Original Sin, Judicial Hardening, and Compatibilism: Answering Leighton's "Unanswered questions"

[00:00:00]The strongest arguments are not the arguments your opponents address.

[00:00:04]>> So the people who are engaging with my broadcast from the Calvinistic side, don't pay attention so much to the ones that little points they bring up in in opposition to me. Listen to the ones they ignore.

[00:00:13]>> Watch the ones they just pass over. And this is this is one of those.

[00:00:17]>> You sure about that? You sure about that?

[00:00:21]>> All right. So this is one of the arguments that we ignore. So I'm going to pay close attention, people. Um, I want to play a little video for you and and this is a good example of the kind of confusing contradictions that I find and and again I I may just be missing something here, but I want to hear your take on this. This is John MacArthur.

[00:00:36]This is going to be video number four.

[00:00:38]All men are sinners and they have no right to go to heaven. And that's universally true. Therefore, if we go to heaven, it's not because we have a right. It's because God is gracious. The best illustration I know of that is God sovereignly, graciously saving infants that die or fetuses that are aborted.

[00:00:55]Okay. So, let's start this off in the proper framework. All men are sinners.

[00:01:02]All would include the the child. It is only God's grace that saves us. The example that he uses is babies. And Chad, we've seen this before.

[00:01:14]>> God in grace saves the little ones that die. And I think the case is made all through.

[00:01:18]>> So, grace, grace is necessary. He's saying, therefore, they are sinners. Now let's continue >> the scripture that he does that in the Old Testament for example when u pagans uh idol worshippers offered their children to moolak and set their baby on on a fire and it was incinerated. The prophet Jeremiah called it the death of the innocents. God even refers to those sacrificed babies as innocent. That's pretty significant. They are innocent which means they're not guilty. I think another passage that weighs in on this is Mark 10 where Jesus said, "Permit the little children to come to me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Pretty hard to dismiss that.

[00:01:55]And then he did something that he never did for unbelievers. He gathered those little ones into his arms and and the text says he blessed them. You can't find a place in the Bible where God places blessing on people who aren't part of his kingdom.

[00:02:08]>> Wow. Oh my goodness.

[00:02:12]Hash Presbyterianism.

[00:02:14]That was the most Presbyterian thing I've ever heard Johnny Mack say.

[00:02:19]He affirms that blessing the children uh means they're in the kingdom and that would mean they're part of the new covenant which means they should receive the sign of the covenant baptism. I'm just saying guys. I'm just saying take that to his I wish he would have took it to its logical conclusion.

[00:02:40]He is a pedo baptist now though. We all know that.

[00:02:43]>> And that's an act of grace. And it becomes a kind of model for how God even saves adult sinners. It's all by sovereign grace.

[00:02:50]>> The basic idea here, and again, this is going to make some Calvinists really angry. I've noticed this kind of thinking makes people very sensitive, but I'm trying to understand and I don't just want to be gaslit here and told, "Oh, you just don't understand because you're like, like you said, you just don't understand enough." Like, explain to me how does this work? Um, so John is saying here that babies are innocent, that they go to heaven if they're aborted. How does that square with them being predetermined for destruction? Are all the aborted babies elect? Are >> So I just want to answer what wasn't asked and then I'll answer what you asked.

[00:03:27]First, you have to understand that when Johnny Mack says they're innocent, he's saying they are personally innocent.

[00:03:35]They have not committed personal sin is not referring to them federally.

[00:03:40]Federally in Adam, they are guilty of sin because they sinned in Adam. And we're going to get to that later when we look at Romans 5, Ephesians 2:3, Psalm 14:5, and all of these other texts that affirm just that. Um now, uh yes, if if the the ch all children that die, and I'm saying if I believe that's the the case based on scripture, um that would mean God had elected them all. Now, uh let's I'm going to get to I'm going to let you ask this or continue on with your question, then I'm going to answer that.

