreknowledge, I'm sorry. I don't mean to whine and complain about the question, but it's not well-formatted, not well, um, written. So I don't understand what he's getting at. How can God will all to be saved and not predestine all to salvation or atone for all? That's a good question. And, um, we know for a fact that we can go to first Timothy 2:4, second Peter 3:9. Basically, he wants all to be saved. In what sense is he saying he wants all to be saved? And who's the all? These are vital. I mean, these are relative. These are questions that are important to answering the whole issue. But since Jesus speaks in parables so people will not be saved, we can then say, yeah, God can on one hand want everybody to be saved, but doesn't arrange it. I have a paper on this where I go into stuff in the Old Testament where God wants one thing and arranges another. It goes into the New Testament as well. Um, but it's just worth a big discussion. It's not something we just answer in one minute. That's all.

Many thoughts?

No, not really. No. Not really. Not everyone holds. Oh, and now that's forget it. Yeah. No, no. Let's just forgo it. Yeah.

Damn. Yeah. Ask Sam if he can answer yes or no as to if Satan has been reconciled to God.

Let's try this again. In Colossians 1:16-20, everything in heaven on earth, it says that Jesus created, he reconciled. It's not a yes or no. It's not an essential answer. So I know how he's trying to put me in a corner. No, I'm sorry, that doesn't work. Jesus reconciled everything he created in heaven and on earth, making peace by the blood of his cross. So let me now explain it for the umpteenth time. My position on that passage. I believe the language of Paul when it says reconciled, made peace by the blood of his cross, is simply denoting the fact that the work of redemption for all creation has been perfectly accomplished by Jesus Christ. But as the same Bible says, it's not applied until you believe. So though the reconciliation of every creature, including Satan, was perfectly accomplished, it's not applied apart from faith. It doesn't believe. Now, someone said, well, Satan believes. We're not talking about the dead faith, demonic faith of James 2:19, a belief that results in clinging to Christ and living for him, something that Satan doesn't do. It's like me asking my friend group, Defenders, did you stop beating your wife? Yes or no? Truth Defenders, did you start beating your wife? Yes or no? You can't answer some questions with yes or no, even though they think it's yes or no response. So hopefully I've articulated my position.

Matt, any thoughts?

Well, I think it exposes a weakness in his position. Colossians 1:20, "He reconciled all things to himself." To reconcile what? I've asked the question many times, we didn't get an answer. But to define your terms before you tackle the issues. What does reconciliation mean? Different dictionaries have slightly different meanings. But the answer is to put in the right relationship, to remove the wrath and the problems that are there, to make reconcile. My wife and I have an argument, we reconcile and make it all good. And this is why it says there, "having made peace through the blood." So the reconciliation deals with having made peace with the blood. And this is the thing that Jesus did. So if Satan is included in this "all things," then there's a problem. That means that Satan is, uh, Jesus has made peace with Satan through the blood of Christ. And that can't be the case. It just does not get, it just doesn't work. Plus, we get on the issue of, um, the extent of the redemption, not limited atonement, but for whom? Creatures? All creatures? People only? You know, fallen angels and things like that? Nephilim? A whole another issue. It's worth a big discussion. It is.

All right, I have another super chat here, and this question is for Sam. According to Hebrews 2:19, to what extent does Christ not help angels in light of Colossians 1:19 through 20?

Yeah, that's good because he kept mentioning that. Whatever Hebrews 2:16 means, however you want to interpret it, you don't want to pit scripture against scripture. Because the translation he's going by is that Jesus didn't come to help angels. Now, I would have a slight difference of opinion. I prefer where the King James renders it, because the Greek, again, we can get into that in a future discussion, it's he didn't take on the nature of angels. But it doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't reconcile and make peace with the blood of the cross for everything in heaven. And it doesn't mean that Hebrews 2:19 will contradict Hebrews 9:23. So the problem is with the gentleman, Aaron Pitcher. He needs to explain how he reconciles Hebrews 2:16 with Hebrews 9:23, where it says that the heavenly sanctuary was purified with better sacrifices than these. And we need to explain how Hebrews 2:16 comports with Colossians 1:16-20, where everything in heaven that was created is everything that Jesus reconciled by making peace with the blood of his cross. So it's not a dilemma for me. It's a dilemma for those who don't want to deal with the plain reading of Colossians 1:16-20, do not want to deal with the plain reading of Ephesians 1, which I didn't bring up tonight because Ephesians is parallel to Colossians 1, chapter 1, verses 9-10, don't want to deal with Romans 8:19-25, another passage dimming up, because Paul says that the appropriation is waiting, the adoption, or the redemption of the sons of God, making a distinction between the humans whom God has adopted to be his sons and the creation that's groaning to be redeemed. So there again, we see that Christ's redeeming work isn't limited to his kinsmen. It's extended to all creation, that's distinguished from his kinsmen, those adopted to be the sons of God. So you guys need to reconcile this. So there you go. That's my answer.

