Some Quick Notes from the Net, Then to the EO Position on Free Will

0:00enjoy this! I'm agreeing to welcome to the dividing line. I hope I'm on. I don't really feel like I'm hearing my guess I'm not supposed to hear myself anyway just a reminder that an hour after we finish if we finish in an hour the I guess it's a debate. Guillaume Bignon, Dr. Bignon, a reform scholar, very nice guy. Very smart, very philosophically oriented, is going to be debating Dinesh D'Souza.

1:07Marlin's going to be moderating it I guess. I'll be honest with you I do not see a meaningful thesis statement. Discussing Calvinism and predestination is not a thesis statement and that doesn't make for a useful debate. There is just far too much to get into. I don't care how long it is. It'll probably be two and a half hours. But you're not going to have. I mean, it's just going to be all over the map. And if there is a sort of free for all cross examination, it's going to be everywhere. My concern there is that D'Souza would probably dominate the time if Marlin's not stepping in regularly. I could be wrong. I've not seen in young debate. He may be more assertive than I expect him to be.

2:18But I remember when Jim Renahan and I debated John Dominic Cross and Marcus Borg in the cross examination, I had to keep jumping in because Jim Renahan wouldn't because most scholars just don't do the aggressive type of thing you need to do in cross examination. If you are late to making your statement, you're giving the whole time to the person. And they're just getting a bunch of time to make their points. So we'll see. I think if I get back in time to the house, I'll have imagined create a flaming straw man for me unless someone wants to get for me now and send it to me like in our chat channel or something.

3:19And I will just post it with number three, number four, number five. And maybe with a little comment as to why it's a flaming straw man because I expect there to be a lot of them over the course of the evening. The thought has crossed my mind that maybe Dessousa has a couple guys or gals that post on his thing for him. And maybe he's a whole lot better than what has been being posted under his name doesn't seem likely. But you can always hope, I guess. A couple other things since it's sitting in front of me right now. I don't get the current crop of LDS Apologists. By the way, I haven't commented on this and it's not out of disrespect or anything.

4:22But a couple of weeks ago, about about a month and a half ago, I played a clip from a young LDS guy who was talking about John 11. And remember I told you a brother at our church had come up to me and had repeated something this guy had said about John 11. And so then he sent me the clip and I listened to the clip and we played the clip on the program and I responded to it. And I had commented about the fact that the young guy just seemed bored. I mean, there was no passion. It was just sort of like, well, you know, I can present 40 scholars that agree with me on this. I didn't understand the motivations of people to be doing that kind of stuff. Anyway, my understanding is he ran a stop sign at high speed and has left this earth.

5:28He died. And you know, when something like that happens, it really reminds you that the stuff we're talking about. The stuff that we're talking about, eternal things, it really matters. Sometimes it can become so petty in social media. And then all of a sudden people who used to have a social media account, I mean, isn't today the anniversary of Charlie Kirk's death or something like that? Man, that doesn't seem like it was a year ago. But in some ways, it seems like it was two years ago. But, you know, things happen. And we don't see them coming. And we just assume that things are going to stay the way they are. And you know what? They don't. And the things we're talking about, we talk about, well, this thing in front of me.

6:31There's a fellow by the name of Hayden Carroll. And I don't know what has happened with this. I know that Jeff Durbin has been trying to get him to do a discussion with Jeff and I together with that other fellow. You know, their theology may not be close enough to allow that to happen. I don't know. What's weird here is he's responding to Cameron Bertuzzi. Now we respond to Cameron Bertuzzi fairly regularly. Convert drum and Catholicism. Protestant who didn't know why he was a Protestant. They make the best converts from Catholicism. And he's the one that's, you know, there's more evidence for apparitions of Mary than the resurrection guy. You know, pretends he's come up with new arguments for the papacy. No one's ever thought of before and not one of Rome's best. Let's just put it that way.