[00:04:18]>> Are they elect because they're aborted or are they aborted because they're elected? is abortion >> maybe. Okay, that that that actually is reasonable. So, they're not elect because they're aborted. That would mean that God would look down the corridor of time and choose some based on an action in time. We don't believe that. We be believe in unconditional election. Now, maybe you could say uh God elected them and God uh chooses to save all who die in infancy. Thus uh he chose for this child to be aborted. He determined that not that he efficiently caused it. I want to nuance that very well. He did not robotically determine that uh they would be aborted. But he did passively decree that in the sense that uh he made sure the circumstances around it uh would result in that. Uh so he's not the efficient cause, but it was a part of his plan.

[00:05:23]>> Some kind of a loophole. Is abortion more effective than the gospel at getting people to heaven?

[00:05:28]>> So no, it's not a loophole. Number one, it's not a loophole because that would be a part of God's sovereign plan. Let's look at it from your perspective. If you deny original sin, they are innocent.

[00:05:41]Therefore, if you murdered them through abortion, they would go straight to heaven. That is a loophole because it's relying upon man and their ability.

[00:05:51]That's what loopholes uh involve. But the death of a child uh it's all based on the there's the salvation of that child is all based on the sovereign grace of God. There's no loophole there.

[00:06:03]There is a loophole in your system. Now, >> is abortion more effective than the gospel at getting people to heaven?

[00:06:09]Like, >> that was the question. Absolutely not.

[00:06:12]In your system, that would actually be the case. In your system, it would be the case that abortion is more effective because you believe all babies are born innocent. Therefore, all of them are guaranteed to get to heaven. Now, we're saying God may elect all of them. I think he does. Some Calvinists say no.

[00:06:30]Uh but either way, here's the point.

[00:06:32]They're saved through the gospel in our system. in your system, they have no reason to need the gospel because they're innocent. We say they need the gospel and they're saved because of the gospel. Because of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that infant can go to heaven.

[00:06:49]God sovereignly works in the heart of that infant and gives them the gift of faith. And that infant may not be able to enact that faith, but that faith is in the object of Jesus Christ because of God sovereignly working in the heart of that infant. So in our system, it is the gospel that saves the infant. In your system, it's not. So in your system, yes, uh abortion is a more powerful way to get people to heaven. In my system, it's not because the gospel itself is the reason the baby goes to heaven because they need the gospel to be saved. Again, Johnny Mack said they're saved by grace. Great questions. I really appreciate them and I'm answering them all.

[00:07:33]>> Is it just me or does this seem difficult to wrap your head around?

[00:07:36]>> No, we've played that exact clip.

[00:07:38]>> It may sound difficult. Uh, but I think I've explained it thoroughly >> on my broadcast too, showing the inconsistencies of Calvinism. And we've played it in response to other more I would say higher consistent Calvinists like Dr. James White for example who have debated on this topic in other topics as well. But um he he's the one who ultimately argues that you know children are you know babies who die just like adults in the sense that they can be elect or not elect and maybe he's elected them and maybe he hasn't and and so he makes the case of of the possibility that God has possibly not elected to save. And so there's apparently from that perspective some of the babies who die who end up waking up first thing they wake up to is hell. Um >> can we talk about can we talk about the respectfully can we talk about the inconsistency in your system though because you save uh that it's solid faith alone saves faith in Christ Jesus saves the baby cannot have faith.

[00:08:32]Therefore, you say the baby just goes to heaven. That I think that's in inconsistent. We're saying that the gospel saves across the board. You're saying they don't need the gospel. So, that's inconsistent in your system, whereas our system is being consistent across the board. Everyone needs the gospel. Everyone needs God's sovereign grace. So maybe if you clarified what was inconsistent, I could um if there's a specific detail that I missed, if you'll clarify, I'll answer it.

[00:09:04]>> Because of this inherited guilt concept from Adam. Um now, the way Mitch McCarth deals with it is by quoting verses that we would quote too that talk about the the death of the innocent and God's reference to them as not being guilty.

