Reviewing my debate with NeedGod.net @NeedGodnet

Okay, we are live. Zero people are here. So, uh, thank you for joining me, whoever may be here.

Um, tonight we're going to review um my my debate that I had with Ryan from needgod.net. ML Williams, hello ML Williams. I feel like I should know who that is. I know. Hello, John. Thank you for joining. Um, hello. Thank you for being here.

So, uh, yeah, we're gonna gonna start uh to to uh review my my conversation or my debate with Ryan from needgod.net. Uh, needgod.net has start sort of been blowing up on YouTube over the last year. He's a faith alone, grace alone, you know, works, works are bad, or you wouldn't say works are bad, but um, you know, works have nothing to do with salvation and it's just trusting in the cross and and that's all all there is to salvation. Trust in the cross and you can't lose your salvation and you know that kind of stuff. and um, big on Romans 4. Um, and uh, yeah, so I had a a debate with Ryan. I I I went on his live stream, was able to get on there and um wanted to talk with him about justification and um, yeah, it didn't go didn't go as well as I had hoped that it would. Um, and Ryan, you know, he's he's a smart guy. He's not he's not uh he's good at what he does, you know, and he's he's definitely seasoned. And um, yeah, there were a couple of times where, you know, he's very good at asking gotcha questions. And there were a couple times where I wasn't wasn't really sure, you know, how exactly to respond. Had to think about it a little bit. Um, but I think some good things came out of it and I'm not super happy with how I conducted myself in parts of the parts of the discussion. Um, but uh, yeah, so let's uh let's watch it. And we're it's it's about an hour long. We're not going to get through all of it. We'll probably get through 20 minutes of it tonight. And there's a lot, you know, it's packed with uh with stuff to talk about.

And the Hold on a second. Let me turn this radiator off so that it's not making all kinds of noise while we're doing this. I have a very loud radiator here. Um, so, uh, yeah. So, we'll we'll maybe we'll get through the first uh 20 minutes or so. And is there anybody else who wants to say hello? Anybody? Anybody I know who's here? Um, now the the video may lag. I'm working with a Chromebook here and uh, you know, yeah, maybe it's not going to be the best quality. We'll see. So, um, let's get into it. Dan, how's it going, my friend? How's it going? All right. Share my screen here and do entire. Let's get rid of some of this stuff. Let's get rid of some of this stuff. Close some of these things. Hopefully that will help. Um, close that. Sorry. Sorry, guys. What is that? All right. Um, okay. Share screen. And is that okay, so that should be good to go. And all right. Um, so let's see if uh as we'll see.

Okay, ML Williams says, "As we'll see in the video, you were honest and showed you have an actual genuine relationship with God." Thank you for saying that. I was a little little displeased with uh how it went, but I appreciate you. Appreciate the encouraging words. I hope God feels the same way. All right. So, uh, here we go. Let me just let me just start the video. Oh, hold on a second. Um, I need to need to Okay. Yeah, got it. All right. So, let me just start the video and make sure everybody can can hear it. So, let me play.

>> All right. Let's bring up Alban. Welcome, Albin.

>> Hello. Can you hear me, Ryan?

>> Yes, I can.

>> All right. Now, did everyone hear that? Did everybody hear that? Is the audio okay? Somebody just give me a thumbs up or simple yes. Let me know that you can hear.

>> All right, you guys hear it? All right, here we go. Here we go. Let's go with theater mode here. Should do theater mode. Theater mode. Oh boy. I think we're going to lag.

>> It's going to be lagging. All right.

>> I can hear you. Great to have you here.

>> Okay.

>> What did you want to ask today?

>> Well, I had a question about um justification.

>> that what I was taught um many years ago was that justification is like a one-time legal declaration and once you've been justified that's that's it. It's over. You know the the the the justification cannot be revoked and it's like you are you are getting a um a not-guilty verdict on the day of judgment but it's happening right now. Right.

>> Mhm.

>> So when I when I read, you know, when I read everything that the New Testament has to say about justification and bring it all together, I don't I don't get that. I don't get that picture. I mean, that was something that was given to me by, you know, teachers and theologians and authors that I that I was influenced by. But if I were to to to read,

>> I want to ask you just ask you. So what perspective are you coming from now? Like do you go to a church?

>> Um I visit churches. I'm I'm part of a network of believers who come from different backgrounds. Um a lot of them are from evangelical backgrounds. Um but not everybody. And we're all sort of longing for something more like what we read in the book of Acts, you know, some something uh like a return to that to that serious application of Jesus teachings in love and loyalty to him, you know. Um

>> Okay. So, are you so you're not part of a particular church, but maybe like house churches or

>> something something more like

>> more of an online community or something like that? uh more yeah it's not necessarily an online community I mean there's online communication that happens there's an online Bible study that happens but it's very unorganized

>> okay

>> all right um yeah because I think it is important to be part of a good local church where you have elders who are looking after your soul and you know submitting to them in so far as they're preaching what Christ is and what the Bible teaches so you said you used to hold to the view of justification that we made right before God as a legal declaration through faith in Christ. Do you now no longer think it's through faith in Christ that we're made right before God?

>> No, I think it it is through faith um the way

>> well the way I understand faith like when I think of pause real quick. One of the problems that um you know came up here in this discussion is that we we never really defined our terms. Um I mean a little bit but but we we use a lot of we use some shared language, some shared vocabulary terms without without really clarifying for for each other what we mean by those things. And so probably would have been helpful to to have done that. Here we go.

>> Think about the faith of Abraham. You know, there's there are multiple components there. Like Abraham believed in God. He um trusted. He believed God's promises that God would do what he said he was going to do and he obeyed whatever God told him to do. All all three of those things were present. And if you if you take one of those elements away, then you lose the faith of Abraham. And so I think of Romans 4, you know,

>> on what basis though was he declared righteous? Was it his obedience and doing things that God commands him to do or was it simply him trusting God's promises?

>> Yeah. Well, that's that's actually getting back to my question that there's a when you look at everything the New Testament has to say about Abraham, you know, you got Romans 4 which talks about him being justified when he believed God, right? Um, and the position that I would have would have held some years ago was that, you know, that was that was the the moment of his justification. That was the one-time legal declaration that happened for Abraham. And uh

>> that's how Paul seems to indicate it. Like he's made righteous. He's declared righteous in Genesis 15:6. Paul quotes that. Then in Romans 4

>> and he actually makes clear in Romans 4:21 that like Abraham was fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised and that is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness. So the basis of why he's counted as righteous is simply being fully convinced. It wasn't anything else. It wasn't him going do circumcision in a bit later on in a couple chapters time or leaving his homeland and doing something else as Hebrews 11 talks about. It's more just he's fully convinced God will do what God promised to do.

>> Yeah. I think that that that's the case in that particular instance. Right. But what's interesting is that Hebrews 11 speaks of Abraham as having a believer's faith. But there it's talking about him going out from his homeland and going wherever wherever God told him to go in in faith. Right? So it speaks of Abraham as having a believer's faith in Genesis 12. And

>> it talks about him having faith but not a not that he was justified. Never speaks in Hebrews 11 that he was justified before almighty God. It does describe him doing something as a result of faith. But just because someone someone does something as a result of faith doesn't mean that that's a faith that justifies them.

>> Would you agree that people can have faith in something and and not actually be justified? Like you get a faith in a judgment day to come. That's a faith. You might act in light of that, but that doesn't mean you got to justify. doesn't mean you're justified.

>> Yeah. There I mean there could be some sense in which that could happen for someone, but

>> in in Hebrews 11, you know, it's it seems that it's giving us a list of people who were in right relationship with God, you know,

>> and it's hard for me to

>> I don't think I don't think I don't think I would disagree with that. I think some of them, yes. Not all of them. No. If you have a look in like Hebrews 11:29,

>> so this is this is a good moment for Ryan here. He's he's got he's got an argument here that I've never I had never really come up against and I had to I had to sort of stop and think about what he was saying. And um, you know, it's an interesting it's an interesting point you know that in the point he's about to make is that some of the people in Hebrews 11 like the people who passed through the Red Sea you know, you're not so sure about those people. Um whereas the people in the beginning of the chapter, Noah and Enoch and Abraham, it's it's a different you know, it's it seems pretty clear those people were pleasing to God in the right relation. Anyway, it's just interesting how much nuance there really is and we have to be uh we have to be careful, you know, um and very thoughtful about the arguments that we make and the way we use the scriptures. So, here we go. You'll see you'll see I'm a little uncomfortable in this part of the discussion. It says, "By faith, the people of is uh the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry ground, dry land. But the Egyptians when they attempted to do the same were drowned."

>> So we see two to three potentially million people crossing the Red Sea of Israel, crossing that Red Sea.

>> Do we think they were all justified? Do we think that they're all saved in right relationship with God? Not at all. But they're still doing an action by faith that okay, God says cross or cross.

>> Yeah, that that's an interesting uh parallel that Paul and the author of Hebrews makes about uh, you know, between the church and and ancient Israel. But do you think that do you think that Abraham was not saved from Genesis 12 through to Genesis 15? I can only go based on what the text says. And the only time when Abraham was declared righteous is in Genesis 15:6. And so therefore, I can just con conclude that's when he was justified. Even if he had faith earlier on, it wasn't a justifying faith or not a faith that God can do as righteousness.

>> So here's not a good moment for Ryan. And we're going to talk about this more after we're done, you know, watching this first part of the uh first part of the discussion. But, you know, there's a lot of projecting going on here with with Romans 4. There's a lot of things Ryan is seeing in Romans 4 that Paul never says. You know, Paul never says this was the beginning of Abraham's justification or that he was not in right relationship with God prior to that. Ryan is assuming that that has to be the case because of his theological commitment to justification as a one-time legal declaration that cannot be revoked. And so in his mind, if Abraham is justified in in Romans 4 or in Genesis 15:6, he could not possibly have been justified before God prior to that. But Romans 4 never says any of that stuff. and uh just uh we need to be we need to be careful what we project onto the scriptures. All right, here we go.

>> So, he had faith in God and and it was it was an active faith. It was it was not a dead faith, right? Because like James says, faith without works is dead. Well, Abraham's faith was active. But you think he was not saved?

>> Yeah. Because you can have faith like someone can believe that Jesus will one day return. there's going to be a second coming. Someone can believe that and therefore they can actively live in light of that and still not believe that Christ died for their sins.

>> Okay. Well,

>> so you can believe you can have faith in something and live in light of that faith something but that still not be a faith that justifies you because if you don't have trust in Christ sacrifice to save you doesn't mean doesn't matter if you believe in a second coming you're still not right before God.

>> Right? So remember remember that point because that is going to come back to to give Ryan a real problem later even though it never comes out in our conversation but it'll come out in this uh you know in this reaction or in this review of our discussion later on he's going to go on to contradict himself there are pretty bad. So uh just remember that that point you just made

>> right. So, do you think that God God calls Abraham Abraham has this active faith, right? He he's willing to trust God and and do whatever God says, but he's still not right with God.

>> Correct? Yeah. Just similar to like the example I gave you. People say, "Look, Jesus says give to the poor." All right. They're giving to the poor, but if they don't trust that Christ paid for their sin, they're still not saved,

>> right? But Abraham obviously trusts God.

>> Yeah. Just like the person that trusts God when Jesus says, you know, give to the poor, they're trusting that God will provide me with the future, my provision. Don't be anxious about tomorrow. So, not being anxious about tomorrow. What's what's interesting here is that Ryan said that the only thing, you know, if you if you're trusting God and you're doing what he says and you're, you know, trusting that he's going to provide for you and all that kind of stuff, but you're not trusting in the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, then then you don't really have saving justifying faith, right? The problem is that Abraham in Genesis 15:6 did not believe in anything about Jesus on the cross. He was believing God's promise that he would have a biological son and that God would give him the land that he promised him. You know, that was the promise that he was believing. Um, so you know, by Ryan's own definition, Abraham still had not come to true justifying, saving faith in Genesis 15:6 because Abraham was trusting that God would provide a son and provide the land and all the kind of stuff that Ryan is is is saying isn't really what what you know, what gives you justifying faith. And so it it it it doesn't really work when you when you think about it. Um, okay, here we go.

>> Are we sufficient?

>> God calls Abraham calls him to go out. Abraham is obviously trusting him. He's believing his promises. He's he's entrusting his whole life to God, right? What what if Abraham is right with God and then and that justification is like a state of being. It's a process. Well, then that the Bible doesn't say. I have to go just I just go based on what the Bible says. The Bible specifically says he was declared righteous

>> in Genesis 15:6 when he believed the promise. Paul you Paul quotes it in Romans 4 to reaffirm and tells us what the content of his faith was.

>> And so therefore, well, I can go based on that. Just because you want to think that, oh, he's already justified in Genesis 12. I can't go to anything in the Bible that proves that. Nothing in the Bible proves that he was right before God or justified in God's eyes back in Genesis 12.

>> Yeah. But it could be, you know, like someone who's justified, they could describe that in different terms, right? If someone is is following God in faith, you know, we we Yeah, it's not using the term justification, but I think it's safe to assume that that person is in right relationship with God.

>> I would disagree. I would disagree. Just like verse 29, I've brought this up already. They were trusting God in crossing the Red Sea, but that doesn't mean that they were right before God or that they're going to go to heaven when they died.

>> Okay?

>> So, I think you got to get rid of the mindset that justification is some sort of this long process. That's a that's a Catholic idea. I'm not sure if you been influenced by Catholicism.