7:31Anyway, Bertuzzi had said God wants unity among Christians. The way forward, at least for Eastern Orthodox, is to accept the council of Florence, who's ecumenical and binding the schism ended. Well, let me, let me mention. I keep telling folks. Keep your eyes open over the next number of years. Because 2033 is on the calendar as the 2000th anniversary of the death-brown resurrection of Jesus. And most of us Protestants aren't real big in calendar stuff. But the Catholics in the Orthodox are. And I see ecumenical movement taking place. I see Leo being very, I think it's what was going on with the Filioquic Laws stuff that he did,

8:36where Rome actually called the Nicene Creed without the Filioquic. And historically, both sides anatomatized the other side to hell for over the Filioquic and other things, but that in particular. And so, you know, if there's been an anatomatizing for all sorts of stuff between East and West, it got pretty ugly from 1054 onward. And only over the past couple hundred years has there been a diminishment of the nastiness of that kind of stuff. But right now, the ecumenical patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox, as I've said, is two left wings.

9:37He is not conservative at all. Now, he can't be stupid. So he'd have to know that there is a real limitation as to how far he can go, and how you can get those anatomas unanathamid. Well, you can do it the Jimmy Aikenway, which is, you know, to just pretend that anathema never meant what anathema clearly meant to everybody in the past. Nothing to see here. Just move along. You just, you know, you have to go to a different club than us for a little while, but everything else is okay. You know, that's just throwing history out the window. But yeah, I don't, I don't, there are too many Eastern Orthodox and too many Roman Catholics. So I'm going to go that direction and allow for, I mean, there are all sorts of them that would absolutely rebel if there was some type of compromise on the field of Oakland.

10:40What would that look like? I guess it would have to be literally a mediating position that would say you can believe either one. It's necessary or not necessary that that's the end of any type of historical continuity wrong can do it because the development East North, actually cannot. Without ceasing to be East North, I think there's live East North, I said would agree with me on that. So I don't know what this ecumenical moves going to look like, and I could be wrong about it. I just have this sneaking hunch that there's going to be something between now and 2033, which is not very far down the road. I know for you younger folks, that seems like the distant future, but I sure it is not. But anyway, back to the saying here, Hayden Kelle, who is LDS. And remember, when we watched that debate that took place last Christmas up in Utah, one of the things I pointed out and criticized both sides for in that debate was the actual LDS doctrine of the great apostasy really wasn't presented.

12:05Anybody who reads LDS history, or at least LDS theology up until the modern Wishi washi period, knows that the fundamental assertion of Mormonism has been that the authority of the church was lost through the great apostasy and the loss of the Aaronic and McKisach priesthoods. And this is why Peter James and John, John the Baptist had to return and restore the priesthoods and only the LDS church has the priesthoods and all the rest of the system. That didn't even figure in that debate. And here Hayden Kelle is responding to Cameron Bertuzzi, and the whole response never mentions Melchizedek or Aaronic priesthoods, priesthood authorities. If Peter actually transmitted that authority to Rome, why is that ecclesiological structure so difficult to find in the earliest centuries?

13:08Well, that's true. Hayden Kelle is correct historically, but that's not the LDS position. So why make that argument? It doesn't make any sense to me, really doesn't. I don't know. Interesting stuff going on online. But anyway, the debate coming up in an hour and 45 minutes, I believe, yes, an hour and 45 minutes. Pray for Dr. Benioff's patience, clarity of expression, and willingness to tell Dinesh D'Souza that he doesn't have a clue what on earth he's babbling about because that's what he needs to be told. Oh, I don't have this in front of me, but I read it this morning.

14:12The hell is about to freeze over. I'll just tell you that right now. I liked a tweet this morning. I liked it, and I'm not sure how I could do it. Oh, okay, I do remember how I did it. I'm not sure I did it because I have this person blocked. I liked a tweet by JD Hall this morning. Did you see it? Yes, I liked a tweet. If we can, I still call them tweets, but an ex post by JD Hall this morning. There's almost nothing that I agree with JD Hall on as far as all this Chrysler's nationalism and all the absurdities that he's gotten into with Israel and the Jews and all this stuff. And Judeo, Christian, and just insanity. But anyway, but even JD had to finally ruminate on Jenna Ellis.