[00:09:15]And we're saying, "Amen." How is that consistent with your view of original sin, which we've played video clips side by side with each other?

[00:09:20]>> Thank you. That's a great question. I really appreciate that question. I did answer earlier. Uh but they are personally innocent. They have not committed any personal sin. Uh but they have committed federal sin. They are federally represented in Adam. Adam as their federal head represented him in garden. When he fell, they fell in like they received the punishment. Uh they received the guilt. They received the sin nature. all of that. And I'm going to show that scripturally here in a moment. But uh again, it's not a contradiction to say they're personally innocent but federally guilty because personally they have not valitionally committed sin whereas they have uh they are still guilty of being in Adam. So I hope that helps.

[00:10:15]>> We played that clip that you just showed beside him teaching on original sin and original guilt. going >> somebody explain please because there's no rational explanation that I can think of for for saying those contradictory things. Um and and there's there's other examples of this uh in my book drawn by Jesus that you referenced earlier. I actually quote from MacArthur in when he's talking about the use of parables and God hardening people in their sin and the rebellion and using parables to keep them in the dark for a time. Um and and I actually think MacArthur does a really good job saying you know believe while you can and said otherwise you know you continue to resist you continue to reject the gospel eventually he's going to take it away from you and you're going to be hardened in it. I'm going, "Wait, wait." Then I play another clip where he says, "You're born unable to believe the gospel." I was like, >> "Tell Monday what you need. We're creating an agent and naming him Tony.

[00:10:57]Now, let's give him context. I'm giving Tony access to the >> Okay. Which one is it exactly?" Because you're just now saying, "Believe why you can." But on Calvinism, no one can unless they're regenerated. And if they are regenerated, then they will certainly believe it. What just And I'm not The thing is is here's here's a key thing that you should listen to and that the the audience should hear. The strongest arguments are not the arguments your opponents address.

[00:11:21]>> So the people who are engaging with my broadcast from the Calvinistic side, don't pay attention so much to the ones the little points they bring up in in opposition to me. Listen to the ones they ignore.

[00:11:30]>> Watch the ones they just pass over. And this is this is one of those where you'll see me playing someone like MacArthur and Sproul and others teaching very good theology on one side and then saying something that completely and utterly contradicts it on the other side. And then you say, "Can you help me understand those two things?" And that that's just crickets. It's silence.

[00:11:50]People don't want to deal with an obvious contradiction in their view.

[00:11:54]>> All right? And I think we've shown that's that's not the case, at least with me. Every single time you've given me a question, I've given you an answer. Now, when it comes to the judicial hardening, uh there's two ways of looking at it. I've previously explained to you that uh there's a difference between moral ability and natural ability. And in judicial hardening, God takes away their natural ability to harden them for a purpose. So, for instance, uh I have the ability right now to uh I don't know, um eat a dirty diaper.

[00:12:29]>> Hold up. Wait a minute. Something ain't right. I have that ability naturally but uh but like morally speaking it's reprehensible to me and I will not do it in the same way of a sinner has the natural ability to trust in God. There's nothing external stopping them from trusting in God but they find it morally reprehensible so they do not do it. So then God takes away that natural ability. It would be like uh God taking away my mouth so that I couldn't eat. Uh he's like, "Oh, well, if if it's morally reprehensible to eat said diaper, then I will take away your mouth." In the same way, if it's morally reprehensible for you to trust in me, I will take away your natural ability to trust in me by giving you no revelation so that you can. And um darkening your faculties to the point that you can't even understand the propositions. And no, total depravity does not teach that you can't that total depra totally depraved sinners can't understand propositions. Um, my mother-in-law can understand in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. She can understand that if she believes in Jesus, she'll have everlasting life. But she finds it morally reprehensible.

[00:13:37]Thus, God needs to give her a new heart.

[00:13:39]Now, that's one way of looking at it.