Any thoughts on that, Matt?

There is no Hebrews 2:19. He meant Hebrews 2:16. He's pretending to know the Bible. Okay. Thanks. Surely does not give help to angels, but he gives help to the descendants of Abraham. Um, I would use that as a supporting verse that the angels are not the ones who, uh, have their sins atoned for because they're not humans. Because of a Redeemer issue, federal headship, representation. You get one thing to think about through all of this is that it says in Hebrews, excuse me, Romans 6:6 and 6:8, "We were crucified with Christ. We died with Christ." How's that possible? We died with Christ because we've died with him. He represented only his people. He couldn't have died. It could not be that the unbelievers were in hell died with Christ because if he died with Christ, that means you died to the law. And those who died to the law can't have sin imputed to them, Romans 7:4. And and Romans 5:13. So, there's a whole another side of this argument and federal headship and representation that needs to happen and what Christ did on the cross. But I would say that it did not include the atoning work of for angels.

Hey, let me just shout out a certain guy. Stop with the chats, man. We need to go back. We got a life, dude. It's a friend of mine. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I know I want you to. Don't ask a question.

All right, so we got a couple more super chats in. And this is pleasure because of the super chats coming in. I gotta ask you. I gotta ask. God's gotta satisfy the consumer. All right, so Matt, if the son, that the sin debt, even Sunday, put Sunday, if the sin debt of the elect has already been paid, then why are they not at peace with God from birth?

Because they haven't yet been justified. Justification of the elect occurs when they believe. It's different than the sin debt being removed. Even for those who hold to universal atonement, that he bore the sin of everybody ever lived, it still means that the sin debt was canceled at the cross. And as Sam would say, it's just not applied to how you believe the atonement is implied. That's a misunderstanding of what I believe it talks about. So I think the issue here, uh, goes both ways. Um, they're not at peace because they've not, they're functionally under kind of under functional condemnation. Uh, they're not, um, at peace because they haven't been justified yet. That's all. And God won't make a mistake and, and, um, and condemn to hell. He doesn't goof. His blood isn't wasted time.

Many thoughts?

Yeah, again, I, I have to say honestly, if the sin debt has been nailed on the cross, and that sin debt would have to include the sin of unbelief, there is nothing hanging over the elect by which they should be born unregenerate, dead in sin, severed with, you know, from union with Christ, because their unbelief has been nailed to the cross. Everything they would do has been nailed to the cross. What is left for them to leave them alienated from God? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. If I interpret the passage the way Matt does, that hey, he nailed it. Sin debt, that's all of it. Unbelief, wise, idolatry, blasphemy, all been nailed. It's done away with. There is no charge over the elect. So why are the elect still born alienated, children of wrath, children of disobedience, unregenerate? When there should be no reason for any of that, because every sin that they would commit, even their sin of unbelief, done away with. Why aren't they born justified already, reconciled to God, made alive, united to Christ, but at peace with God from conception, not just from coming out of the womb? Because Matt Slick agrees with me, apart from faith, what Jesus did cannot be appropriated. Though he believes the elect will come infallibly, but that still makes my point. God requires faith in what Jesus did to make it a reality. End of story.