15:22Oh, man, you got to look this up. Okay, it was classic Hall. And I just had to move that cursor up there and click the little heart button because he just. Obliterated her. I mean, just you know, he finished up with and as your former pastor John McCarthy said, go home Jenna. But you know, it. It. My understanding is yesterday as well, she started pushing Bryson's book, you know, the one from the BAM show that boomerang so badly on CRI read my book. Yeah, read my book read my book read my book. I mean, you're when you don't have a foundation, but you don't have a positive theology yourself, you will eventually be promoting the worst of the worst. And that's I start to scrape the bottom of the barrel when you start hitting George Bryson.

16:28You've got Vance, you got Ruckerman, there's a few other really, really bad folks you could end up promoting, but. George Bryson, wow, you know, I would imagine, you know, she would probably say that she watched the Bryson debate and he cleaned my clock or something like that, but. Yeah, JD Hall's. Dietribe in response to the channel, this was it was enjoyable, you know, that you know, I remember sitting in this room. I remember sitting in this room. Doing a online conversation with JD, I think you were part of that. I think we were talking about the canner situation that long ago, a decade ago, and that was before he spun out. And you know, so I've had dinners with Hall and you know up when I spoke up their conference thing and stuff like that, but down here in Phoenix to and this was this was vintage really was you left to.

17:44You'll have to look it up, it was it was it was pretty amazing stuff. Okay, then I just grabbed this to this is all stuff that I just ran into on X I was. We finally picked up the RV from the dealership. Not fully repaired, but it's been sitting in the sun for a month and a half. For one thing, whichever got done anyway, we have a covered spot that we park it in and. And so I pulled it over there and hooked up for a shot. Perfect park. Just straight that far from the pole. Yeah. Got it got 105,000 miles under the belt now, so I'm getting a little arrogant as far as the polling goes. But because I'll tie a.

18:46People don't know if you've never been 57 feet long as a vehicle before it's it's a different world out there. It really is anyways. So I didn't I've been doing other stuff this morning and saw I was looking out stuff. And I ran across this one too. We're going to get back to the confession of the Scytheus here in a second. Finally, I keep saying that and we don't do it. I apologize. Those of you keep tuning in and you know there's only a dozen of you, but you're important. Just want to make sure that you know that. But I ran across this clip. It's one of those hidden camera hidden microphone things where they're interviewing. One of the pastors at James Tolarico's church. Now Tolarico is the Democratic well communist candidate first Senate in Texas.

19:48And he's a member of the PC USA. I saw some abjectly absurd statement by Redeems, Zimmer recently. Past couple days. And I need to apologize Jason Wallace. He sent me they've put out a video on Redeems, Zimmer and his idiotic statements about schism and making the PC USA the standard of orthodox president or orthodoxy in the United States. Which again, it's just it's stupid on the level that I don't even know how you start to interact with it. I mean, all those Presbyterian denominations were once something else. They've all gone different directions and joined here and joined there and split off here as well. There isn't any one Presbyterian church in the United States or in you know, Kingdom or in Scotland or whatever. The whole idea that you split off from raving heretics just absolutely raving nutball heretics and urine schism.

20:57The man just why does anybody listen to him? I don't get it. I really don't it does not make a lick of sense to me. He has no common sense. It's there's just nothing there. It's almost like he's a troll, you know, just to make people look dumb. But anyway, Tilarico is a member of the PC USA graduate of PC USA seminary full on blazing heretical apostate. Just all roads lead to God, you know, transgenderism, you know, mutilation of children, abortion. You name away for him to blaspheme the gospel and the biblical worldview and he does it. That's Tilarico. And so this is a clip from this not interview, but this person talking to the pastor of this of Tilarico's church.

22:05And so I hope this comes through. I'm just I'm just playing the audio. There was video, but I didn't grab that. Listen to what this guy says. I think it's fascinating. If you pulled our membership and asked them whether they were Christian, agnostic or atheist, the vast majority would say agnostic or atheist. So I don't buy the religion that has been that we invent, but that we that we got from the Puritans. Catch that. If you pulled the members of that church, the Tilarico's apartment, the leader of the church says the majority would say they're agnostic or atheist, not Christian. That's what the PC USA is. That's not a church. It's a synagogue of Satan. And this guy knows enough to say we don't believe in the religion that we inherited from the Puritans.