[00:13:40]The other way of looking at it is that men are born in a hardened state or like a proto hardened state. So, we're born uh with this total inability. Uh like clay uh when it's left alone, it hardens. So here's the thing though. The clay cannot mold itself into a believer. But naturally it will become hardened and God steps back and he removes his uh hand of grace of uh restraining grace from them and they naturally harden. So that's why the scriptures speak of men hardening themselves and on God hardening them. Not that he actively works fresh evil into their heart, but that he removes his restraining hand from them, allowing them to be hardened.

[00:14:30]That's the way of looking at it. Number one, natural immoral ability distinction. Number two, it could be they are naturally in a state of hardening from birth, but God um activates uh and allows that hardening to be become worse at times uh for his own sovereign purposes.

[00:14:51]And when they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers from morning till evening. He expounded to them testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus about both from the law of Moses and from the prophets. Why was he trying to convince them? Because God uses ends and means. I know that's a question you're going to say in response. of and some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved. And disagreeing among themselves, they departed. After Paul had made one statement, the Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers, to Isaiah the prophet, "Go to this people and say, you will indeed hear, but never understand, and you will indeed see, but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull." And I know you're going to emphasize the grown there. And you're going to say, "See, they weren't dull, then they grown duel." My point is that you cannot be sharp out of the box and grow duller.

[00:15:50]Uh, and with their ears they can barely hear and their eyes they have closed.

[00:15:53]And let's let's look at this as well.

[00:15:55]They close their eyes. Remember I pointed out that men harden themselves because God removes his hand of restraining grace. So it's active active. God removes the hand. These people shut their eyes. And this is what all men naturally do uh from birth. Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn and I would heal them. So here's the thing. There's this hypothetical that if they turn, God will heal them. And that is a fact. God says, "Whosoever will, let them come freely and taste of the waters of life." Uh there's a general call to all men without exception. I mean they have to hear the gospel of course but it it's a general call. Everyone you everyone without exception is commanded to repent and believe the gospel and if they would turn God would heal them but they have been hardened. They have hardened themselves. But again you have to prove that this is their condition from birth is not that which naturally goes on to a harder state. And that's one of the reasons that I left Calvinism was that contradiction there of why would you harden or blind somebody who was born hardened and blinded already? If it's not an act of judgment for your unbelief, your your willful rebellion, but then then what is it?

[00:17:15]>> You have God saying, uh, I desire that all should be saved. But you have God actively coming and putting blinders on men's eyes and saying, no, you cannot believe. I will not let you believe. And then some of them died.

[00:17:32]in 70 AD. Some of them died before Jesus rose from the dead. Probably are people who died hardened. And God, the same God in your system who says he wants everyone without exception to be saved, actively puts blinders on them, actively puts chains on them, and doesn't allow them to come to Jesus. That's a contradicting contradiction in your system. Whereas in my system, uh, they're naturally born that way. God doesn't have to go and wrap a blinder around their eyes. He doesn't have to chain them down. He lets them go and they go their own way. They harden themselves. And he hardened them by removing his hand of restraining grace.

[00:18:17]>> Accomplished there. And >> was there anything else? There might have been something else. I go long-winded around. Why would you harden or blind somebody who was born hardened and blinded already if it's not an act of judgment for your unbelief, your your willful rebellion?

[00:18:28]>> Okay, we could say that too. Yes, it is an act of judgment for their willful unbelief. Now, you could say, "Oh, well, they couldn't do otherwise." Well, now you're just presupposing libertarian free will. Um, they chose of their own valition to follow their wicked hearts and live in unbelief. So, God can judge them for that and harden them further.

[00:18:50]uh it it's not a contradiction. It makes perfect sense >> again. But then then what is it that's being accomplished there? And so I just have to push Calvinist where I think that their logic is not holding water.