>> Okay. So, let's just see who's here and if anybody has made any comments or anything. Um, okay, okay, okay. Uh, ML Williams, I go by what the Bible said as another classic line. Ryan says to defend his faulty understanding. Yeah, I I know what you're saying. Um, Uncle Paul, where is the debate? I can't find it. Uh, yeah, it's not a classic, you know, organized debate. It's just a discussion where we're, you know, we're we're trying to challenge each other. Um, Braden, uh, oh, wait. Welled and it's Ryan's theology. Okay. Wow. Sun. Sunny. Hello, Sunny. So sad. I missed this. Have been waiting. What is he? Um, yeah. Well, this happened last year sometime. Um, all right. All right. All right. So, let's go to uh let's talk about Ryan's argument here about Thanks for all the comments everybody. Is there is there anything that I should respond to here right now? Ryan's theology is mainly built upon presuppositions that he forced. Um, yep, I hear you. Paul, uh, it's annoying that they John little children, let no one deceive you. Yes. Amen. Uncle Paul, I was blocked for asking questions literally. Oh, you were blocked from uh from Ryan's channel, Paul, because I too have been blocked from Ryan's channel. I cannot comment or anything. Um, all right. Well, let's let's go to the um let's go to the uh Oh, Dan. How you doing, Dan? Um, okay. So, let's go to Ryan's argument about Abraham here. Um, so yeah, I'm arguing that justification is a state of being, uh, not a one-time legal declaration. And Ryan has made these two claims. Abraham was not justified prior to Genesis 15. And faith that produces works does not necessarily justify. And there, you know, is some sense in which that's right. You know, someone could believe in Jesus and maybe they're doing uh, you know, things that their church tells them to do, but not the things that Jesus actually tells them to do. They could just be a somebody who's been misled and and and, you know, um, hasn't really come to know Jesus. they've just been told, you know, some false gospel and, you know, just help with Sunday setup and uh, you you'll be all right. Um, but yeah, we'll we'll we'll talk about that claim of Ryan. So, the first claim, Abraham was not justified prior to Genesis 15. Um, so, the first problem with that is what it says in Hebrews, uh, Hebrews 10 and 11. So, this is the end of of of Hebrews chapter 10 um where it says for for a little while he's quoting Habach here um for yet a little while and the coming one will come and will not delay but my righteous one or my justified one shall live by faith and if he shrinks back my soul has no pleasure in him. So that right there tells you something about the nature of justification that someone can be considered by God to be one of his righteous ones. But if they shrink back, if they um, you know, are are too afraid to say uh, be faithful to Jesus in the face of death, for example, or something like that. um, or if they lack, you know, the trust in God to to do as he says, as Abraham did, you know, then my soul finds no pleasure in him. You know, it's it's awkward to to try to uh fit this with with Ryan's understanding of justification as it's got nothing to do with whether we shrink back or whether we, you know, are faithful or anything like that. It's just just uh trust in the cross and and that's all it is. And this is at the end of Hebrews chapter 10 going into Hebrews chap 11. These things are connected. You know, what what he's saying here about his righteous one is connected with what he's about to to say about, you know, the people he's going to talk about in in Hebrews uh 11. Um, so here's here's uh Hebrews 11:8-13. Just read it real quick. By faith, Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out not knowing where he was going. By faith, he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. for he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith, Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore, from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants, as many as the stars of heaven, and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar. So, this is a very interesting passage. Um, and it's it's I think it's very awkward for um for Ryan's understanding of faith because it it talks about Abraham from the time he was called from the time he was called to leave his land in Genesis 12 through to the end of his life. And it describes him as having the same quality of faith throughout the course of his whole life starting in Genesis 12. And so how could it how could it be that um, you know, something something like dramatic happened in Genesis 15 where he started to have true justifying faith. How like how does that work? How can how can that be? If according to Hebrews 11, Abraham's faith had the same quality throughout the course of his whole life from Genesis 12 through to the the end of his life. And isn't it weird? Isn't it kind of weird to uh to suggest that, you know, here's this guy writing a passage about Abraham's faith and he leaves out the one event in Abraham's life where he actually began to have saving faith. Like that's the one that's the one part that he leaves out in in a discussion of Abraham's faith. I mean, that's absurd. you know, that would only the sloppiest possible person could could do that if if it's true that Abraham began to be justified in Genesis 15. So this I think is a real problem for um for Ryan's view. So now let's talk about Genesis 12, 13 and 14. And one of the points that I tried to make uh to to Ryan was that, you know, the Bible can talk about somebody in in different ways um and and make it clear that they are justified without using the term justified. Right? Uh, by the way, when you're having a discussion like this or a debate, don't follow up a point that you make with right, which you heard that I did that a couple times in the uh in the discussion already, and it's just sort of just kind of lame. It uh falls flat. So, um, yeah. Is it really the case like like so, so look at these people that that ab that, uh, Hebrews 11 starts out talking about? Um, by faith, Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain. Um, by faith, Enoch was taken up so that he could not see death and he was not found. Um, by faith Noah being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen in reverent fear constructed an ark. Um, so we've got we've got Abel, Enoch, and Noah. And I'm not aware of any passages in Genesis that use the language of justification or, you know, it was credited to Noah as righteousness. Uh, and you know, or and and Enoch was justified before God, you know. So, according to Ryan's way of thinking, we have no way of knowing that any of these guys were justified. You know, nobody has true saving faith unless there's a verse that explicitly says, uh, he believed this or that and it was credited to him as righteousness. Is that how this works? I mean, that's that that's silly, right? Of course, we can have confidence that Abel and Enoch and Noah were justified, were right with God, even though that particular term is never used of them because what we do know of them, what the text does tell us about them makes that clear without having to use that particular terminology. And so the same is true of of Abraham. And while you know later on in Hebrews 11, Ryan makes an interesting point which forced me to think through my uh argument here and it has to be more nuanced. You know, yeah, some some of the people in uh uh, you know, in the Exodus who who left Egypt, I mean they all go through the sea, you know, maybe maybe a lot of those people don't end up in the right place. uh a lot of those people do not end up in the right place with God. Um, and so there's something to think through there, you know, but Abraham seems pretty clear. um, you know, he's he's lumped in with people like Noah, Abel, and Enoch, not with the Israelites who after being after going through the Red Sea um, you know, ceased to be faithful to God and got destroyed in the wilderness, you know. Um, so let's let's look now at uh some stuff in Genesis 12, 13 and 14 that makes it pretty clear that Abraham uh was justified even though it doesn't use that language. Genesis 12:1-3. Now the Lord said to Abraham, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you, and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." So Abraham went, sorry, a little loud out there. So notice that the promise God is making here, you know, like is very similar to what what what the promise is in Genesis 15 that he's I'm going to bless you. I'm going to make you a great nation. Um, he doesn't get specific about a biological child here, but um, part of the promise at least is is is still the same. and Abraham trusts him and he goes, you know, um, so this this indicates according to James 2, uh that Abraham has a justifying faith. It doesn't use that particular term, but I don't see why it needs to. Genesis 12:8 and 9 and Genesis 13:3-4. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethl and pitched his tent with Bethl on the west and I on the east. And there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord. And Abram journeyed on still going toward the NGB. And he journeyed on from the NGB as far as Bethl to the place where his tent had been at the beginning between Bethl and I to the place where he had made an altar at the first. And there Abraham called upon the name of the Lord. So we see in this season of Abraham's life that he is um he is calling upon the name of the Lord. And we've all heard the famous verse in Romans chapter 10 which says whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Right? Um, so if we're going to, you know, that that's a verse that evangelicals really love to to quote, but when it comes to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 13, well, he must be the one guy who was calling on the name of the Lord who who wasn't saved. Um, which is just very very odd, you know. um it's not whoever calls on the name of the Lord will will be saved, you know, years down the line um or or something like that. But so it's just another indication that Abraham is in right relationship with God um trusts him, has real genuine uh faith. Genesis 13:14 to18. The Lord said to Abraham after Lot had parted from him, "Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west, all the land that you see, I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go walk through the length and breadth of the land, and for I am giving it to you." Abraham went to live near the great trees of Mamry at Hebrron. He pitched his tents there. He built an altar to the Lord. So this is a man who trusts and obeys the Lord and he worships the Lord. And again, the promise is very similar here. You know, I'm going to bless you. I'm going to uh I'm going to give you the land. doesn't seem like there's really any any meaningful difference between Abraham's faith here and Abraham's faith two chapters later. Genesis 14. Um, this is where uh Abraham receives a blessing from from Melkisedec and Melkisedec says blessed be Abram by God most high possessor of heaven and earth and blessed be God most high who has delivered your enemies into your hand. So, that's just kind of awkward language to use about somebody who's not justified and therefore still under the wrath of God and, you know, God is is uh um, you know, still hasn't forgiven them? I mean, it's just just very strange. Um, yeah. So, was this guy really really not saved? Um, so, let's see. What do I got here? What do I got here? Yeah, I guess the big point that I that I want to make here is that let's let's just look at Genesis 15 real quick. Um, just to see that it's really not all that different from the promises that had already been made. After these things, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision. Fear not, Abram. I am your shield. Your reward shall be very great. But Abraham Abram said, "Oh Lord God, what will you give me? For I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eleazar of Damascus." And Abram said, "Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir." And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, "This man shall not be your heir. Your your very own son shall be your heir." And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven and number the stars. if you are able to number them. Then he said to them, "So shall your offspring be." And he believed the Lord. And he counted it to him as righteousness. And so the the the promise um fills in a little more here that it's going to be, you know, more specifically, it's going to be uh your own biological offspring. But there's not some kind of like radical difference here. Abraham's faith is not radically different from what it had been before. God had made a promise. Abraham had believed it. He left everything he knew, not going out, not knowing where he was going, and trusted that somehow he's going to have this land that God is promising, and he's going to have many descendants. Um, and so I don't see any any any big shift here in in the faith of Abraham. So, um, the point that I made in in my, uh, discussion with Ryan is that, you know, Genesis, uh, that that justification in the Bible is not this one-time thing, you know, where where we come to believe something about God or to trust a particular promise of God. Now, right in this little sliver of time, we're justified and it's this one-time thing, irrevocable, and nothing we do has anything, you know, plays any role in it or something like that. Um, nowhere is that is that said in Genesis 15 or Romans 4. And so, the idea is that Abraham, it's not that he entered into right relationship with God in Genesis, Genesis 15, but that he continued in right relationship with God. He keeps he keeps passing the tests. And perhaps this test is a little more um um a little bit of a tougher test because because Abraham is believing that not only is he going to get the land, but uh he's going to have a biological son in spite of the age of his wife and his own age. Um, but it's pretty clear from Hebrews 11 uh and Genesis 12, 13-14 that Abraham is is a saved man. He is a man who is in right relationship with God, intimate relationship with God. And so the idea is that justification is this state of being that we enter into through uh obedient faith. And then we continue in that um in that state of justification, that that right relationship with God as we continue to walk with him, continuing to trust his promises, continuing to obey what he says. Now, if you're listening to this and you're an evangelical and you're like, "Ah, this this can't be right." you know, just just take a step back and consider, you know, we're going to look at some more evidence here about justification and think about how this, you know, how this would would make sense with the totality of what the scriptures have to say about justification and the uh the warnings of Jesus and the apostles, the passages where they seem to use this conditional language, you know, um if you if If you obey my commandments or if you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love. Jesus says in John 15:10, in other words, if you keep my commandments, you will remain in a state of justification. Or Paul says in uh Romans 8:13, if you live according to the flesh, you will die. But if you put to death the deeds of the body by the spirit, you will live. In other words, if you live according to the flesh, you will not remain in right relationship with God. You will not remain in a state of justification. But if you put to death the deeds of the body by the spirit, you will continue in right relationship with God. You will continue to be righteous in his sight, justified in his sight. Um, so here's here's a couple of passages to consider. We we see in the Bible that justification there's a you know sense in which it can be talked about in the past. 1 Corinthians 6:11 and that is what some of you were but you were washed. You were sanctified. You were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of our God. A lot of interesting things to be discussed in this passage here. uh one of which is the fact that Paul has sanctification coming before justification which is scandalous language in many evangelical circles where they want to say they want to make it very clear justification comes first and it's separated from sanctification sanctification has to come after and it's a very slow process and they they don't touch each other you know they have to be separate and Paul doesn't seem to to to share that that careful treatment of justification and sanctification. But anyway, here's an example of past justification. You were justified initially talking about they entered into right relationship with God through faith in Christ. Uh Galatians 2:17, very interesting passage. But if in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn't that mean that Christ's that Christ promotes sin? So, you know, you'll want to go back sometime and read the context, read what comes before, read what comes after. But regardless of that, when do you hear when do you hear evangelical Christians who who share Ryan's view of justification speak of justifica speak of justification in this way, seeking to be justified? Paul indicates that that that he is seeking to be justified in some sense. Well, that makes a lot of sense if justification is this, you know, ongoing relationship with God that you can either remain in or or leave if you cease to be faithful. If it's a if it's an ongoing state of being, then yeah, there's a sense in which we must seek to be justified in Christ, right? But if justification is this one-time legal declaration that's got nothing to do with anything that comes after, nothing to do with what you do or your faithfulness. This is a very awkward passage. Matthew 12:36, I tell you, on the day of judgment, people will give account for every careless word they speak. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned. So this is the master here and he gets the last word in these things and that should settle it that justification is not this one-time thing but there's there's a sense in which we're going to be justified on the day of judgment uh according to what we did in this case according to what we said. And so there are other passage we passages we could go to, but when you look at the totality of the Bible's teaching on justification, it doesn't it's not this one-time thing, you know, and you start to understand the uh the intensity of the apostles, the reason they were warning people who had already been justified because they understood it's not over. you know, this this is a relational salvation and just because you have come into a saving relationship with God, that doesn't mean that doesn't guarantee you're going to stay in that relationship, you know. Uh and and it's just it's just the way relationships work. Not sure what I got. Oh, yeah. Okay. It's a relationship, not a one-time transaction. What about Romans 4? Paul never says justification is a one-time thing in Romans 4. You got to keep your eye on the context. Um, he is if you go to the end of Romans 3 and then uh after um, you know, and read the rest of Romans 4, you can see Paul is thinking about circumcision and Mosaic law and do we need to become Jews? Do we need to get circumcised to be to be justified? That's the issue. And his point um his point in Romans 4 is not that Abraham began to be justified in Genesis 15:6, but the reason he the reason Paul uh points us back to Genesis 15:6 is to demonstrate that Abraham was justified without circumcision. That's that's the point. The point is not look this is where Abraham's justification began. That's not that he never makes that point. The point is look Abraham's justification uh was not did did not depend on his circumcision. Um, let's see here. I think I think we'll just skip that claim. Um, yeah, the ancient Israelites who went through Hebrews um talked about that a little bit. Um, we talked about this a little bit. Justification come only through a promise. Yeah. So, um, uh, that's something that people like Ryan might often say is that justification is has to be specifically believing a promise. Um, and then they kind of say, "Well, you've got to believe in you got to trust in the cross." You know, there's not a promise there. Like, um, trusting in the cross, you know, it's just you I I guess I guess the reasoning is I'm I'm supposed to be trusting that what Jesus did on the cross is enough. That that's God's promise to me. that um hey, what my son has done for you is enough to cover all your sins and there's nothing you have to contribute because what Jesus did is enough and if that's I mean if that's what faith is all about you would think that there would be at least one passage that explicitly says that but it's not there and that's a big problem you know if if our if our like core message if if the thing that we think is like the most important important thing that people need to get. If that is not explicit in the text somewhere, you're in really big trouble, right? Um, if if Ryan is right about this, then we should see in the sermon on the mount, the sermon on the plane, Peter's three sermons, Paul Paul's two sermons in in the book of Acts, we should see this language, you know, of of trusting in the finished work of the cross and that uh it's not about what you do. Jesus paid it all and and you don't contribute anything. It's none of that stuff is in any of their gospel presentations. And that's uh that would make me extremely uncomfortable. You know, if I was Ryan and I had to go to Romans 4 or Galatians, you know, somewhere in Galatians and like pluck something out of its context and then project a lot of language onto it that isn't actually in the text and this is like my core gospel message. That's very concerning. I want to be able to go to the sermons of Jesus and Peter and Paul and say there's the gospel. There's the big idea. That's what we need to understand. And if and you can't do that with faith alone, grace alone kind of kind of theology. Um, okay, last last point to make and then we'll we'll watch another clip. Um, is is something that I wasn't aware of for many years about Phineas. Phineas who um I think it's in numbers Phineas he uh the Israelites were were acting up again and they were taking wives from the Moabites I believe and uh God was displeased with that and sent a plague on the people and then someone an Israelite brings a Moabitete woman into the into the t into the uh into the camp in full view of Moses and you And uh and Phineas is like, "I'm not I'm not standing for this." And he gets a spear and he goes into the tent and he skewers the the Israelite and the Moabitete woman. And here's what Psalm 106 says about Phineas. They yoke themselves to the bail of Peyor and ate sacrifices offered to lifeless gods. They aroused the Lord's anger by their wicked deeds and a plague broke out among them. But Phineas stood up and intervened and the plague was checked. This was credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come. So how was righteousness credited to Phineas? How was he counted righteous? How was he justified? It's this act, right? This this action that he did. It was an act of faith. It was an act of loyalty to the God of of Israel, which showed that his heart was loyal. Didn't have anything to do with believing a promise, right? That's not here. That that's not anywhere in the text here. But he demonstrated his loyalty to God here. And this, you know, starts to show us that, you know, there's there is nuance in the Bible about how justification can come to someone and how righteousness can be credited to someone. That it's not just believing a promise, but that it's it's loyal actions flowing out of a heart that that is loyal to to God. Right? And that's what you have in Genesis 12 where Abraham comes comes out and follows the Lord. And that's what you have here in in Psalm 106. That's what you have in Luke 19 with Zakius, right? Zakius decides, okay, I'm going all in. I'm going to put all my eggs in Jesus basket. And uh he says, "Look, Lord, here and now I give half my possessions to the poor. and if I've cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay

"back four times the amount." Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house." And so obviously that has implications for Zakius' justification. The word is not used in this text. You know, the the word justification is not there. I don't think we need that word to be there. I I hope Ryan would not say, "Well, it doesn't say he was justified." I guess I wouldn't be too surprised if he if he made that argument, but uh um yeah, I think anyone who's open and honest with the text here is going to have to say Zakius was justified here. And it wasn't it wasn't necessarily about believing a promise, but it was that his heart had become loyal to Jesus. And yeah, he was trusting Jesus. He was trusting Jesus with his life, trusting Jesus with his future and and he was submitting himself to Jesus as Lord, as master. And he doesn't know anything about the cross and and the sacrifice that Jesus is going to make. And so again, it it shows us that there's more to to justification than just specifically believing a cross. A heart loyal to God uh believes God and obeys him. No justification outside of this kind of relationship with God. You trust him. You believe whatever he says. If he says he's going to do something, you believe he's it's going to come to pass and you do whatever he tells you. Those elements have to be present or or there is not justifi just justifying faith and we have to continue in that kind of faith. that kind of relationship with God if we want to continue in justification.

Okay. So, let's go back to the let's see what's going on here. Um, let's just look at some some comments here. Hello, John. Let me scroll up a little bit here. See? Okay. All right. So, we've got David. Hello, David. Good to see you. Nice to see you in here. Um, Devin, you just got blocked from Sam Sherman's channel. Sam Sherman, you mean Sam Shimoon? I'm sorry to hear that you got blocked from Sam Sherman's channel. Seamra. Okay. What are we talking about here? We are talking about justification, my friend, and you are very welcome. Would love to hear what you think about it. ML Williams, actually, faith is trust in God that naturally compels the human to act. Praise the Lord. Samra, Tommy is showing his justification. Okay. ML Williams had to run. God bless you, my friend. May the Lord bless you. John, hello. Glad you're here. Anyone have the link to the debate? Yes, I can put that in there. Um, if you go to needgod.net and um and search for "Intense Debate on Faith and Works," I believe is what it's called. "Intense Debate on Faith and Works." And we're going to watch some more of the of the clip with Ryan here in in a minute. Not not not too much more because I want to make some time for if if anybody wants to to join me and talk a little bit. Um, okay. So, let's go back and watch a little more of of our debate here.

"Quite a lot. Like, is that your background or is that what you've been influenced by?"

"No. Um, I think I think there are some things that Catholics grasp a little bit better than a lot of Protestants. Um, but but but my my background was was sort of a like a Calvinistic non-denominational. I I listen to Tim Keller a lot. Um, he was probably the most influential person to me. Then reading the Gospels, you know, there was there was back in 2015, I was reading the Gospels and looking at what Jesus said and becoming very concerned and confused because he says a lot of things that, you know, if I had heard someone saying these things and maybe they said them a little bit different, so I didn't I didn't uh recognize them as Jesus as having said it, I probably would have corrected them. I might have even accused them of heresy. And a few months later, I read but but I read I read the Gospels myself and nothing in what Jesus ever taught goes against the idea of faith alone is how you made right before God trusting God's promises."

">> Yeah. Well, I I was seeing a lot of things in the Gospels that, side note, prior to this period of my life, I also could read the Gospels and not not be challenged by anything Jesus said. For the most part, there were certain things that bothered me a little bit, but for the most part, I had learned a way of interpreting what he said in a way that that fit with my grace alone, faith alone idea, which was basically Jesus is trying to crush us. You know, Jesus is trying to show us we cannot do it. And so everything he said, I filtered through that lens. But then I started thinking a little more about some of the things he said and realizing it doesn't it doesn't work. um, you know, some some of the things he says he says to his own disciples. uh, he he he explicitly, you know, motivates them in a certain kind of way that that it's like, do I really think he's playing mind games with them? Like he's trying to to tell them they can't do it, and his way of explaining that is to tell them they have to do it, you know? It's just like, and then some of the passages like Matthew 18, uh, Matthew 25, um, Luke 12, you know, where Jesus is explicitly warning his own people. It just, I couldn't make it work anymore. And, um, so, but before that, I was able to make it work. You know, it didn't. So, I just wanted to say that that was hard for me to reconcile with that. And a few months later, I started reading I started learning some more about church history and what it was like in the beginning. And I read a few of the uh, the works of people who knew Peter or Paul or John. And you look at the way they their perspective on salvation, the gospel is very different. You know, they're not Catholics."

">> But but notice that instead of going to the Bible, you went to people outside the Bible."

"Well, theology is changing because of that."

">> Yeah. Well, well, I was I was going to before that, you know, of course, we're all being influenced, right? So, before that, I was being influenced by Tim Keller and John Piper and, you know, guys like that. Now, I was like, okay, well, what did these guys who actually knew the apostles think? Because if if if there's anyone who should be able to, you know, tell us something something good, it would be someone who actually knew John. Not necessarily. >> I don't I disagree with that. The Galatians, they knew Paul really well. Paul preached there and the Galatians were going to heresy. >> So just because you may know or have listened to an apostle doesn't mean that you stay believing the truth or that you become some sort of authority that everyone should listen to. Instead, we've got the apostles' writings. >> We just go to the Bible and the Bible is very clear about how Abraham got made right before God. So just believe that. So yeah, this is uh not a compelling uh argument that that Ryan just made. He's first of all, it's not true that I had to go outside the Bible to start to start, you know, changing my view or to start having my view challenged. was actually reading the Gospels and uh and there were certain things that I had read in Paul's epistles that had made me very uncomfortable, you know, when I when I had my grace alone faith alone kind of perspective, but um, you know, Ryan's whole point that he just made there seems to be self-refuting because he's got he's got a channel, a YouTube channel that is devoted to helping people see his perspective, which is a perspective that is not going to occur to a lot of people unless they have someone explain it to them outside of the Bible. You know, it's it's like you there's a lot of people who who could read, they've read the New Testament over and over and it's never occurred to them that our obedience plays no role in salvation and that all you have to do is trust in the finished work of the cross. Um, and that's it. Like you you you would have to have somebody tell you that outside of reading the scriptures and then you go and you project that onto the scriptures. And I'm pretty confident that if if someone said, "Oh yeah, I was reading the Bible and I I thought I had to obey all this stuff." And but then I started listening to needgod.net and he helped me to see that it's really not about anything I do. And it's by faith alone. And I'm so I'm I'm sure Ryan would would not say, "Well, listen, uh, that that's not good. You know, you shouldn't listen to me. You should just listen to the Bible." you know, he would probably be be pretty happy with that kind of testimony, you know, and the reality is is that um all of us are being influenced by something outside of the Bible, you know, whether it be our pastor or our friends or somebody like Ryan neededgod.net. um, you know, the the the uh the popular Christian authors of today. For example, I used to read Tim Keller. I used to listen to him a lot. And people today are often very comfortable with that kind of thing. You want to read Tim Keller, you want to read John Piper, you want to listen to uh needgod.net, net. You want to uh listen to, you know, some of these popular popular preachers, you know, uh great. That's great. Listen listen to these guys, you know, and learn and and oh, but early Christians. Oh, I don't know. They're not authoritative, you know. They're not scripture, right? I mean, why do you have to read the early Christians? Just just read the Bible. It's like, what are people so afraid of? You know, I think a lot of people respond like that because they have they know enough about the early Christians to know that they're really going to challenge us and um that they're probably not on the same page with us about some important things and um, you know, I think people are often kind of kind of afraid about that. Um, it's sort of like, you know, there was a time where I was afraid to to dive into some of that stuff because I had the sense that these these guys who who lived, you know, right after the apostles or who knew the apostles, they're going to scare me, you know, they're going to they're going to they're going to challenge me in ways that I've never been challenged before. And um, that was really what was, you know, that that's what would have been behind you know, my like I might have made a point similar to this at at one point, you know, and that that's that's probably what would have been motivating it. Um, the other thing I wanted to say is that Ryan, you know, like he he makes the point that, well, the Galatians knew the apostles. It doesn't mean that um, you know, you could listen to whatever the Galatians say. And that that's absolutely right. That's that's a great point. And yeah, we have to be careful. Um, just because someone knew the apostles doesn't mean that that they're right about everything or or or anything, you know, but when it comes to some of these early Christian writings, you know, we're talking about people who were like installed by John as a as a leader um or who, you know, like was a a leader in the church of Rome shortly after Paul and Peter had been there, died as martyrs, you know, um, and they they quote the New Testament a lot. Um, they they they show good fruit, you know, and faithfulness, uh, from what we know of them. There's no reason to think that somebody like Polycarp or uh Clement of Rome or you know uh whoever wrote the u the apology uh of Aristades or you know, there's no reason to think that these guys were in the same category as the Galatians and that that's just I think a defense mechanism, you know, to to kind of for Ryan to sort protect himself from having to to deal with the reality that these guys don't agree with him on some on some important points. Although I know he would he would cherrypick, you know, he would he would find verses out of, you know, first Clement and, you know, that that that sound kind of like justification by faith alone if you just isolate it and don't read the rest of the um the work. Anyway, you know, if if we're willing to read books by guys like John Piper or uh uh listen to people like Ryan, you know, um and and or whatever, whoever whatever popular media or popular Christian author or or preacher that we like to listen to today, if we're willing to allow people like that to speak into our lives and teach us and and to some degree shape the way we think, I think think it makes sense for us to let our guard down and, you know, read these people who were leaders in churches that the apostles had recently planted. Um, you know, like let's let's let's be open to the possibility that if they say things that don't agree with us, maybe they're right, you know. Um, not not saying that we should elevate the early Christian writings to the level of scripture. Not at all. But I certainly think it makes sense to to allow them to to help us figure out how to rightly interpret the the New Testament. Um, and while being aware of the reality that they're not infallible.

"Okay, here we go. >> Here's here's here's what James here's what James says. He says, "Was not our father Abraham justified by what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" And then there it's referring to Genesis 22. So now there's there's three."

">> Justified in what sense? Justified in what sense? Before whom?"

">> Before God."

">> Because do you think No, it doesn't say before God though. James 2."

">> Well, the cont. >> Do you think that Abraham was not justified then in Genesis 15 or was he really justified?"

"I think he was. I think Abraham remained in right relationship with God by walking with him continuously in trust in obedience. It's a relationship."

">> That's not what it says. But that's not what it says in James 2. When it says in James 2:21, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works >> when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?""