All right, all right. We have a couple more super chats here, guys. Make sure I got it. Okay. All right. This one's from Matt again. Matt, you are big with the super chats, man. Matt, if the son, that the sin debt, even Sunday, put Sunday, if the sin debt of the elect has already been paid, then what debt is hanging over them at birth? If the sin debt is canceled at the cross, there can't be any sin debt hanging over them at birth because logical necessity would mean that if it's canceled, it doesn't exist anymore. So if it doesn't exist anymore, it can't be hanging over them at death, at birth, excuse me. It would not be until God grants that they believe, Philippians 1:29, that they then become justified. That justification is when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them. So that's my answer. And then there's the issue, sorry, of the now and the not yet. That God works in this. Sam agrees with the now and the not yet principle. And I can go into it in a lot more detail. But God can certainly, as he did from the eternal now in God's heart and mind, where he elected to save people, and yet it was not a reality in God's economy before the universe was created. So the very heart of God is a now and the not yet principle. So God can certainly atone for people, whether you hold a limited atonement or universal atonement. The now, the not yet applies because we'd say that the sin debt's canceled as Paul, as he says, at the cross. Well, then it's now canceled at by Christ, but not yet and I'll do this generically applied until belief. That's not exactly my position. But so that now, the naive principle is still there. And, and I would say that that's what's going on there. That I pay for the elect, and there's no debt hanging over them because it's canceled at the cross. If there was a debt hanging over them, then it wasn't canceled. Simple logic. Go ahead.

Yeah, now notice what he said. "There is no debt hanging over them." Which then again brings up the question that I know Matt feels he answered, but like he said, I didn't answer to that action. I, he has an answer to my satisfaction. That's not an attack. If there is no debt hanging over them, one of the sin debt, part of the sin debt that Jesus paid for is the sin of unbelief. Now, I want everyone to hear what Matt said. Matt just said, "There is no sin debt hanging over them." That means if his position is logically consistent, none of the elect can be born alienated from Christ. None of the elect can be born dead in sin. None of the elect can be born children of wrath and disobedience because there is no debt hanging over them. Why then are they condemned when they're conceived and come out of their mother's room before they believe? Why are they alienated from Christ? Why are they unregenerate? All their sin debt, even unbelief, taken care of. They should be conceived and come out alive, justified. In fact, they don't need to be justified because what are they being justified from? There is no sin debt. And one with Christ from conception. But Matt doesn't accept it because he is, whether implicitly or indirectly, confirming my point. What Jesus accomplished will not be appropriated apart from faith because that's what God requires. That's how God set it up. Therefore, God could have Jesus nail this debt of every creature to the cross and still require a creature to believe to appropriate. And if they don't, justly condemn that person. Welcome to unlimited atonement.

All right, and this is our final question. 20 minutes ago, dude. That's the first final super chat. Um, so this is from Matt. Matt, you are big with the super chats, man. Matt, you mentioned that justification of the elect applies when they believe. So if the elect do not believe, then how can they still be the elect? And we have some clarity on that. God elects people from the foundation of the world. That's what it says in Ephesians 1:4. If someone believes, let's say at the age of 50, they believe because they've been granted by God the act of believing. Philippians 1:29 says that that God grants that people believe. So in the question, justification of the elect applies when they believe. Yes. Right. Justification is the righteousness of Christ that's applied to them when they believe. It's not the same thing as the atoning sacrifice which removes sins. He says, "So if they elect do not believe, then how can they still be the elect?" They will, they can be the elect even though they're not believing at that time. And that they will then come to a place where they believe because God will grant that they believe. So whether or not they believe at any particular time does not have any bearing on whether or not they're elect. It's just a manifestation of when they believe or not.

Okay, Sam, any thoughts?

All right, well, yeah, again, it makes my point. Notice he said that Jesus atoned for their sin. That would include the form of unbelief. So therefore, there's nothing for the elect to be justified from and to. This is the problem we've been having. Because Matt agrees that until they believe, they are children of wrath and disobedience. They need to believe so that they are no longer children. But the question, which he hasn't answered, and the Calvinists don't answer, like my friend Truth Defender, why do they need to be justified at all? Why are they born dead in sin? Why are they born unregenerate? Why are they born separated from Christ and children of wrath when their sin of unbelief has been done away with? They should be conceived alive in the womb, come out alive in the womb, already connected to Christ, thereby not needing to be justified, reconciled, and united to Christ. This is the problem, and I'm sorry that I can't be any clearer than I am to show you you have a problem and you haven't escaped the horn of the dilemma that your position creates for you.

I answered that so many times. I guess we're done, huh?