23:09But everybody else is in schism if you leave that utterly apostate church. That's redeemed zoom or four. I just honestly, I'm sorry, I don't get it. I don't understand. He's a foolish young man. And people just put him on shows and everything else. Why? I guess for mockery reason. That's the only thing I can think of. So yeah, majority of our members are atheist, agnostic. Doing a great job preaching there. Absolutely amazing. All right, let's where did this go? There it is. All right, this is pretty much where you were, but I need to sort of go back to the beginning here. Oh, I can't do that. I keep forgetting. I have to do it manually because if I go to that, it goes to two and everything goes goobly-goobly.

24:16There you go. No, I don't want you to do that. I want you to expand. There you go. All right, so for those who have not been with us or have forgotten because I take so much time to get through all this stuff. We have a debate coming up in one month and one week. And the debate is with Craig Trulia. The thesis of the debate is the veneration of icons as defined by the second-nice and council in 787 is apostolic. I have explained why that is such a good topic. And most people still struggle with it. Mainly because what percentage of humanity you think has ever read anything from the second council of Nicaea?

25:20In fact, I would be willing to bet. There'd be a lot of evangelicals that would grant some kind of authority to Nicaea too just because it's Nicaea. Well, Nicaea 1 was good. Yeah, this is 787, so it's 462 years. I think if I'm doing the math there real quick. Down the road from Nicaea. Nicaea 1 anyways. And totally different context. The first Nicaea 1 is 13 years. 12 years actually. After the end of imperial persecution of Christianity, where Christianity becomes a religious illicitah. And it is focused upon the deity of Christ, the relationship between the father and the son in response to areas and his teaching that there was a time when the son was not.

26:25And while Constantine was the emperor was involved with the council, calling of the council, imperial funds used to bring the council together, the role of the emperor was minimal. There's no aspectulation about that, of course. But the reality is that the church of Nicaea 1 was the church that survived persecution. And as such, the idea that the emperor only 12 years after the most severe period of persecution. I mean, 303-13. That was the 10 years of the most severe persecution that ever took place.

27:29The idea that only 12 years later, everybody just rolled over and do whatever the emperor said to do is absurd. There were a man at that council that bore scars in their bodies from the persecutions they had endured. The taking over of the authority of the church was going to take hundreds of years. Now, by the time you get the 787, as we have asserted, and I think argued fairly forcefully, that council was called by, run by, determined by, concluded by the authority of, and enforced by, Empress Irene, it is Byzantine state religion. Nothing more. It's Byzantine state religion. The idea that there was any serious discussion of the issues, any serious give and take is just absurd. It didn't happen. It wasn't allowed to happen. There could not have been any other conclusion of that council than the one that Princess Irene wanted. That's just, that's just it.

28:52So, the reason for the topic is that both Rome and Constantinople, so Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, both affirm, and I see it too, as an ecumenical council, and hence infallible in his decrees. Now, does Eastern Orthodoxy fundamentally view, and I see it too, as more authoritative in a sense, more to be applied than Rome? I think so. Yeah, I think so. I see it too, as I think more definitional of Eastern Orthodoxy than it is of Roman Catholicism. That's the final ecumenical council for the east, but it's not for the west, which of course the east finds exceptionally offensive.

30:03Ecumenical meaning worldwide, so how can you have an ecumenical council? I can do a Cameron Bertuzzi said to do make Florence ecumenical when it wasn't. It didn't represent worldwide. That's one of the problems, by the way, with Nicae too, just for those of you interested, we may do something more on this. But there are really good reasons to question the acknowledgement of Nicae too, as ecumenical as well. Here in 754 had more bishops, significantly better argumentation, but and claimed to be ecumenical and was accepted as such for decades. But the argument today is, well, no, Rome really wasn't represented and the Eastern Patriarchates were not represented. But the fact of the matter is the Eastern Patriarchates really were not represented in ICA-2 either.

31:09I mean, just an honest analysis of the data gives you really good reason to say that Nicae-2 was not by any meaningful definition of ecumenical. And Rome did not acknowledge Nicae-2 for quite some time and then only did so in hopes of getting land and property back, which they never got back. Again, the politics were everywhere and definitional. And so as I said a couple of programs ago, to my Eastern Orthodox friends, if you venerate icons, you do so because Empress Irene wants you to. She speaks from the grave. It is not because the apostles taught anything consistent with that. It is not because of any biblical argumentation. I know the biblical argumentation. It honestly strikes me that some of the most of the biblical argumentation I have seen from Eastern Orthodox trying to substantiate the concept of icon veneration, all the difference between veneration and worship.