">> Right. >> This is not saying he's remaining justified. >> This doesn't say that he's justified by the works."

">> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm bringing all these passages together, right? And I'm I'm looking at justification. I'm looking at"

">> So, just a quick quick observation here. We're we're both doing something. We're both projecting some language onto the text that is not explicit in the text. I'm saying I'm I'm bringing this together with Genesis 15 and Hebrews 11 and all the other stuff that we we've looked at about justification. And I'm saying here in Genesis 22, Abraham must have continued in right relationship with God. He passed another test and he his justifica his right relationship with God continued on. It doesn't actually say that. Ryan is saying that this is all about being justified before men. Nothing to do with being justified before God. And that's not explicit in the text either. He's he's taking that to the text. That's his theological commitment. And so we're we're both doing this, but he he doesn't see that. He doesn't see that he's doing the same thing I'm doing, only he's projecting something else onto the text. He's just projecting something different onto the text. At justification is a state of being that we enter into through faith. And faith involves an a willingness to obey God going forward. Right? And we remain in that right standing with him. Like Jesus says, "If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love." John 15:10."

">> So in verse 21, this is you've still made the assertion, "This is before God." The context doesn't indicate that this is before God, that Abraham was justified."

"Okay? It's in fact it makes clear in verse 18 we go up go back to 18. It says someone will say you have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works. So this is not about showing God anything. God knows everything without having to look at anyone's works."

">> But how do people know if I have faith or if someone has faith? Well, it's based on what the person does. So James is saying here, I'm going to show you my faith by my works. And so then in verse 21, we see Abraham doing exactly that. Him showing us his faith by his works. And so therefore, what does his works do? His works justify him in our eyes. We now see Abraham, you are someone who is justified. You are someone with great trust in God. Because look, when God told you to do something like that, hey, that's a that's a that's an evidence or vindication to us that that that Abraham was trusting the Lord. He was justified. And so that's what James is getting at. It's not talking about he wasn't right before God and now he's got to be now become right before God because he's now offering up his son Isaac on the altar."

"Okay. Well, the problem I see with that is that if you go to the beginning of the passage, it gives us the context. And it says, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can that can such faith save them?""

">> Right? So, someone who keyword says they have faith. So, they claim to have faith, >> but they don't have works. So, it's an empty profession. It's like, >> okay, >> they're claiming to be a Christian, but they aren't really. Can that kind of faith that isn't genuine save a person? Not at all."

">> So then how do I know if someone's like that?"

">> How can we know if someone's like that?"

">> Look at their works."

">> Sorry. >> How can we know if someone is in this category? A faith having a faith that doesn't save them."

">> Well, look at their works. So that's why someone's works justify them in our eyes. Not before God, but before the eyes of other people."

"Okay. So, so this was something that I I was talking about earlier in our discussion where Ryan now contradicts what he was saying before where he was saying you can, you know, you can have faith that produces works and it it doesn't mean anything, you know. Um, but now he's saying how do we know if someone's got real saving faith? Look at their works. And so how you know it seems like may maybe if he were here and he wanted to unpack what he meant a little bit more he could you know he could explain the nuance there and what he really means but it seems like there's a a contradiction there in his thinking. Um and uh yeah, kind of a problem. Okay. So, we're we're about to finish the uh the clip here and then we'll we'll show why Ryan has a big problem here with what he's saying. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just saying that the the context that's given to them is salvific faith, right? So, he's not he's not saying"

">> yes, he's making a contrast between a faith that saves and a faith that doesn't,"

">> right? >> But the works are not what determines whether you're saved or not. the works evidence whether you're saved or not, whether your faith is real or dead."

">> Yeah. I mean, Ryan, the passage explicitly says a man is justified by works and not by faith alone, >> before God or before man. You've just said, "Yeah, it must be before God." Give me anywhere in the context itself where it says this is justification before God >> in the beginning. Can can such faith save them? Salvation has to do with right standing with God. So it's not saying it's not saying justification um the justification in verse uh 21 and verse 24 and 25 of this chapter is before God. It's saying it's before man. That's why it's talking about salvation. >> That's why I showed you >> I agree in verse I agree. He's talking about two different kinds of faith. >> One one faith saves a living faith. Real faith saves. A dead one doesn't. How do we know if someone has the real faith or the dead faith? Verse 18 is the key. He's established the principle, I will show you my faith by my works. He then gives a practical example of Abraham how he was justified by works. So he was shown he showed his faith by his works and therefore he's justified in our eyes. And even in verse 23, James quotes the very passage that Paul quotes in Romans 4. It says, "The scriptures was fulfilled that says Abraham believed God and was counted to him as righteousness." So we see that James believes in justification by believing by faith, not based on works. Because this is from Genesis 15, 30 plus years before Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar. So, if he's already Canada's righteous here, does he need to get Canada's righteous again in 30 plus years later? >> Well, I think the most I think the most reasonable way to to bring all this together is is what I said before that justification is a state of being. It's a right relationship with God and we remain in it by walking faithfully with him like Abraham did. This is why we are born. Well, >> doesn't say that in the text. >> I have to go based on what the text says. I have I just have to go with the text because basically in essence you want to believe in this would be a worksbased salvation.

"Okay. So, so Ryan says, uh, let's go to James 2 here. And, uh, he says that, um, he says it's only it's only justification before man that James is talking about here. Um, the point I made was that in the beginning of the passage here, what good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but not works, can that faith justify him before man? No, that's not what it says. It says, can that faith save him? We are talking about salvation here. We are talking about our relationship with God, whether it is a right relationship or not. That's that's the context of this passage. And James goes on to say everything that he's about to say in the light of that question. What kind of faith saves someone? Not what kind of faith tells us that someone's justified or justifies them before man. Um, and Ryan makes the point, what what good is if if someone says he has faith as though that does something to to prove his case. But the point is that James James uh affirms that this person who says he has faith that he does have faith. He says, "Can that faith save him? Can that faith that this guy has can it save him?" And the answer is no. And Ryan goes on to ask the question, you know, um, well, was it before God or was it before man? Well, let's let's see, you know, because he he's making the point, well, this is how we know Abraham was justified. It's got nothing to do with God, you know. It's not it's not about God knowing that that that Abraham was was justified. It wasn't about being justified before the Lord. It was just for our sake. um, which is just seems to be a a crazy argument. But let's just lay this to rest here. Genesis 22, the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham um goes to sacrifice Isaac and starting in verse 10 there. When then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham." And he said, "Here I am." Then he said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him. For now I know, now I know that you fear God, seeing that you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." This is the angel of the Lord speaking. That is Jesus. And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place, "The Lord will provide." And it is said to this day, "On the mount of the Lord shall be provided." And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven. "By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies. and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because because you have obeyed my voice." He doesn't say Abraham now men know. I mean, who's there? What what man is there to to look at this and say the only person's there is Isaac. It's it's not about, you know, human beings being able to know something about Abraham. It's between Abraham and the Lord. Now I know, says the Lord. And so, um, yeah, I, uh, unfortunately didn't have the opportunity to present a lot of these things that I've been, you know, getting to comment on here as we've been watching this video. Um, you know, in the moment, it's it's hard to to, you know, it's it's hard to think think through this stuff in the moment when you're having a conversation like that. Um, but, uh, there it is. So, let's see. Uh, now let's let's open it up in case. Okay, John. Yeah, I know. He there there were times where he was uh not letting me talk and um yeah, kind of kind of hard kind of hard to have a good discussion like that. Um Sunny Starfacy, Sunny, what do you mean? How would you argue that it's not? Um, well, what do you mean by that? Chris Saddowski, I believe that God tested Abraham so Abraham knew he had faith since God knows people's hearts and knows the end from the beginning. All right. Um uh ex of Christ. What are they bickering about? Yeah, we were we were having a discussion about uh justification. I don't know if you ever watch neededgod.net, but I got on there one night and uh had a talk with him about justification. And John, this guy is practiced in rhetoric. Yes, he is very good at rhetoric. He is um he's good at what he does and he's very sharp. And you know when we when we go through the rest of the video, you'll see, God willing, when we go through the rest of the video, there's a couple times where, you know, he's got me in a little bit of a hard place and I have to um think about, you know, think carefully about what I'm going to say. Um then he claims that you are Okay. Not sure what you mean by that, John. Uh, then he describes Catholic doctrine to your beliefs. Yep. Yep. If you don't believe in faith alone, you must be Catholic or Orthodox. Um, Prophet Muhammad in Bible, Isaiah 42. Okay. From Arab Deuteronomy, prophet with a new scripture, Medina to defeat idolaters. All right. I am not talking about that tonight, but I would be willing to talk about that. Um, I mean, if you want to come on and talk about that, I'll probably just mostly listen because not too well-versed in that stuff. Uh, God is Jehovah the father ex of Christ. All right. Praise the Lord. Um, John, if you look for a little while or maybe Thomas will provide it. The debate is on Ryan's channel. Okay. So, let's Somebody else left a new comment. Um, what do we got here? Okay. Is that that it's saving them from Okay. Sunny says in that verse where it asks if it saves them. Okay. I'm sorry, Sunny. I'm not sure what you mean. Um, but now I'm going to share the link. Feel free to leave another comment clarifying Sunny. Now I'm going to share the link so that if anybody wants to to come on and talk, we can do that. And here it comes. Uh, feel free to join me someone if you want to. Okay. Sunny says, "Oh, okay. Does anybody want to come on and talk? Maybe there's somebody here who um maybe there's somebody here who watches needgod.net and you have some objections, you have some challenges, maybe you got an argument to present that I haven't heard and we'll have to think about. I won't know how to to respond. That could be maybe you want to talk about something else completely different that has nothing to do with any of this stuff. If anybody wants to come on, feel free. Sunny says, "What would you say if someone argued about the saving question verse that the verse means to save themselves from self-destruction on earth instead of eternal wrath of God?"