[00:19:03]>> Um and I think often when when you get to that place where you you push them, there will be this I've noticed this in my own interactions, there's this appeal to mystery. And and here's the thing. I I think it's important to clarify that all of us, Calvinist, non-galvinist alike. I think we all reach a point in our theology where we have to stop and say we don't we don't exactly know how this works. Um, do we believe that God is sovereign? Yes. Do we believe that man's will is free to some degree? Yes.

[00:19:26]How does all it work work together? I I don't know that anybody claims to fully understand it. We all appeal to mystery at some point, but I I think one of the main differences is that we non-Calvinists, we we we seem to appeal to mystery earlier in that process. And I would argue that hopefully if we're doing it right, we appeal to mystery where the clear witness of scripture is silent. But it seems to me that Calvinists keep going beyond what scripture explicitly teaches, adding details and definitions where the scriptures themselves don't. And then they appeal to creeds and confessions, you know, Westminster Confession of Faith, the cannons of Dort Hidleberg.

[00:19:55]And so when their ideas are completely contradictory, they just appeal to mystery and they say it is what it is.

[00:20:00]God ordains all things, yet he's not the author of sin.

[00:20:02]>> Okay, that's what he's talking about. I was I've been sitting here waiting. Can you give us an example of Can you give us an example of a contradiction? And I guess this is what he believes a contradiction is. That's not a contradiction. Um I have explained many times if you look at it through Aristotle's four causes, being the author of sin would being the efficient cause. So let me break it down. Imagine I'm wanting to build a wagon. Now there would be a final cause for that a teological cause that would be for the purpose of let's say I'm want to build a house and I'm want to move bricks from point A to point B and I don't want to have to carry them I would rather use a wagon. So that's the teological cause.

[00:20:48]Um then there would be the efficient cause which would be me actively creating the wagon. That would be the formal calls whereas in I'm forming uh the structure of the wagon. How is it going to look? Um maybe like creating a blueprint or something. Then there's the material cause which would be uh the wood and the little rubber wheels or whatever that I'm going to make it out of. Uh and the bolts and all of that. Uh my point is this. When it comes to sin, God is not the efficient cause. He does not work fresh sin in the heart of unbelievers or believers. Uh he is the teological cause in that he gives the sin that's going to take place in time a purpose and because so for instance um Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. It's always been God's plan. If you affirm it's always been God's plan for Jesus Christ to go to the cross, then it's always been God's plan for Adam to sin. Adam, God wasn't the efficient cause of Adam's sin, but he was a teological cause.

[00:21:58]Adam's sin is going to result in the fall, which is going to result in Jesus Christ going to the cross to redeem humanity to the praise and glory of his grace. Now, maybe you could say uh God is the formal cause that he forms and shapes uh the way history runs. He permitted Satan to be in the garden to tempt Adam. And even in your system, that's an issue. In my system, it's for a greater purpose. In your system, I'm not really sure. The entire point is simply this.

[00:22:31]God can render certain every act in history without having to reach in and cause it to happen. He can orchestrate events by saying, "Oh, I know that if I do A, B is going to happen and that's going to result in um maybe C." And then I'm going to do B, which is going to result in uh C2 and C1 and C2 are going to connect to uh of their own valition without me interacting to create this event. Um, compatibilism is difficult and I will appeal to mystery a little bit there. But again, Isaiah 46:9-10, God says, "I would I declare the end from the beginning." That's using mirrorism. Um, so not just the end and the beginning, but everything in between. Uh, he declares it all and then saying, "My counsel will stand."

[00:23:30]This isn't your counsel. Who can give counsel to the Lord? Not you. So he's not looking down the corridor of time and then declaring what happens because he's saying my counsel will stand and there's a clear parallelism there. So when he's declaring the end from the beginning, that is him saying what his counsel is and what is going to take place in time. Um Ephesians 1:11, God he works all things after the council of his will. Now I know a lot of provisionists will try to limit that but there is no delimiter in the text. It is simply functioning similar to an apositive where it's describing the one who God is. God is the one who works all things after the council of his will.