32:29We have talked about all that stuff. We have talked about how Bazzles quote from On the Holy Spirit is completely and totally misrepresented. And yet it has become the fundamental lens through which icon veneration is defended today. Garton does that in his book. I think it is what the second chapter where he lays out the his methodology for finding evidence for icon veneration even before Nicae. And yet it is a completely flawed methodology. That is not what Bazzles said. That is not what his original context was. There is no way to get around that. That is just a fact. But there is a lot of historical stuff. I am not getting to the sithiest because I am doing all the historical stuff. I hope this doesn't spill on me. I spilled. I have to get rid of that. It is a nice colored. It keeps things cold. Everything else. But it spills all over me. So I am going to be very careful here for a second.

33:44This one gets to stay. It gets a stay of execution. That one is not going to get a stay of execution. Anyway, the reason for us to be looking at the confession of the sithiest comes from long after 900 years, almost after I see it too. This is after the split takes place in 1054. So you have the Filioque now and you have all this other stuff getting into the middle of everything. We went through Cyril Lecarrus's confession. I had a fellow on X. Send me, was it Galictus Ware? Send me a lengthy quote from an East or Orthodox modern East or Orthodox writer.

34:49I was basically dismissing Cyril Lecarrus. This wasn't an accordance with tradition. We went through his confession and it is reformed confession. The beauty of it was it affirms biblical authority. It says that tradition should be examined on the basis of a higher authority. As we saw in the confession of sithiest, which is the 1672 council of Jerusalem's response to Cyril Lecarrus, condemnation of his perspective. That provided us with some clarity. Because as I pointed out up here. They talked about Calvin. Right here in the middle of the paragraph. Moreover, when any man speaks from himself, he is liable to air and to deceive and be deceived. But the Catholic Church, remember, Catholic Church here is the East or Orthodox Church.

36:00As never having spoken or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God, who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich. It is impossible for her to in any wise ear or at all to at all deceive or be deceived. But like the divine scriptures is infallible and has perpetual authority. So, the clarity of that statement was forced on the council of Jerusalem because of what Cyril Lecarrus had said. And that is a clear statement, not only denying scriptural sufficiency, but in essence requiring a belief that church tradition be viewed as they honest us as God breathed. And once you go there, you have a church that is utterly unreformable. You can't reform a church that is itself in cable of earing.

37:13And so, you end up with a dogma because Empress Irene says you have it. Well, okay. Now we've got an interpret all a scripture and all of history and light of that dogma. And that's why you've got people like today trying to find in church history things that just simply didn't exist. I mean, honestly, what I think I played, if not, I have it queued up someplace. Dr. Stephen DeYoung in a dialogue with Gavin Orton, basically arguing that the reason there's no positive evidence really. There's nobody that comes straight out and says, no, we should be venerating icon is because everybody was doing. Everybody was doing. So, it was just a given. That's why there's no positive statement.

38:17That's a non-false fiables claim. It's just it's indefensible. You can prove anything making that kind of an assertion. And people did say the opposite, but they just dismissed those people as being. Well, you know, well, Tertullian said the opposite, but he was a heretic anyways. Well, that, okay, later in his life, he became a wantonist, but he's the father of what father of Western theology. You don't just dismiss him because you don't like what you did at the end of his life. Or you're serious. Well, you're serious with a trinitarian heretic. So, what he says about it completely different topic, we can just dismiss him. So much for church history. I mean, it's. You know, once you seriously accept the idea that this is dogmatic teaching and simply has to be accepted, then you'll do whatever you need to do with history.