Okay, now I get what you're asking. Yeah, I guess I would just, you know, point to what the Bible is is generally talking about when it talks about salvation. It's generally um generally speaking about our relationship to God and whether we're in right relationship with him or not. Although there is there is nuance there. There's more to the story there. For example, um, you know, there are some passages in the Bible, in the Gospels, I believe, where someone gets someone gets healed by Jesus and um and Jesus says, "Your faith has saved you," you know, and he's just cleansed them or healed them in some way. Um, uh, yeah. And John, I don't know if if what you're talking about is that salvation in the Bible is generally salvation from sin. It's salvation from enslavement to sin. I think that's the primary um, that's the primary theme. You know, Matthew 1:21, "He will save his people from their sins." Um, yeah, salvation from the penalty of sin, that is a byproduct of the primary sense in which Jesus intends to save us, which is saving us from sin itself. He actually releases us from captivity to sin. Um, but I don't think it's wrong to talk about, you know, salvation from uh, you know, hell or or God's wrath or something like that. Um, but that's not that's not really what the Bible is primarily talking about when it's uh when it's talking about salvation. How many people we got? 21 people. Nobody wants to talk. You cannot be saved from sin if you remain in it. But say that you have faith in God. Amen. I concur. Anybody want to join? By the way, the guy sitting in back of me in my video with Ryan, that is Nicholas. Nicholas Duza. Don't know if he's watching right now, but we've got him. We've got him on video. He doesn't like that. All right. Well, it's not looking like we've got very many takers. Anybody want to talk? Christians will sin less. They won't be sinless, though. Well, I guess it depends. I mean, I've heard people say that before and um yeah, I think I think we just have to unpack what the Bible says about that. Um I think what is what is intended to happen, Chris? Chris uh is that we are supposed to be like when we come to faith in Jesus from a right understanding of the gospel uh and the response that it requires of us. You know, when someone becomes when their heart surrenders to Jesus and they are ready to take up their cross, what's supposed to happen is that they are radically transformed immediately. you know, they are ready to do whatever Jesus says and um they all of the addiction just washes out of their lives. All of the intentional disobedience washes right out of their lives. You know, guys who are beating their wives stop. People who are watching pornography tear themselves away from it and cease, you know, and they control themselves and they they fill their time with something else. Greedy people like Zakius uh give away a lot of their possessions or or or all of it or sell possessions and give to the poor and lead a simple, humble life, you know, and they're they're radically generous. Um, these kinds of things happen happen radically and immediately in our lives. Chris, you say you're right. We shouldn't make a practice of sinning, but even Paul struggled with sin after being a Christian. Yeah, I think that is is not the case. Um, Romans, let's uh so he brought up Romans 7 and 1 Timothy 15. Um, I don't believe Romans because Romans talks about a guy who wants to do the good, he wants to do good, but he can't. He keeps doing the evil, he doesn't want to do. And um if Paul is is still in that place where he just can't help himself and he just keeps doing the evil things he knows he shouldn't do um and just can't muster the the motivation to to do good um then we got a big problem because Paul could not meet the qualifications for a leader that he himself sets down, you know, being self-control, blameless, righteous. Um, and so let's um do do you want to come on and talk, Chris, or you don't have to if you don't want to, but let's just uh let's just look at Romans 7 and I'll come back and check the screen there to see if anybody's waiting to get in. Um, so Chris, um, now now just just to be just to be clear, Chris, I'm not saying I'm not saying that once, uh, once someone becomes a Christian that they're all of a sudden flawless, never have to confess anything, um, no weaknesses to work on. I'm not saying that, but I'm saying all intentional, willful, premeditated, like serious sin is gone. Addictions, those things can go right away. So, you're you're you're never going to, you know, it all that like, oh, I I know this is wrong. I know I shouldn't do it, but I just can't help myself. and a you know, or um, you know, I just I just can't help sleeping with that woman who's not my wife or um like all that kind of stuff goes away and we become obedient to Jesus teachings, but there there's also clearly a sense in which okay, now that we've become obedient, we we've been washed, we've been set free um And um uh, but we're still learning. We're still disciples, you know. We still have areas of our lives that we need to, you know, make uh, you know, they they still need to be molded more into the image of Christ, you know. But um, yeah, I I I the the like when when we get set free of sin, all the premeditated addiction, uh, you know, doing things you know are wrong because you just don't have the the power, the strength to say no. That goes right away. We don't have to do that anymore. It's not that a Christian cannot fall into that. Galatians 6:1 says, "If anyone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore them." It says, if it doesn't say it doesn't say when. You know, it's not inevitable. We have the power to walk in obedience and faithfulness and self-control and humility. And as we do that, we may we become aware of things that still need to grow. Like, oh man, I had the wrong tone there. That was kind of that was kind of uh, you know, that was kind of arrogant, I realize, or um, you know, I did did did something or said something or thought something and the motivation was wrong, you know, or um, I realized I was doing this for me and not for them. I was trying to do good work, but it was really about feeling good about myself, you know, like things like that. Yeah, we'll have to struggle with and um um and and work those things out. But there's no more slavery. There's no more, oh, I just I just can't stop drinking. I just can't stop watching pornography. I just can't uh I'm just a greedy person or I just love to shop and I just can't tear myself away from the mall. and all that stuff goes away or at least it should. A lot of people today don't get free like that because they're told that sanctification is a very slow process. And one example of, you know, the props of that way of thinking is this idea about Romans 7. Um, so let's just look at Romans 7 real quick and uh and then Sunny will go to first Timothy and talk about Paul being the worst of sinners. So you know the context of Romans is this issue in Acts 15. Do the Gentiles need to be circumcised and do they need to keep the Mosaic law to be saved? That is the purpose of this book that Paul is writing to a church made up of Jews and Gentiles. And he's making this case to the Jewish people that Mosaic law, circumcision in particular, is not necessary for justification and that the law could not free people. The law could not the law was impotent to bring about the kind of freedom from sin and transformation that only is available through Jesus in the new covenant. And so look at how, you know, keeping that uh context in mind, look at how um Romans 7 begins, "Or do you not know, brothers, for I am speaking to those who know the law." So it seems that he's addressing the Jews in the community or perhaps proselytes who had become Jews who had been, you know, gentile proselytes. And it's in that context that he goes on to to uh to say all this stuff that he says in Romans in Romans 7. So look, "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For for while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code." So it seems pretty clear that he's saying something radical has changed our lives. Right? Now here's where he, you know, the passage is a little complex because some of it is in the past tense and some of it is in the present tense. And it's those present tense um it's those present tense verses that you know make people say, "Oh, Paul must still be in this place of slavery where he can't say no to sin and keeps doing the evil he doesn't want to do and can't do the good he wants to do because look, it's present tense. Just hang on." Um, so he says, "For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment produced in me all kinds of covetousness." So this is past tense. Um, he seems to be describing his life as a Jew prior to knowing Jesus, right? What's it like to be a Jew under the law of Moses without the new birth, without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, without the gospel, the resurrection of Jesus, and all these glorious things that we have in the new covenant? The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. Um, so think about this. Once verse N once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Is that is that the experience of a Christian that when when they hear the commandment of Christ, they die? Is that what the new covenant produces in people? Death. No. He's talking about what is it like to be a Jew who's given this law but doesn't have the power to live up to it in a certain way. Right? That's what he's talking about here. Um and you know, we go through the passage and there's a transition where um he's in verse 13, he's still in past tense, "By no means. It was sin producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure." This is all this is all like preparation for the new covenant. you know, it's not describing the experience of someone in the new covenant. It's it's describing someone who who doesn't yet have that doesn't yet have what Jesus offers us. Um, okay. Now, here's where it gets weird. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am present tense uh of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law with the law that it is good. So it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me. Nothing good dwells in me that is in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. Really, the Apostle Paul does not have the ability to carry out good? How can that be? For I do not do do the good I want, but the but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Really, the Apostle Paul Paul who told people to follow his example and to be righteous and blameless cannot do good. How how can this be?" Um, so, so what what's going on here? Like why is he speaking in the present tense? Um, and like how do we make sense of that? And there's two two things that I think we need to look at. First of all, we need to keep in mind the first couple of verses of chapter 8. You know, Paul is an unusual writer. He writes in a way that is not straightforward. It's not easy to understand. You have to be very very careful here. He says, "There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Side note, some manuscripts add, "who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit." "For the law of the spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit." We're not in that Romans 7 place anymore. Now we've been set free and we the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us because we walk according to the spirit now. So why why is he using this language at the end of chapter 7 where he's he's uh, you know, he's got some stuff in the present tense here. Well, I think he's using a literary device. He's doing something very similar to what we do today without even thinking about it. You know, if I say if I say to somebody, uh, "So I sit down to breakfast today and my phone rings and this guy asks me a question, you know, um, okay, you just heard me say all that in the present tense, but you weren't confused, right? You weren't thinking, 'Well, I don't get it, Tommy. It's not You're not eating breakfast right now, and no one's calling you on the phone right now. Why are you speaking in the present tense?' You know that when I tell a story like that?" So, I sit down for breakfast, and my phone rings and this guy says to me this, you know, even though I'm speaking in present tense, that I'm talking about something that was happening in the past, right? And and Paul is doing something like that. You know, people people have have had those kind of literary devices and those kind of ways of telling a story. It's not just our culture that does that does that. And yeah, that that's that's it's that simple. Um I think Romans 6 and the beginning of Romans 8 uh forces us to understand Paul in that way and not that he is unable to meet the qualifications that he himself calls calls elders to meet. Um um let's see now. We were also asking about uh First Timothy, where is it? Um 1 Timothy 15, right? 1 Timothy 1:15. Let's just look at that real quick because that's another big big um that's another big proof text or you know, whatever for this idea that Paul Paul was just this wretched guy even as a even as a uh an apostle. Um, yeah. So here it is. "I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me"

To his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I receive mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the foremost. But I receive mercy for this reason that in me as the foremost Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

So reading this passage here, is it not pretty clear that the reason Paul calls himself the foremost of sinners is because of what he was formerly doing. That he was a blasphemer, a persecutor, an insolent opponent. You know, in Acts 26, Paul tells us some some something about what he was doing there. He was persecuting people, sending them to jail. Um he says he was forcing them to blaspheme. You know that they would interrogate people and torture them in some way in order to force them to blaspheme. Maybe maybe that's why Paul is is the worst of sinners in in his mind because of what he had been doing as as the most passionate persecutor of the church that there probably was, you know.

If we're going to say, "Well, Paul is the worst of sinners because of what he was doing as an apostle." Well, think about that. I mean, you better back that up. You know, if you're going to tell someone they're the worst of sinners, and you don't know what they're doing, that makes them the worst of What was Paul doing? What was Paul doing as an apostle that made him not just a sinner, but the worst of sinners? What was he doing? Was he sleeping with temple prostitutes after he got done preaching on Sunday? You know, did he get done teaching people and preaching the gospel and then go off and like commit some kind of heinous sin that's that I can't even, you know, say here because it would be inappropriate. Like, of course not. Of course not. You know, it's about it's about what he had been doing when he was a persecutor of the church. Sorry, I got a little excited there. Um, okay. Let's see what what are people saying here. Um, okay. So, let's uh Yes. Um Chris, yeah, sure. We it it includes our thought life and um yeah we have to gain control of our thoughts but Paul um Paul doesn't seem to be just confined to his thoughts there in Romans 7. He says I cannot do the good I want to do but the evil I don't want to keep doing I I keep doing it. You know um now of course yeah there there I'm not saying that there isn't some sense in which like we have some areas of our thought lives that we struggle to to to bring under under submission to Christ as Christians. Yeah, that's that's uh that's the most you know probably the most challenging part of this whole thing is our thoughts. But I think it's it's pretty clear when you look at the totality of um of Paul's teaching and his example that he did not continue as an apostle in a state of disobedience. I wish I could do good things, but I I just don't have the power to carry it out. Um, but you guys, you other Christians, you know, make sure that you're blameless and spotless and uh, you know, walking in humble obedience. Like, just doesn't make sense.

Okay. John says, "I would love if you dedicated a live stream having to do with Romans 7 and 8." Okay. Yeah. Well, hopefully I understand it well. Um, you know, some of that stuff is is is is complicated. You know, some some of the stuff in Romans you read it over and over and like what how exactly am I supposed to take that? You know, and um yeah, these are some of the most hotly debated uh passages in the Bible and I don't claim to have a perfect understanding of all of it, but uh Okay, how many people we got on here right now? We got 11 people. Does anybody want to join me? Anybody have a um anybody have a thought or a challenge or Yes. Romans is one of the book that Ryan memorizes from. Of course, a lot of lot of a lot of evangelicals are like that. It's got all the all the good proof texts, you know. Um just there's a lot of there's a lot of stuff in there that they that are very awkward, you know, stuff in Romans 8, Romans 11, um Romans 2 that basically have to be twisted and and misunderu and you know taken out of context in order to to make it work with the evangelical gospel.

All right. Well, perhaps the time has come to call it a night, unless somebody wants to come on and talk or has a question or a objection. Maybe I'll just give it the 10 second countdown. Oh, I should put the uh thing in here again just in case people don't see it. There's the link again if anybody wants to somehow there's a way to pin pin it. Somehow there's a way to pin that so that I don't have to keep um keep posting it. Not sure how to do that. Uh, all right. Well, if anybody wants to come on and talk, now's the time. If not, that's okay.

Okay. Neville Lob, my thoughts were he was talking about the weakness of the flesh, similar to how Jesus said, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." Yeah. Make sense? Um, yeah, there is some sense in which the flesh is weak. We have but there's we also just have to be careful you know not to lower the bar for ourselves because I think Paul's pretty clear that we're not in that place of weakness anymore. Um here's Romans chapter 5 says um therefore since we've been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God not only that but we rejoice in our sufferings knowing that suffering produces endurance and endurance produces character and character produces hope. Interesting that Paul says it's our growing character that produces hope. I would never have said something like that as a sort of Calvinistic evangelical because I never would have wanted to locate someone's hope in their character. I would always want to locate someone's hope in the cross and what Jesus did on the cross alone. Never say that our our endurance uh that our character produces hope. Um but that's how Paul thinks about it. And hope does not put us to shame because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. While we were still weak, implication, we're not weak anymore. We can lead, we can live a godly life of faithfulness and obedience to Jesus. And hello, John. Glad you're back. Um, we can live live a godly life of faithfulness and obedience to Christ that is pleasing to God. Do we need his mercy because there are still imperfections and things we need to strengthen up and things we need to learn and ways in which we need to grow? Of course. Yeah. But we're not weak anymore. We don't have to commit premeditated sins. We don't have to continue on in addictions or, you know, any blatant intentional sin. That can all wash right out of our lives. We're not weak if we have the spirit. Um, Amen. Chris, this topic know it's death to the old law of the flesh. Okay. Um, uh, Okoke, leave me. Am I saying that right? Why is Marcian wrong? Interesting question. Why do you ask that question, Marcian? Uh Marcian was um similar to Gnostics in a sense, right? And he was the one who basically edited out edited the New Testament and took out everything except Paul's epistles and like uh Luke and uh took away all the stuff about the judgment, right? Um, pretty clear why that was wrong. Okay, that's a good that's a good point. Neville Lob, not sure if I'm saying that right, but yeah. Uh, 1 Corinthians 15, uh, sown in weakness, but raised in power, of course. Yeah, good point. Good verse. Even in our um even in our redeemed, you know, empowered state as Christians today where we've been born again, we've been empowered by the Holy Spirit, we've been set free from sin. Uh there is still a sense that in which we're weak compared to what we will be um when we are in a glorified state. Absolutely. I'm not saying that there's that there's, you know, that we're impenetrable, that we're invulnerable, that we're incapable of sin or that there's no struggle anymore. I'm not saying that. But, uh, thank you for making that point. That's good point. Okay. Um, a coke a a coke, leave me, I guess that's what your your the name is here. I'm having trouble believing in the Old Testament God. Marcian seems to have a solution. What is the uh difficulty with believing in the Old Testament God? You're welcome to come come on and and and talk if you want to. Okay. Uh John says, "Is a person righteous by what they do? Yeah. Yes. Um, little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous as he is righteous. Now there's a sense in which what we do can never make us righteous. It's like if somebody is trying to do righteous things apart from faith in Christ, apart from a an obedient loyalty to Christ, then they will not succeed in the kind of righteousness that God is calling us to. They lack the power to carry that out. Um, and whatever good things that they're doing, it's not going to bring them to God. That's not going to bring them to justification. Um, it has to be it has to be that we are um doing these things out of loyalty to him. It's a relational thing. You know, it's it's it's something we are doing in response to the only true God. That's what that's what matters. But if someone's just trying to do good things as a way to justify themselves, um, feel good about themselves, self-righteousness, uh, or they have some sense that God's going to be in my pocket because I did this stuff, then of course that that gets you nowhere. Chris says, "John, a tree is identified by its fruit." Yes. Amen. Amen. Knowing God leads to self-control. Self-control leads to patient endurance. Patient endurance. Amen. Uh, a Coke, leave me any thoughts? I mean, I could just one thing, you know, you said you're having trouble believing in the Old Testament God. I I think like you know if if you if you read through the Old Testament carefully you'll see that the Old Testament God is quite quite patient and long-suffering and uh and loving and um uh he is a very patient gentle person. You said God in the Old Testament does bad things like First Samuel 15. Okay. 1st Samuel 15. Is that uh like slaughter of all the uh Canaanites or just look at what you're talking about here. Uh, 1st Samuel 15, right? Yeah. Yeah. In these passages where the Lord says to go and kill all of them. Yeah. I mean, I I think I think these are people. Okay. Chris says, "God commanded Saul to destroy everything, including people. It was a test of Saul's obedience. Saul failed. But also, you know, these these people that we're talking about, it's not like they were we're not we're not talking about uh like humble, sincere people who are seeking the Lord. We're talking about cultures that were depraved in ways that would probably be pretty shocking to us if we could see what they were doing. Um, and you know God God has the right to destroy his creation anytime he wants to however he wants to. Um, but notice you know a coke leave me notice that these are like when you look at the totality of the Old Testament um it's very clear that God has compassion and love for the Gentiles but there comes a time where people have you know crossed a certain line and he decides okay I'm going to pour out my wrath I'm going to punish these people I'm going to destroy this particular group of people and that sends a message to the rest of the people Right. Um, and that's a serious and sobering thing, but there's nothing there about eternal fire. Jesus is the one who starts talking about eternal fire. And and so if anything, the New Testament becomes even more even more serious, even more um scary in a way, you know. And um but God God has the right to kill all of us anytime he wants and he would be doing nobody any wrong because all of us have sinned against him and we require his mercy. And the fact that he allowed those Amalachites or Canaanites to to to live and to have an opportunity to to come to the God of Israel. I mean, we know from the Old Testament if anybody wanted to turn to him, he's not going to turn them away, you know. Um, but you know, when someone or a group of people continues on in depravity, pride, um, you know, uh, defying God. I mean, most of the time he just lets them go on and sends sends them rain and sunshine just like he sends rain on the uh on on the on the on the righteous. But sometimes he decides to um make an example of people and he has every right to do that. He's not doing anybody any wrong. Let me ask you this. Why did God uh allow Satan in the garden? Why didn't he protect Adam? Just make sure I'm not missing any important comments here. Okay. Uh um well, that's that's interesting. Like, you know, I that's a deep question. Okay, leave me. Um, I think okay, Chris says there are three types of will. Divine will, God's will for our lives. Uh, free will, no one wants to make anyone love them. And permissive will, the actions that are result of our free will. Okay. Um, okay. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I think uh what do I call you? Because a coke leave me is kind of uh you know kind of awkward. Um but I think it it was kind of inevitable that something like that was going to happen. God creates a world full of free creatures. Um they Mike Okay, nice to meet you Mike. Um, I mean, if these creatures are truly free, then they have the ability to to reject God's authority, to do evil, to turn away from him. And it I'm not sure it's even possible for there to be a world of free creatures in which that's not in which that's not uh even a possibility. And I guess you could make you could make the case that it's inevitable that it's going to happen at some point and that there would there would then need to be some kind of redemptive work done, you know, and that's what happened. One of God's angels uh became proud. Could have been somebody else, I guess. uh um, you know, I'm not too deep into this kind of really deep theology, but he became proud and he um, you know, poisoned the minds of a bunch of other uh these very powerful beings. And the first humans had this test, you know, where it's like, okay, are you you going to listen to God or are you going to listen to this person who's calling into question God's God's character? And it's important that they had that test or else there couldn't really be any any genuine relationship between them and God. They failed the test. We all we all then, you know, uh came under the power of the devil. And now there's this need for us to be redeemed. And you could make the argument that there's no other way. I mean, how how else is God going to produce a people who willfully willingly choose him over evil? You know, that's kind of the test that we have to pass. Like, are we going to are we going to put ourselves in the center or are we going to put God in the center? And are we willing to overcome you know, the temp that temptation? Okay. Uh John has entered the studio.