We are. We are done. That is that is the end of this debate. And once again, you guys are great. And I was expecting this. You know, this was totally expected. I think many people who are looking forward to this debate expected it. And they, and I think that's a part of the love that that this kind of debate shows is that you get two guys who are passionate, uh, two guys who really believe that their position is right, and two guys who are experienced in debating. You know, and I think that adds value to the, the kind of the understanding of how debates operate and how they go back and forth. So I appreciate both of you. And I'm growing every day, uh, to have that God will bless me with the knowledge that you guys have with the scriptures. Um, and I just appreciate both of you and what you guys are doing for the body. And whether we disagree theologically, um, you know, it's still a blessing. And I got mad love for both of you. And I pray that, uh, both of you are blessed and your family is doing well, and God will continue to show grace and mercy to you guys. Um, and I just appreciate you both. And I just want to thank you. I love you, brothers. And I want to say, man, I love you. You're my older brother. And I look to look up to you. And I thank God for your life and ministry. I mean that. May he shine his face on you, bless you and your family, and preserve you for his glory and use you mightily to advance the kingdom of Christ. And I acknowledge you as not just my spiritual elder, but as my intellectual superior. And I thank the Lord that you are willing to even have this discussion. And I love you from my heart.

Well, it's hard to, to beat that praise, but I love you too, brother. And, uh, we need to have a phone conversation. I gotta ask some details, not about this other stuff. People ask me about you on the radio and other things like that. So I appreciate the, uh, the energy, uh, and stuff. Uh, you have your position, I have mine. And there you go. Praise God. Thanks a lot, Myron. Marlon, for having us on. Appreciate it, buddy.

Yeah, no problem. Problem, man. Remember, if I become a hurricane, just go after me gently and just rebuke me lovingly. No, I'm just kidding. Go ahead. I gotta head out, guys. Honestly, I was supposed to go somewhere.

All right, so hope you don't mind if I exit for you guys. Okay. Yeah, you're right, man. Thank you guys again. God bless you. Take care of yourself. God bless Christ's Arizona's indeed. Take care.

All right, folks. Uh, another great debate. And once again, um, you know, this is exactly what I expected because I knew that these guys were really going to have a great debate. I just knew it. You know, and I think that I think you guys out there, um, knew it too, because you guys showed up and showed out, man. I think we topped off at 416 viewers, um, concurrent viewers, and that is great. I mean, it's such a blessing, you know, to be able to bring people from all different theological perspectives into one room and be able to battle against these different theological ideas. And that's what debate is. You know, debate is not only a way of ministering to the lost, being able to debate subject matters like Christian against atheist, or Christian against Muslim, or Christian against a Buddhist, or whatever. Not only is it a tool to evangelize, but it's also a tool to encourage and edify the church and exhort the body, right? And that is what is important because even if we have theological disagreements, we're still able to come together as one body and exhort each other in a respectful and loving way to be able to argue these ideas out as church fathers before us, uh, have done as well, you know? So, these are, this is great, you know? And I just appreciate you out there for sticking with us through this debate. And, um, and just, if I can ask you for one thing, is just pray for the ministry. You know, pray that the Gospel Truth will grow, uh, that God will use this ministry to glorify himself, uh, and that, and that glorification of himself will obviously be bringing people to the body of Christ so that he can fulfill his people, fulfill his elect, right? So we are looking to do great things with this ministry. And I just pray that you can support. And, you know, and a lot of you guys support it financially, and I appreciate you guys for that. Uh, that said, um, if you haven't yet, make sure that you are subscribing to the Gospel Truth. Make sure you're hitting that like button, that subscribe button, and that notification bell. Please do that, um, in order to, uh, to to support the ministry. Make sure you're hitting that like. And also, all this content is on podcast. It's on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, Spotify. So make sure you are over there subscribing to the, to the podcast as well. Um, and please do that. Please do that. Support the ministry. Hit that subscribe button. Hit that notification bell. Make sure you're doing that so you can stay in the loop with the Gospel Truth. And I'll be back at you on the 26th. We have a debate, uh, with George Alvarado and Matt Singleton. And then that's going to be followed up with a debate between Dr. Kurt Gyros and, uh, Pastor Doug Wilson. So that's going to be another great debate. So please join us for that one. With you, if you have, if you didn't have a plan to join us for that one, make sure you do. And the way you know that the show's popping off, once again, is to hit that subscribe button. Don't forget. Hit it. Hit it. Hit it. Hit it. Hit it. Please do. And hit that notification bell. Uh, with that said, I'm going to get out of here. And I thank you so much for joining me on the Gospel Truth. May God bless you and may God keep you. I'm gone.