39:21In light of that dogmatic position. So, that's what we saw here. So anyway, if we don't get to this, we'll never get to any of this, but. Again, I've heard from the 12 of you who are enjoying this. I appreciate it. Thank you. This might be a couple of others. I. If anyone ever says you people, you just do what you do to get the clicks and the follows. All I got to do is point them to this series. We do do, you know, at least a couple of clicks. Two or three, three clicks. Yeah. Yeah. We get those. Actually, this is not how you build a empire. Okay. And XR ain't doing none of this. Well, they do have Dale Partridge doing some pretty weird stuff, though. No two ways about that. But anyway. Let's get back. We started three. I don't think we finished three, but we need to get to it because it's already 20 minutes still.

40:28If I'm seeing that correctly. We believe the most good God to have a maternity predestined under glory, those whom he has chosen, and to have consigned to the kind of nation, those whom he has rejected. But not so that he would justify the one and consigned and condemned the other without cause. So. Spend a number of weeks since we did this. But what you need to remember. I'm a little surprised. I haven't gone looking for it. Maybe some of the rest of you have found it. But I'm a little surprised that I don't see more provisionists quoting this material because. The Eastern Orthodox who have dogmatically condemned Calvinism as heresy. We've played Eastern Orthodox on the program saying. I just I can't even conceive of how someone who believes what Calvin believed could ever be a Christian. I mean, it's just so abhorrent.

41:35And that's what the next is saying. That's what Jenna Ellis is saying. Who knows. Maybe they'll end up being Eastern Orthodox too. I shouldn't have said that, but you know what happens. I'm going to get blamed for it. But the concurrence here is pretty strong. Really, really is. And so what you what you see here is sounds like God from maternity predestined under glory, those whom he has chosen. Now, if consignal condemnation, those who mean is rejected, but not so that he would justify the one in consign condemned the other without cause. Well, no one says that cause. Ultimately, cause the glory of God. The only cause is the demonstration of his of his grace. The praise was glorious grace. The Odyssey so on and so forth. But that's not what this is talking about. This is without cause in the creature. And that's what is responding to the reformed element of Cyril Lucaris's confession. That's what this is responding to.

42:47So for that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common father of all? Well, common father of all in the sense of creator of all. Yeah, he's the creator of all. But he's said to the Jews, you're of your father devil. If God were your father, you would love me. Right. And so this is a common theme in Roman Catholic stuff too. The Pope is always talking about, you know, this common fatherhood. And that's how you can get inclusiveism and universalism and all this stuff flowing together. Instead of using biblical terminology where you can use father as creator, but that's how this is talking about.

43:48And it says he's the common father of all and no respecter of persons. Well, okay, that's a that's definitely a biblical phrase. No respecter of persons. What does that mean? What does it mean? No respecter of persons. Well, it means that unlike man who is impressed by the rich, who is impressed by the powerful by the great athlete, whatever. God does not respect persons. He does not look at one person as greater than another person based on that person's achievements, genetics, whatever. So when the Bible says God is our respecter of persons, that means that his giving of gifts, his giving of grace is not based upon the creature. It's based upon his will. That's what unconditional elections actually about.

44:49But normally what you hear from the Orthodox, from the synergist, from the Armenian, is that election makes God a respecter of persons. When it's just the opposite. Saying that there is no divine election is what makes God a respecter of persons because he now is accepting those who are good enough, wise enough, spiritually sensitive enough to be better than somebody else. Oh, no, no, not better, just accepting a gift. But why do you accept it and the other person doesn't? If you have the same backgrounds, you're into the same condemnation for sin, which normally isn't a part of the thinking, unfortunately, of most people. Then why does one accept and the other is not? Well, it's interesting. And would have all men to be saved to come to the knowledge of truth.

45:49Tim is too far. We walked through this before and I could go back over again. We went through first, Tim is too far, demonstrated misuse of text. But since he for new, the one would make a right use of their free will. And so we already talked about this. This is not what for knowing means. It is confusing having for knowledge with for knowing for knowing is an act having for knowledge, be a passive reception of knowledge. They're not the same thing. It's a common error. It's repeated over and over again. Really smart people do it, but it happens. And the other a wrong. He predestined the one or condemned the others. So predestination is not does not have any meaning here. Predestination is God's reaction to what man does in time. Condemnation is God's reaction. It has no effective power in and of itself.