>> Hey Tommy.

>> Hello John.

>> Good to see you.

>> Good to see you too. Um I I had mentioned earlier that I was hoping that you might do a live stream uh involving Romans 7 and 8. Uh but it had to do with another doctrine. Uh and I I uh I realize that a lot of people feel as though we no longer are under the Old Testament. We're under the New Testament. But I don't believe that the New Testament erases the Old Testament.

>> Okay. You do not believe that the New Testament erases the Old Testament.

>> No, I believe that the law that we are dead to is the law of the flesh of sin and that that is crucified with Christ and then we have to be reborn in the spirit.

>> Okay. Okay. So I think that that is what convolutes when when that's convoluted when when it's mixed with uh what evangelicals believe is that uh is that you um that it's you basically don't have to follow the law that you're saved and once saved always saved.

>> Uh the idea in Romans 6.

>> I see where they get that but they're not really considering the verses before it.

>> I think 6 613 or 614. Yeah, 614. Uh, for sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace.

>> Right.

>> And I think that they're cherrypicking that without going a few verses earlier where it's saying that you have to crucify the old person that you were.

>> And and so that really is not works based salvation. That's repentance. That's turning away from sin. Rejecting sin because you're following the authority of God, not your own authority. And that's really what we what the whole Bible is about from the beginning to the end where where Satan in the Garden of Eden convinces Eve that her own authority of right and wrong could be equal to God's to where she could make decisions for herself. Look at this fruit. It's good to eat.

>> And I know now I'll be like God himself. And uh I think that that it's a dangerous misunderstanding to think that you don't have to follow the Old Testament. Uh the Old Testament includes uh the Ten Commandments. You can't you can't wipe it away. Uh, there's another uh uh there's another covenant uh having to do with with marriage and divorce in Ezra 9 and 10. All right? and Nehemiah uh 10 also where uh they had married that even the Levites had married wives that they were not supposed to. And so once they realized that they did some error after they were on their way back from the diaspora to rebuild the temple uh they realized that this could bring them into penalty again and punishment by God. uh they asked if they could if uh Ezra would petition God that to allow them to divorce their former wives or divorce their wives even with the children uh and divorce from them to restore their favor with God as an act of repentance.

>> Okay?

>> And uh and so that is a new covenant but that doesn't erase all the previous covenants. It's an additional covenant. Just because a new covenant has come along, it doesn't necessarily wipe away what's come before. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Okay. So, um, are you saying that like do you think that we're still under the law of Moses?

>> I think we're the the law of Moses is a mirror. It exposes how we are in error. Okay.

>> Uh and and and in that regard, if we will crucify the old man that was living by the flesh ex which is exposed by the Old Testament. I mean, because if if we don't follow the Old Testament, we can't make we can't correct our behavior. The Old Testament gives us examples that lead us to correcting our behavior by their examples.

>> Okay. But

>> Yep. Go ahead. Go ahead.

>> I was just I'm sorry. I didn't mean to overstep you there, but I just didn't feel like we can o really devalue all of the stories that explain the penalties for disobeying God where God over and over again try to draw the uh Israel to him and they kept rebelling against him. If we say that this is inconsequential, we might just only follow the New Testament and not follow the Old Testament and not see that as authoritative. If you my meaning.

>> Yeah. Don't you think that? Okay. Well, okay. I have two two questions or two questions or points or my my conviction is that everything we need to know about how to live a life that is pleasing to God as a disciple of Christ is contained in the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. And if we listen to Jesus um and follow his example, then we we will automatically fulfill, you know, the ten commandments and all of the moral principles that are taught in the Old Testament and we'll go way beyond it actually. Um I think

>> I I agree with you. Okay. But I I this I still think the value of of the Old Testament is critical to understanding who Jesus is. If Jesus is God, then he is the same God

>> that that that spoke to Adam and Eve in the garden.

>> We can't

>> we can't uh he's the same God who said I would have gathered you uh as under my wing as as as chicks. uh he we have to understand that he is constantly trying to save people and if without that context we have no fear of losing that relationship with God. Uh so focusing on Jesus, the entity of of Jesus alone as not just the as as only Jesus and the son of God only that that really downplays his role as the father and and the Holy Spirit as well. It only focuses on his human condition of of being Jesus of him being born into humanity and that he is our earthly king because he's born into humanity. But we have to accept that he is he is the lord of righteousness because he's our creator not just Jesus incarnate you know incarnate.

>> Yeah. Uh, okay. There's lots of uh there's a number of different uh topics being brought up. Um, but the one that I uh was thinking about a few minutes ago was just like like the need to to to to be careful with how we use the Old Testament and the Old Covenant because I think we could go in one of two ways. um we could make one of two mistakes. We could either fail to meet the uh um the expectations of Jesus which are quite a bit quite a bit higher than anything Moses had asked or commanded. Um and how do I want to say this? And we could not just not just fail to meet those expectations but also end up doing things that are like totally unacceptable in the new in the new covenant. you know, for example, uh polygamy, divorce and remarage, uh just slaughtering people, you know, like like all of these different stories throughout the Old Testament where um righteous people who were right with God, you know, just put their enemies to the sword sometimes at the command of God. And you know some if someone isn't careful they could use those stories in the wrong way as an example for them to follow. But so just need to be careful with with how it

>> we hear very often where people say that they can't follow a god who would kill all of these innocent people, innocent children and animals. But the thing is is God is excising wickedness from from the land of the Canaanites,

>> right?

>> He's you can't take the viewpoint as a as a human. We cannot apply our our human idea of empathy saying that these are people who are innocent. They weren't innocent.

>> Of course. Of course.

>> Were not innocent.

>> Yeah. Let me let me just clarify what I'm saying. I'm not saying God did anything wrong. I'm not saying those people who who killed the Amalachites did anything wrong. The point is not like it was good that God commanded those things. It was good that they obeyed him. It was bad that Saul didn't go through with it and kill the king too. Um, and God can destroy all of us and it would be he would be do doing us no wrong. But the point is that in the new covenant that is forbidden. I am not even allowed I am not even allowed to fight my enemies if they attack me let alone let alone slaughter them when they're defenseless like the king of what was the Moabites or the you know whatever it was when Samuel killed him. I mean that that is totally uh unacceptable to to Jesus in the new covenant even though he commanded those things at one point.

>> Yes. That they served their purpose as

>> and the example did not have to keep being that

>> what was that

>> that example did not have to continue being perpetuated. In other words, he didn't have to keep having them kill people over and over again. These things were examples for us to learn from. uh just like you you and this is not scriptural but you hear people say that uh you know a smart person learns from mistakes but a genius learns from someone else's mistakes and God is showing us the mistakes of the past through the old testament and this is where it's valuable where the old testament is demanding action the law of Moses demands action Jesus is demanding intention he is he is calling you out for your motivation. He's calling you out to to be righteously motivated according to what is right, what he says is right. Not what your desire says is right. Not because you want to be happy, not because you desire this or you desire that. But you have to use his righteous measure of what is and what is not righteous and follow that. That's the higher level he's bringing us to. And not just the the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well, everyone. And without the example of the Jews failing miserably at times, he would never give up on them. And that again is an example for us that he will never give up on us. He wants us us to be saved. He is giving us plenty of time to be saved. He's he's not destroying everyone even though there's there needs to be an end to sin eventually. There has to be. He doesn't want sin to to to exist forever and people to continually die. You know, he wants an end to that. And that's why he died for us to end it. But he's giving people time. This is the grace. Just like when you when a bill is due and you're given a grace period, we're living under the grace of God where he's giving people time enough to repent

>> and for the remission of their sins through repentance. Because what remission of sin is there without repentance? But this is a gift from God. Unless we have the knowledge of God put into us, then we have no need to repent. We if we don't believe in the authority of Jesus Christ through the Old Testament, how are we supposed to follow him or have any fear in him?

>> Okay.

>> That's that's really my point with that. that I think that very often in in Romans it's misunderstood that the the law itself that the Old Testament has to be forgotten about that it doesn't apply that you only need to be New Testament centric.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think it's also important to um to to see that Paul's Paul's talking about the things that were specific to Jews. you know, he's not saying that all of the stories of faithfulness of God's faithfulness or of the faithfulness of people like Daniel uh and and David and Abraham are now irrelevant or that um certain moral principles are now, you know, um uh obsolete like care for the widows and the orphans. But he's saying that the the uh the law of the Torah, you know, which was specific to Jewish people to specific to the Israelites, you know, the things that they had to do that uh no Gentile would had to do and no Gentile would ever think to do. Like why would a gentile think, "Oh, my wife sat on that stool uh while she was menrating. I I'd better, you know, uh first of all, she's unclean till sometime this evening and there's a certain way in which I need to clean that thing or you know, whatever." Like like there was a law that was specific to Israel that that that starts with circumcision. And when Paul is, you know, when when when when the apostles and and and specifically Paul in his letters is talking about how circumcision is taken away, think what they're what that basically says is that the whole law goes with it. Not not in the sense that those moral principles are not relevant anymore. Some of those carry over into the law of Christ because Jesus repeats some of those things or he reaffirms certain certain things, right? But um anything in the in the Mosaic law that was um you know, something that that served as a dividing line between Jews and Gentiles, you know, the way they trimmed their beard and uh the way they had stuff hanging the tassels hanging from there and you know all that kind of stuff is over. You know,

>> I agree. But some of those things, some of the ritual practices were there uh to identify prophecy.

>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sure.

>> You know, so without the Old Testament and focusing on that, we we lose that. And did Christ say that he abolished the law?

>> No. He came to fulfill it.

>> So the how can anybody say that the that the law is dead or we should be dead to that law when he's fulfilling that law? What what was he preaching?

>> Well, I think yeah,

>> uh

>> resurrection

>> or gospel. Did Jesus preach? Because he preached repentance and remission of sins. That really is the gospel. Is is being reborn an absolute part of that? It's key. Being dead to the law and being resurrected in the spirit is the key of the gospel.

>> Okay?

>> But he lived that out as our example, you know, and and we're meant to follow that metaphorically, you know,

>> is what I'm saying. But uh but obviously the if if Jesus is saying he did not come to abolish the law, why would anybody think that it should be?