[00:24:16]>> When their ideas are completely contradictory, they just appeal to mystery and they say it is what it is.

[00:24:20]God ordains all things yet he's not the author of sin. God desires all men to be saved but he's decreed most to damnation.

[00:24:25]>> Okay. So that again uh is also not a contradiction. God can have a desire on in in a a lesser sense for all to be saved while having a desire in the greater sense to display his justice for his own glory. So I have a desire right now to get off here and go eat because I'm freaking starving.

[00:24:46]But I have a greater desire to engage with you guys. Uh because I love you guys. Uh Leighton, good buddy of mine.

[00:24:56]Um, I love you guys, but I also love the people who are going to hear this. I want them to uh learn from this. Um, so I have that greater desire. It can be true. I can say I have a desire to get off here and go eat, but I have a greater desire to do something else. And in the same way, God can have a desire that all men will be saved and have a greater desire um for something for his own glory and displaying his justice.

[00:25:24]Now, you can also understand that by just reading the pronouns of 2 Peter 3:9 and it's talking about he's patient towards you elect people, not wishing any of you should perish, but all should come to repentance. That's another way of looking at it. Like he's waiting for the elect to come in before he returns.

[00:25:44]I think that's a a possibility there. Um I prefer the the former statement though. Either way you take it though, not a contradiction.

[00:25:55]>> Man is free yet every choice is predetermined. Yes, it's a married bachelor.

[00:25:59]>> Uh, no, that is not a married bachelor.

[00:26:02]Man is free in the sense that we do whatever our hearts desire. God has determined what we do, but not in the sense that he makes us puppets. We do what we want to do. And yes, God has decreed what I want to do. Very true.

[00:26:20]But how did he do it? That's the question. You're assuming it's uh like a robot. I'm assuming that it's uh through ordaining specific circumstances in my life, ordaining who my parents were. Um ordaining that I would go through certain situations that would form me into the man that I am today. Um I think that's probably the way that he has made rendered certain every event in history.

[00:26:49]So I am free because I do what I want.

[00:26:51]Now you're assuming that freedom has to be libertarian free will which can't be established. Secondly, I don't know that you can have true freedom under libertarian free will because libertarian free will means that the prior conditions do not um are not sufficient for you to make a decision based off of that. uh basically you're morally neutral at any standpoint um when it comes to the decisions that you make and your decisions become arbitrary and I don't know how that could be freedom. I don't think arbitrariness is freedom. I think it's nonsensical.

[00:27:37]We do what we want. There's the simple answer.

[00:27:41]And thus we are free.

[00:27:43]>> It's a square circle. You just got to deal with that. Our confession says it's true. and you have to accept it. And so >> now I want to say this though, there are aspects that are mysterious. Like I can't explain to you the mechanism behind it. It's a mechanical mystery.

[00:27:57]It's not a logical contradiction. And that's where you guys are just mistaking. You're assuming it's a logical contradiction when I'm saying it's a mechanical mystery in a similar wave to how you have no clue how uh God can know every single thing. He can know I'm going to talk to you right now. Yet somehow I'm free to talk to you right now. We both have to agree there's no such thing as categorical ability to do other than what God knows. So even in your system there's tension and I have no problem with tension because scripture gives me tension. For instance, Jesus has two minds. Did you know that? That's what scripture teaches.

[00:28:36]U when you really break it down, he had to be truly man. That requires him to have a human mind because men have human minds. He had to be truly God. uh that requires him to have the mind of God. Uh if you confess otherwise, you're if you're saying uh it was the divine mind in a human body, now you're confessing apollinarianism, which is a heresy. But I've never seen a person with two minds.

[00:28:59]That is difficult for me. There are things that are hard to grasp and mysterious. Uh so all of the hypatic union the trinity itself I don't understand these things completely but I have no problem saying this is what scripture teaches and I will submit to it.