46:50And we understand the use of free will thus that the divine and illuminating grace, which we call preventing or prevenient grace, being as alike to those in darkness by the divine goodness in part to all those that are willing to obey this for it is of use only to the willing not to the unwilling and cooperate with it in what it requires as necessary to salvation. There is consequently granted particular grace. This is the Armenian perspective as well. I hope I don't have much hope. I hope that in the upcoming debate here in an hour and 15 minutes. So there will be some discussion, some revelation of the nest is actually actual position. Because one of the things has been extremely frustrating. In trying to interact with his barrage of straw men attacks on Calvinism is that he doesn't put his own position out there in a coherent positive fashion so that you can examine it on the same basis as he's using to criticize Calvinism.

48:07And so that's what I said about provisionism. They don't have a coherent positive theology. That's why they can play games with molinism, they can play games with open theism. I mean, Dessousa said something day for yesterday in my response was well, he's had an open theism because that would be the logical outcome of that. But who knows and so do you think in two and a half hours this distinction of kinds of grace might come up well, it should. It probably won't. And do you think the nest is who has a coherent position on this? So, it's not a doubtful. Anyway, but notice what it says. So you've got Prevenient Grace by the divine goodness imparted to all what Prevenient Grace is being given even today. There are still unreached people groups on earth. There are still islands where there have been generations of human beings made an image of God.

49:16That have never been visited by someone outside never heard the message of Jesus. How are they given Prevenient Grace? They cannot answer that. They cannot answer how all have received Prevenient Grace. Well, it's the witness of the conscience. Really? That's Prevenient Grace? The fact matter is the Bible knows nothing of Prevenient Grace. Nothing. Any passage I've looked at them, I took the time. There was a book came out just I don't know 10, 15 years ago, maybe less. On Prevenient Grace and I'm just looking at trying to find something to bite into. It's Prevenient Grace is the cellophane tape of Armenians. It's what holds everything together, but it can't actually hold anything. So that's you can say, God gives grace to everybody. Has no meaning. What do you mean? Show me. They can't.

50:27But if you cooperate with it, if you're willing to obey it, see, that's what makes you better than somebody else. Oh, no, no, it's just, oh, it's just freaking no deal with the meanings of your own statements. The Bible says that the man who's according to the flesh cannot do what's pleasing to God. That is a didactic, dogmatic statement in the middle of a book that's not poetry. It is Paul explaining the gospel to the church at Rome so that will go out to the whole world. It's right to beginning of the eighth chapter. It's a little bit about salvation in the eighth chapter. It's sort of important. And in that eighth chapter, it says, you're according to the flesh, you cannot do what is pleasing to God. You will not submit yourself to the law of God. God's law says repent. You can't do it. Oh, yes, you can't. Well, then you don't believe it, Paul said. Just be honest about it. Just be honest. I only accept certain parts of the Bible. The ones that are amenable to my traditions.

51:45So there is no willingness. There is no cooperation and cooperate with it in what it requires as necessary to salvation. But that sounds a little bit like accomplishment, work. There is consequently granted particular grace, but only to the one who is willing and why is one willing and another not willing. Well, that can't be due to grace because everybody got the same grace. See, provisionism, Eastern Orthodoxy, synergism is a whole. They cannot answer these questions. They always have to end up equivocating or just saying mystery. Okay, fine. This grace, particular grace, co-operates with us. This is synergism, soon arrogant, and enables us and makes us to persevere in the love of God that is to say in performing those good things that God would have us to do. And which is preventing or prevenient grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us and makes us predestinated.

53:02So predestination is something you do to yourself by what you do. And I guess if you sort of grew up with that, you might not realize how weird that is, but it certainly strikes me as such a predestination is something God does. Not something I get done to me. Using it in this way with justification is massive category confusion. It turns Romans on its head. It's wild. But those who will not obey and cooperate with grace, so that we all remember the many exhortations and scripture to unbelievers to cooperate with grace. No, it's repent and believe. The only people that are exorbitant to cooperate with grace are Christians because they've been saved by grace.