>> Yeah. My my understanding is that when he says he came to fulfill the law, he he meant he's come to perfect it or to complete it or to fill it up to the top. You know, like he's he's going to give them something in place of what they had. That is the full final revelation of God's righteous expectations for his people. And there are two things that that were involved with that fulfilling um or that filling up. One is that certain things that had served a purpose uh up until that point were no longer necessary and are being taken away such as circumcision and all the stuff that is specific to Israel. But then certain moral principles and expectations are going to be raised and Jesus is going to call us to something that Israel was never expected to do. A level of love for neighbor and enemy and spouse, a level of generosity, a level of purity of mind that um the Israelites did not have the power to live out. Um, and they didn't have Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say you just reminded me of something that you brought up earlier in in um in your discussion about your video uh experience with Ryan is um the lens the there's there's a a a lens of presupposition that the Pharisees had and that the Sadducees had obviously when they came to Jesus and they questioned him looking to trip him up because they were also masters of rhetoric. Right? They were lawyers. Uh and and the scribes, Pharisees were experts in the law and they were trying they they were practiced in debate and argumentation and they knew what they were doing when they were coming to him with this question with their questions. But of course, Jesus is a lot smarter than we are. and he was able to uh flip it back on them asking them the questions and putting them on the defensive instead of instead of him being on the defensive when they questioned his authority. Who taught you who gave you your authority to teach these things and to say these things? And then he says, "Well, I'll ask you one thing. What where did John get his authority? Did he get it from from God or did he get it from man?" So really it's the it's the lens that the Pharisees had. Their interpretation was false. It was polluted by Babylon. The that that trip they took for 70 years in the diaspora had a pronounced effect on them when they returned. And uh and even the language changed. No longer were they using the PaleoHebrew, but they were using the square script. Was a was a hybridization of the PaleoHebrew and Aramaic. Aramaic is not the language of Israel of the first century. We would know that if all of the writings probably weren't destroyed in 70 because of the destruction of the temple or when John Herkinus went to uh to uh also start a rebellion. I think it was in 128 and they put that rebellion down too. All of the Caesars were were forbidding people from speaking the Hebrew language and destroying all of their writings, not just of Christians, but of the Jews. There were two Jewish wars that Josephus writes about in 90 AD and and they were put down harshly. They destroyed the temple to where there was not one stone standing upon another. They wanted to erase them and erase their their religious authority to rebel. So this is the reason why that it's assumed that Aramaic was the first century Jewish language when it if you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls are 80% Hebrew. They're only% Aramaic. So the assumption shouldn't be that Aramaic was their language. So uh what I'm saying is that the Jesus was correcting the lens of the Pharisees saying it was 11 that you should not be you should not be paying attention to the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees which inflated the the scripture with their with their ideas. This is like the same danger of reading a study Bible and reading all the marginal notes and having it affect how you interpret what you're about to read. Uh and and I think that it unfortunately that's church be a danger in that regard.

>> What was that? What was that you cut out there?

>> I'm sorry.

>> You you cut out for a second. Can you repeat that last sentence? I was saying that the church authority can also be a problem sometimes in the sense by creating creeds and uh and professions of faith that uh that they just assume that the congregation is going to abide by because they've uh rung it out of the scriptures. Uh I mentioned before the word interpolation and you had asked me what it meant and as you mentioned earlier where you're you're putting something on the scripture that that you're going further than what the scripture says. That's what an interpolation is. It's you're you're inflating it. You're adding more to the text than what it says.

>> Okay. uh and and uh can't help but do that because I guess of the the transition from from the original languages into modern English or any other language uh you're going to uh have a slight misunderstandings here and there. This is why we should always refer to more than one translation, I would assume. I don't know if you agree with me there, but I

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I think that's wise. Yeah. But uh church leadership that was questioned by Ryan to you earlier. Who what church do you belong to?

>> Right.

>> What are you being are you being led by a by a pastor? Are you are you being led by somebody as though that's a necessity that the Holy Spirit can't lead you? That there's no that there has to be a veil. Somebody else has to sneak behind the veil and get the interpretation and then deliver it to you for you because you can't possibly understand it. That's a phariseaical attitude. You and at least that's and I think that's what Jesus was telling the Pharisees is that you were wrongfully interpreting the word to people.

>> It's not that the words themselves from the Torah are wrong. It's how they people

>> and came along with some presuppositions. uh just like when we talk about marriage and divorce and people the first thing that I hear most pastors talk about is Shamai and Hel

>> right

>> Shami is not mentioned in the Bible at all this is only helmet and hell is mentioned but only briefly uh and really the the word hell uh it means Lucifer also in my King James version that's how it's is relayed by by the way. But hell and Shia, Jesus was not weighing in on which one of them was correct. The there was a presumption that adultery was the allowable reason for divorce to both those phariseical schools, not just one of them, but they both assumed that adultery at least was the righteous thing to divorce somebody for. and Jesus correcting them saying that that's not the presumption but it's fornication. Okay. And fornication uh is a Latin word and the Greek word is porna. All right. U and this if it was only adultery, how could Esau be of being fornicator?

>> Can can you say that again? You cut out again a little bit. Esau is referred to as a fornicator.

>> Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah.

>> Now, if Esau is a fornicator, what adultery did he commit?

>> Right. It was a lack of uh of uh he had a lack of uh he held this God's blessing with a lack. What good is some faroff blessing that doesn't mean anything to me uh in the future? What good is that for me if I'm starving right now? Thinking about prioritizing his flesh for the moment even though he knew he starve to death. But he went he g he flippantly gave away his blessing. And I I wrestled with this because I wondered why is Jacob blessed in in defrauding his brother like this and taking advantage of him. And of the two of them, only one of them valued God's blessing. That it was Jacob. It was important to Jacob. He knew the value of it where Esau didn't care. He cared first and that's what made him a fornicator. And that can involve adultery, but it's not specifically adultery. I don't think that sexual immorality is a correct definition of of the word porna or a correct translation of it rather. I think it's a matter of indifference to God's word. Indifference to God's opinion, if you understand my meaning. Not treating it as though it's of any value. Okay. You think that that's what porna is.

>> Yes. And so that can encompass an awful lot of behaviors. When you don't treat God with importance or his word with importance and you value your own opinion above his, I believe that's fornication, especially when his word's been given and you know it. That's what really be listener.

>> Okay. Well, that's uh yeah, maybe something we should talk about on the phone sometime or something else. I can understand your your perspective a little bit better. Um, yeah. Sorry, I don't have anything very very profound to say in response to that. Yeah, I kind of gone off topic a little bit, but it's it's the authority of the Old Testament is what I I was I was uh starting out with that in Romans where where people feel as though you should not have to uh depend on the Old Testament and its regulations uh that save you, that faith alone saves you. But, uh, again, I've heard you say this before on some of your podcasts or, uh, or your videos that, uh, what are you being saved from? What is God saving you from? He's saving you from sin. He's saving you from sin that leads to death. And, uh, he's not just saving you from penalty. What point is that? If you have a child and you just excuse their bad behavior, what do they learn from that? Mhm.

>> You know, are you How do you not their behavior?

>> Yeah, they need to be right.

>> Go ahead.

>> No. Yeah, they need to be rehabilitated, you know, not just not just

>> some chastised harsh. And God loves, you know, if he if if he didn't chastise you, it would not be a sign that he loves you to just let you run rampant and and be your own demise and be your own enemy to your own people and to your own family uh to the rest of the world. You know, what loving father would allow their child to be a spoiled brat?

>> Yeah, of course. Okay. All right. Went on and on forever, Tommy. You've been very patient with me. I appreciate it.

>> Yeah. Well, thank you for your thoughts and um yeah, some of what you said. Uh maybe we can maybe we can text or talk about it sometime so I can understand your perspective a little more. It sounds like like uh you've got a different view of some things and yeah, we should have a have a discussion sometime about it so I can figure out what exactly you mean.

>> Okay. Well, I mean, as you can see that that in some ways we're like-minded where we question established doctrines and their origins and where are they really based on scripture or is this into the scripture wedged in you know, to limit.

>> Okay. Okay. Well, um, someone just put up a very interesting comment in response to what you were saying there that I think would be good to respond to. I don't know if I should respond to it. Here's the comment. God did God did allow for divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1, though he hated it. Malachi 21:16. And adultery is an acceptable reason for doing it. Matthew 5:32:19.

>> Uh, does it say the word adultery in Matthew 532?

>> That's a very good question.

>> It it doesn't. We already know there's a you know, this is again where we're we're interpolating something. We're adding something to the scripture. It also doesn't say the innocent party. I had a discussion with my pastor who pointed to that very text and said, "It says right there that the innocent party has the right to remarry." And I looked in my Bible and I was like, "Look, I have several translations here." And I and then he directed me to uh he went from 5:32 to 19:9 and and then to into first Corinthians uh 15 and telling me that it's you know that the bond is broken if somebody leaves. Uh and really none of those things said that the innocent party has the right to remarry. But he claimed that they said it in all of them. But this and then he eventually said that it was in And that in itself, isn't it? What we think?

>> Um, so Chris is is continuing to respond. He says it says adultery in the English version. Are you sure about that, Chris? What version are you reading? I think that's the New Living Translation. I think that it does. It may say it in one particular translation. Somebody had told me about it before, but I just don't know.

>> Chris says KJV. KJV. Really? Let's

>> Yeah, we should look. It doesn't say that in mine. Uh, okay. Matthew, Matthew 19, KJ V. Okay. King James version, Matthew 19:9, King James Version. It says, "And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication." So, it doesn't say except it be for adultery, but for fornication. And in more contemporary versions it'll say sexual immorality um or something like that. So what what were were you thinking about this part of the verse uh Chris where it says adultery in in the in the second in the next uh line or whatever. See what Chris is is saying here. Uh oh. Okay. Uh it actually says fornication. When I looked it up online with a different translation, it said adultery. Okay. Um, yeah. So maybe I mean people um understandably, you know, assume that sometimes. I don't think it's like completely unreasonable to think, well, we must be talking about an unfaithful spouse. But it doesn't say that. And there's a problem with that. Um, because if um if he's talking about an unfaithful spouse, then the more specific sin would would be adultery. It would make sense for him to say whoever whoever uh divorces his wife except for adultery and marries another commits adultery. But he says except for fornication. And so, um, it seems that he is, well, you know, like he could be thinking of a more broad category than the specific sin of a wife who is cheating on you. And this is this is one of the uh, you know, one of the really

Amazing, you know, um, things that that that need to be understood about Matthew 19:9. We can't really. The truth is that we can't know for sure what this verse is saying. Um, there's like five or six interpretations I've heard of it. Uh, a friend of mine knows that there's knows of 10 different ways you can understand this. And we don't even know how it read in the original Matthew because the earliest uh manuscripts we have have it reading like Matthew 5:32. And even that has some ambiguity to it. So, yeah, in Hebrew possibly, uh, there's a even that referred to having translated from uh Hebrew Matthew in the library of Alexandria, and other early church fathers mentioned uh that he copied from the from that manuscript. So, not to say that those are authoritative or those are scriptural themselves, but they are early church fathers and we shouldn't just discount.

Yeah. In the NABR, which is a fairly recent translation, and even though this is commonly used by Catholics, and again, at the risk of being called a Catholic, which I'm I'm I don't subscribe to Catholicism, but this particular uh translation says that it's uh it's for the cause of unlawful marriages. Yeah, divorce would be available for because of unlawful marriages, which makes sense to me. And I think that when Jesus is is talking to the Pharisees about their misunderstandings of scripture and and they're putting, I think that they were allowing for divorce is one of the primary things, which is why we see in the gospels that this question about marriage is brought up to Jesus. I think it's critical and where he corrects them and draws them back again to Genesis and and the original purpose of marriage.

All right. I think that I think that I think that it's pivotal uh the destruction of marriages by allowing for various different reasons uh like supposedly Hell was allowing for if somebody burned your toast or your wife insulted your your mother that you could divorce her. That kind of of a of easy divorce has become the commonality nowadays where all divorce, it's not that I think that people shouldn't be shouldalized because they cheat or take their kids away or anything like that, but it shouldn't be discounted. Not it's not something isn't wrong. Cheating on your spouse when you've made an oath to them is wrong. It's the only thing in court that you don't get penalized for. If you if you lie in court, you get in trouble for a lot of different things. Uh, and and for doing overtly wrong, you get penalized all the time for adultery. To just, you know, yes, I made an oath yesterday, but why should I be held to it today? And in in Matthew 19, it goes further telling you that that the importance of that that that the importance of what of an oath of which I we all understand when we make the oath that we're for life. I don't think any of us foolishly goes in and says, "Well, this doesn't work out. I'm out." You know, if I don't if I don't feel the same way towards them in five years, I'll just get a divorce. I don't think majority of us go in that way. We all expect it to last for the rest of our lives. That's why we get married.

Yeah. Well, um, Chris, I just want to make sure it's clear what, uh, what John was saying about, um, fornication and the the the Bible translation that he mentioned, the the the way the way we can understand Matthew 19:9. One one one way to understand it that makes a lot of sense and harmonizes with what Jesus says in Mark 10 and Luke 16 and and Matthew 5, which forbid remarriage without exception, um, is that what Jesus is saying is whoever divorces when he says except for sexual immorality, um, he's saying whoever sends away his woman unless he should not be married to her in the first place and and and and his his relationship with her is sexually immoral. So, for example, if a man is in an adulterous remarriage, or if he is in a polygamous marriage, or if he is in some kind of incestuous marriage, you know, these could be considered sexually immoral relationships that and he's not allowed to be married to that woman. And so Matthew 19:9 is saying in those cases where the marriage is sexually immoral, a man a man for just one second.

Deuteronomy 24. This would be the uncleanness that you find with a woman. If you look at the phraseology in in uh Deuteronomy 24, it doesn't say that he found an uncleanness in her. The word ba is translated as in. It doesn't have a meaning. It's just aive word. In other words, he found uncleanness with her. So if finding an uncleanness with her, meaning you didn't know previously that that she was related to you closely, or you didn't know that uh that she was a Moabitete, let's say, and you're supposed to marry a Moabitete. He didn't was unlawful to marry her and now it's discovered now we should separate as an activity. That's how. Right. And I think understood by the Pharisees so they could make a concession to allow for broad spectrum divorce for the elite.