54:06And therefore will not observe those things that God would have us perform. Sounds like works to you. Sounds like works to me. That's why a lot of these people will glom onto the new perspective stuff. Well, the Reformation, even their own Catholics, misunderstood all this stuff back to Reformation. All that stuff about works is just simply works to the law, second temple Judaism. It really doesn't have to do anything with anything else. That's what that's all about. When I observe those things that God would have us perform and that abuse and the service of Satan, the free will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good. Think about free will. Receive from God so you can perform voluntarily what is good. Does the Bible address any of this stuff? Say directly, you can't do that. No one can come to me unless this happens. No one's going to be flesh. Can do this. You cannot hear my words because you are not of God. I mean, there's just passage after passage after passage.

55:18No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, but you need to understand that if you really look at scripture, you just look at it broadly, it very clearly testifies that we have the ability to make decisions. Yes, we have the ability to make decisions. As rebel sinners, seperate from life of God, they will always be rebellious against God. But yeah, we make decisions. I've seen that over and over again. Yeah, the Calvinists, those believe we ever make this. We have no will and blah, blah, blah. Even Geysler did that foolishness. But anyway. So which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good are consigned to eternal condemnation, but to say as the most wicked heretics do. Yes, that's right. And as contained in the chapter of Cyril's confession to which this answers that God in predestinating or condemning did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated.

56:18What is this called? This is called unconditional election. Now, there is, I think, an error amongst some who call themselves reformed. There is an error called equal ultimacy where they will believe that the act of predestination and the act of reprobation are equally ultimate. And it is very plain to me that the act of predestination is an act of grace and of power, resulting in the glorification of God through the salvation of undeserving sinners. The act of reprobation is an act of justice. They're very different acts. I would say one takes significantly more power than the others to raise dead sinners to experience life.

57:23Pretty easy to condemn dead sinners who want to remain dead sinners. But there is that. But because this has did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated or condemned, we know to be profane and pious. Well, I would. It is obvious that the condemnation is in Adam and is just because federal headship is just. So I would agree if you're simply stating that if you're saying God condemns without reason, no, God condemns sin. And he condemns sinners and he condemns those who are born in Adam. And so there is a ground for that. But see, this is the problem. Predestination is an extension of grace. Those whom he for new, personal act of God to choose to enter into relationship with he predestinated.

58:32That flows from God's choice to enter into relationship that person. You don't have for knowing as the foundation of condemnation. Because for knowing is in the golden chain is a gracious determination on God's part. God does not have to do that. Now that's okay. That is the distinction. But I just mentioned. 99.98% of everybody commenting on X right now in the D'Souza diet drives. There's never even thought of it has no idea what the world that's even about, which is why so much of what is being said just ends up going in circles. The dog chasing its tail. Oh, look at the clock. Oh, um, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D. That's a good spot. So did not consider in any way the work so those predestinated or condemned. We know to be profane and impious.

59:36For the scripture would be opposed to itself since it promises to believe a salvation through works yet, suppose as God to be its soul author by his soul illuminating grace, which he bestows without proceeding works to show to man the truth of divine things and to teach him how he may cooperate with it if he will. And to do what is good and acceptable and so obtain salvation. He takes not away the power to will to will to obey or not obey him. That's a long sentence to fundamentally assert synergism. Um, so it confuses the works of Christ, which are sufficient behalf of his elect in their behalf with the good works which we are predestined to perform not to gain our salvation, but to walk in them so as to glorify Christ. This, that is a balance that is found in certain Eastern Orthodox writers.

1:00:37I've seen it. I've seen certain Eastern Orthodox writers that I would know they're dead now so I can't ask them, but I would like to ask them. What about this? And I think they would try to interpret this in the way that we would try to interpret it if we wanted to try to rescue it in some fashion. But I have seen some the vast majority today. No, they're going to go with this and it remains well, incoherent and consistent. So we will pick up at that point. We have covered a lot of the waterfront. I want to have enough time for everybody to grab a bite to eat, get yourself a seat in the saddle. And, um, yeah, we'll go from there. Okay, thanks for watching. This is weird because the. Well, the camera three pointing at that is what's on according to me, but not according to the screen. So I don't know what's going on back there.

1:01:44Anyways, there you go. We covered the waterfront and we'll have a lot to say. I'm sure coming on Tuesday, Lord willing, we get together again. I have a feeling some interesting things are going to be said on these subjects between now and then. Anyways, thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. God bless.