Okay. Interesting. Interesting. Yeah. I never I'd never uh thought of Deuteronomy 24 in that way. That's an interesting way to think of it. But, um, yeah, so, uh, um, does that make sense? Chris, what what we're saying that Jesus is saying in Matthew 19:9, whoever divorces his wife, unless he shouldn't be with her because it's a sexually immoral relationship for for one of several reasons. And so, you know, if a man if a man divorces his wife because he shouldn't be married to her, and you ask him, "Why did you divorce your wife?" He could say for sexual immorality, right? According to Matthew 19:9. So that's that's the interpretation that he's talking about, uh, if I understand him correctly. And that's that's what I think is a really it's a very good way to understand the the exception clauses of both Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 that bring Jesus teachings into harmony because then you don't have him contradicting himself where, um, you know, he says in one passage, no remarriage without exception, and he says that in front of a crowd of people, for example, Luke 16. Well, then you go to Matthew 19:9 and you if you are interpreting it the way they teach you to interpret it in, you know, evangelical churches, then now you have Jesus allowing certain people to divorce and remarry. And so the teaching of Mark and Luke is dangerous and misleading because it leads people to the wrong conclusions. Um, but on this on this interpretation, it's all in harmony. There is no there is no exception for remarriage, um, and uh while while your first lawful spouse is alive.

There is one other point I wanted to make if I could, uh, remarrying your first spouse where it says that you cannot, that would bring sin upon the land. If you divorce somebody because you found an uncleanness in her and then she goes off and becomes another man's wife and he divorces her, then you cannot take that woman back again. And with the understanding that I have of Deuteronomy 24, if you've established that she was ineligible for you to marry her and it would be sin for you to be married to her because she is closely related to you, let's say, uh, then she would still be closely related to to you and that that that sin would still be there if you were to try to rejoin with her after you've exposed that. That's what take her back again. But if somebody committed adultery and they repent, how couldive that person? In fact, you and I have both wrestled with that question when we were we were talking about this logically following the logic. Whether or not the shepherd of Hermas, who says that it would be wrong of you not to take her back. It would be a your your mic is is something's wrong with the mic for some reason. You're breaking up a lot. Not sure.

I'm sorry. Hold on one second. Let me uh put my headphone on. It might be helpful. Oh, okay. Is that any better? I think so. Okay. Uh, I was just bringing up that with with regard to the shepherd of Hermas, as we've discussed before, that even though that's not scripture, uh, he's still an early uh an early father, I guess you could say. All right, he's expounding on scripture and he was saying that it would be wrong of you not to be forgiving of someone who commits adultery and take them back, and that it would be a sin not to take them back because we expect forgiveness from God when we make a mistake. And if someone were to earnestly turn from sin, how could we not forgive them? You know, and if we are married for life, uh, should we not consider that? Uh, in my opinion, and I and I think I've told you before, I've been alone for 11 years now since my divorce. Uh, and, um, I I can't in good conscience. I I can't uh involve myself with somebody else because of my beliefs. Not that's not making me be um uh a works-based salvation type of person, you know, where I believe I'm earning my way into heaven. I'm just trying to be obedient. I I'm not trying to beat anybody else over the head with my my thought processes, but I'm asking only that people test their their beliefs according to what the scripture actually says and not what may have been inflated into it. You know, where there may have been some church fathers that have that have uh added some leaven, you know, uh like with the Westminster confession of faith. I think we may have brought that. I don't want to be all over the map with you, but with regards to marriage and divorce, the Westminster confession of faith in 1647 accepts the idea of Erasmus, who was a humanist, saying that he didn't think it was fair for somebody to stay in a marriage that was unhappy and that God would want people to be happy. And so they took that idea and accepted it because they assumed that he is an authority on the language. He's the one who wrote the the uh Greek translation. So he must know. So they're relying on his authority and not the Bible itself, if you understand my meaning. And the Westminster confession of faith, that's considered authoritative to the Protestant churches in America, the the PCA. So they accepted the Westminster confession of faith as as doctrinal.

Yeah. Well, um, to be honest, I'm a little distracted by some of the comments that are coming in. I don't know if you've seen some of the things that people are saying, but.

I can't see any of the commentary, unfortunately. Oh, can can you not see what's go what's up on the screen there? I only see our images currently. I see that there's a I'm using my phone, so it's the. Let me see. I think I'm going to have to probably later when you complete your. Your uh. Okay. Well, video segment. Yeah, if if it's okay. I think, um, is it okay if I address some of these comments and. Please please look if I am in error someplace and somebody wants to point something out or or can correct me in some way then. No no no that's not what I mean uh there's uh somebody making some interesting comments uh they appear not to agree with us that Jesus is the son of God and Um, yeah, I thought I should make sure I I respond to them. Um, but I I wasn't disagreeing like I I wasn't saying that about anything that you were you were saying. Um, maybe maybe sometime maybe we should address this uh maybe like next week or some some week soon could talk about the exception clause and um the problem with the way people tend to understand it today. Um, yeah, but right now somebody said how. How is someone else's consensual relationship hurting me? It's not. Yeah. Well, he starts. Hurting me directly. Yeah. Um, your name is 6M Gross, and you're saying, "Is this reviewing a debate about what some guy pretending to be the son of God, the son of man, and the promised Messiah said 2,000 years ago?" And then, why should I care what some guy said 2,000 years ago about what people can do with their in their consensual relationships? Uh, Chris says six certain things hurt us though. The Bible speaks out against fornication, which can be destructive against our bodies. Sixom Gross says, "How is someone's consensual relationship hurting you?"

I have a quick answer to that. Okay. If uh if this person uh has consensual sex with a 12-year-old, does that make it okay? Interesting question. I suppose you could also have consensual sex with someone who's not in their right mind or. Or a farm animal. If a if a farm animal does not uh protest in any way, does that make it okay? Yeah, that's a good question. This is a matter of should you have any boundaries outside of your own? That's that's the question they're asking. And why do I care whether or not they have boundaries? Yeah. It's this is a this a much larger question, you know. Well, um, Sixum Gross, I guess I wanted to address your first, um, your first and by the way, if anybody else wants to come on, you're welcome to to do that. Um, but uh Sixum Gross, um, yeah, you made the the first comment about some guy, you know, 2,000 years ago who claimed this and, um, I think there's there's good reason to think that there's good reason to take this seriously. Um, that, you know, Jesus claims to be the son of God and the son of man are not something that we should so easily just just brush off. You know, he's his his influence alone is uh enough reason for us to to to really consider like how how did somebody like this become so influential? How did they have such a massive impact on humanity? How did they predict the impact they would have? Because Jesus in certain places talks about the fact that his message will go out around the world. That people all over the world will believe in him, will believe his message. Um, um, and uh that many people will come claiming to be him. And he makes that he makes that uh that prediction about his own influence before he was really known outside of his own little region. And so when somebody says that something is going to happen, which is very unlikely to happen, and then it does happen, it's not a smoking gun that means it's definitely true, but it's something that should get us to stop and think, you know, and not just not just quickly brush it off. Okay, you're saying, did you prove he was the son of God to give these instructions to us? Did you prove he was the son of God to have the authority to give these instructions? Uh, no. I did not prove anything. I'm just making a simple uh point that I think is worth thinking about. You know, it's not it's not just preaching. I mean, this is a real historical person. His existence is very well um his existence is very well attested to from multiple independent sources. and he made certain predictions that that we can see came to pass, you know, and and the most impressive one, I think, is that he predicted his own his own influence. Um, and so all I'm saying is that it's something that's worth considering.

Um, Sixum Gross says, "So you are just listening to a guy from 2,000 years ago thinking he can tell us what to do." Well, I'm I'm persuaded, um, I'm persuaded by his life and his teaching and the evidence for his resurrection, um, that he is who he claimed to be. And I don't think it's such a crazy idea, you know, um, the idea that that Jesus of Nazareth was who he claimed to be is there's nothing there's nothing implausible about that. You know, like when you think about some of the other things people believe. Uh, for example, the universe came into being for no reason at all, just out of nothing. Or that we are living in a computer simulation, or that, um, uh, people may believe something like Hinduism, or or that God sent Muhammad into the world, you know, um, like these are not the idea that I'm not sure what you believe. Well, sit and cross, what is your worldview? What do you believe? Do you kind of lean towards atheism? Lifelike believes in Fent. I don't know what that is, but Sixum Gross, what do you believe? What is your perspective on reality? Uh, I do not believe in a god or gods. Okay. So, do you kind of lean towards atheism then? Um, yeah. I can't I can't prove that God exists like in in in in the in in a certain way. I can like I can't prove in a certain way that um that that that there was an architect who who built the building that I'm living in right now. Um, but I think I think that the most logical explanation for the existence of the building that I'm living in is that there was an architect. That that is the hypothesis, let's call it, that best explains the data that I have. And I think the same is true of of God. Yeah, we're in a universe just like I'm in the building. And the universe has uh, you know, a certain order to it and requires a certain kind of information and precision that is mind-boggling far beyond what is required for this building. And so I'm I'm making a logical case that there's a good reason to think that God exists. But I can't prove it to you any more than I can show you the person who who uh drew the designs for this building because I've never seen them. I don't know them. I don't know even know what their name is.

Tommy, can I interject something? Um, can you please ask this person or maybe I can ask this person. Uh, do they believe in any authority or do they just believe do as you will? do as thou wilt. Uh, and that you are your own authority and you get to do whatever you want without any kind of restriction. Or do you only believe in mob rule where moral authority is granted only by election? We're going to have a big vote on what we are going to allow and what we're not going to allow, and that's the only thing that you abide by. Um, or do you consider that you're you get to decide what is right and wrong for yourself only and do don't follow any rules? No speed limits, uh, no restriction on theft or anything, uh, no matter how you might affect other people.

Well, yeah, it's a good question to consider, Sixums. Um, but I just want to point something out about what what he said, John. He said, he made the point, but you're in the building and you can see it and feel it. You can't do that with a god. The the point I'm making is that um I cannot see or feel the architect of this building. But, you know, even while there's it, I might be able to come up with some uh really implausible theory for how this building got here without an architect, but I I don't need to see the architect to be very confident that that this person was real, existed or exists today, you know. So, that that was the point I was making. It's not about being able to see the building of the universe. It's about being able to see um something that that requires a mind in order for it to exist. And then John asked the question going in kind of a different direction, which could be a more helpful direction than I'm going in, is uh do you believe in like anarchy right John? Do you believe just do it do whatever you want and there should be no. No no moral authority. Right. What is the moral basis? Should you not have control over anybody's behavior at all? Because then what is to prevent people from taking advantage of other people if you have no boundaries? If if you are concerned that that the Bible is too restrictive on people, I I not advocating for running around waving my finger at people telling they telling them that they must do as I say or they will be punished by me. I am looking to save them. And if they think that for a second that me as a Bible believing Christian should not care whether or not they live or die, what kind of person would I be if I just stood there and watched somebody get run over by a bus and not try to pull them out of the way to safety? And are you going to really chastise me for that and say I've got a lot of nerve for pulling you out of the way?

Any thoughts on that? Six grass. Okay. It does not appear that this conversation is going in a very productive conversation, a productive direction. And we have been on now for 3 hours and 17 minutes. So, um, maybe it would be a good time to to stop, but uh Sixom Gross, you are welcome to come on another time. Um, or come on to the live stream and and talk with me. Um, if you want to do that now, you can. Uh, okay. No, I'm not trying to ignore your answers. I'm I'm uh Let's see. What did you say here?

If you like, Tommy, I can uh exit and and give this other person a chance to speak. Okay. Yeah, let's let's see. Okay. Good talking to you, John. Same here. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So, let's see. Sixumm grass. Um, a good time to run. No, I'm not not running. Let's see what what what did I miss here? I do not have I do not have the tech or internet to jump on live. Okay. What was the big Let me just see what you are. You ignoring my answers. What were your answers? Let's see. Like God does every day. Okay. You said you can go to an office building that will have the plans and the building permits, right? But I I could I could still say, "Okay, but I need to see I need to see the architect with my own eyes or I don't know that they're really there, you know?" And so, so to me, it's like that that that's kind of what what what atheism and that kind of skepticism seems like to me. It's like, sorry, I I see the building. I see the permit. I see the plans, but I just it's just not very compelling evidence, and I just can't really have any confidence that this architect is really here. That that's like that's that's how a atheism feels to me. It's like, you know what we've got in in the universe, uh, you know, the kind of order and information, uh, that we experience and that we see, um, in the universe is a lot more a lot more impressive than something like, you know, plans for a for a building. Um, human human minds can produce the bl the plans that are needed for uh for for to build a building, but a human mind, you know, still struggles to to understand the kind of information we have in in DNA. They're still they're still trying to work that out, you know. Um, yeah, but I I don't feel that, you know, I'm not trying to it seems like this is, let's see here. Would you say I can touch it? I can touch it, see it, the plans. And you think that's the same thing as. No, no, no. The point I'm making, the architect, you can touch and see the plans, but you can't see the person who wrote them, but you still have confidence that that person exists even though you haven't seen them. That's what I'm saying about about God, about about a transcendent mind that even though we've never seen God, we have we have something in the universe that's a lot more impressive than, you know, building plans or the kind of mathematics needed for, you know, architecture. And I don't see why that is not compelling to some people. Well, I think I think what's really behind it often is some kind of a, you know, some kind of an emotional issue, some reason why they don't want God to be real, why they don't want there to be an authority higher than them. That that's what I that that's what I sense in a lot of my uh conversations with people who make these kind of arguments. And I'm not saying that's definitely what you're doing. I don't know your story. Um, but, uh, what does the expansion theory have to do with a guy telling people how they should have sex 2,000 years ago? All right, Spencer Cameron, thank you for joining us. Sorry that I didn't uh respond to some of what you had to say. Um, I was kind of distracted by what Sixum Grass is saying. So, um, okay. Okay. Well, I think maybe I will say good night and, um, this is not going anywhere good. And may God help us all to follow Jesus with all of our hearts and to be fruitful and faithful to him. And, uh, next week, next Monday, God willing, I don't know if I should do What do you guys think? Should I Should I keep going in the debate with Ryan from negod.net or should I go on to something else? I was thinking of kind of going back and forth between theological issue and then a lifestyle issue, you know, something theological, something practical, kind of going back and forth. Should I should I should I uh continue, you know, we can continue on in in the debate with uh with with Ryan. Um, just to unpack that. Any any opinions about that? All right. Well, I've been asking and answering questions. What exactly have you been doing? All right, guys. Sorry to bring your debate to an end here. Good night, everyone. And Lord willing, we'll do it again next week. Byebye.