[00:29:21]Can you talk about the difference between mystery because we all again we all accept that there is mystery but there's a mystery born of finitude in other words we can't know everything and there's mystery born of contradiction which is the system asserts incompatible propositions. Nothing wrong with appealing to mystery. If the Bible affords that mystery, >> for example, you could say that the triune nature of God is mysterious.

[00:29:41]>> But if you demonstrate it to be contradictory, then you've nullified the doctrine of the trinity. And so apologists, at least good ones, will demonstrate how the doctrine of the trinity is not contradictory, but maybe mysterious beyond our >> Could you do that for us? Could you flesh that out? Because a lot of people will say that the law of identity is contradicted with the trinity. And my understanding is you have to understand the law of identity in light of relative identity and you have to really clearly make the categorical distinctions and stuff like that. Uh but it's hard and at the same time I I think it's hard to explain compatibilism but I think there are men out there who have done it sufficiently.

[00:30:25]or comprehension and sometimes I think Calvinists will appeal to a contradiction and then just slap mystery over the top of it and you just need to accept it.

[00:30:33]>> Exactly. The thing is is I've heard non-Calvinists do the same thing where they don't really want to adopt Calvinism, but they will just come along and say, "Well, yeah, but that is true, but also all these other things are true." And that's one of the reasons you hear sermons, I think, from Calvinist.

[00:30:47]John Calvin being one of them. When you go read some of his stuff, you're going, "This guy sounds like a provisionist.

[00:30:52]This guy, I mean, he's preaching exactly like a provisionist, and everything he's saying align exactly with what I say.

[00:30:57]How does that comport with what he says over here? It doesn't make any It just doesn't make any sense." And when you do that, you've nullified your your entire systematic your entire view. And some people will will see that as a a weakness of some sort to say, "Okay, well, you're just trying to make the Bible to be logical, and how dare you this, this, that." I'm like, if if you demonstrate that the Bible is not being logically coherent, then you're nullifying the Bible. That's what apologetics is all about. Apologetics is giving a defense for the reliability and the truthfulness of scripture. And the way in which atheists and non-Christians nullify the Bible is by showing that it's contradictory.

[00:31:35]>> And it just doesn't make sense that you would hold to a systematic theology that just accepts things as being mutually exclusively true. And >> so I feel like you guys are continually asserting that. Yet I have not appealed to mystery at all. I may have appealed to mechanical mystery to some extent. I think that I've given explanations of how that mechanically could work, but you don't have to understand the mechanics of a thing for it not to be logically uh contradictory. For instance, you would one would assume, right, if I dropped a cannonball and I dropped a tennis ball off of a giant building, the cannonball would hit first because it's heavier.

[00:32:23]Well, they both actually hit at the same time. That is a mechanical mystery to me.

[00:32:29]And an ignorant person would say that's a contradiction. And I'm saying no, it's not. There's something out there.

[00:32:36]There's some way that it works that makes it not contradictory. And I'm saying the same thing is true uh with God's decree and man's freedom. Yeah.

[00:32:48]You haven't gave us an example of contradiction. I just don't see any reason for it, especially when there's good exeetical explanations for passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 that don't lead to those contradictions.

[00:32:59]>> They're respectfully respectfully they're not good exeetical explanations because I've shown you thousands of times how Ephesians 1 makes no sense from your perspective.

[00:33:20]Now, I can understand, I'll admit, there's like a rabbit and the duck thing going on, like you said, um, systematically, I think that your system makes a lot of sense in tot. But when you get down to individual scriptures like Ephesians 1, respectfully, you have to turn it to gobbledegook to believe what you believe. And I've shown that thousands of times in debates and I've yet to get answers. I think Brian, I'm grateful Brian, I can't remember his last name. He's came on my channel and tried to give me answers in the comments. I don't find them to be sufficient >> and problems.

[00:34:04]>> Yeah. And I think the world recognizes the contradictions, too. And it it's it's something that makes evangelism difficult if you have a a gospel that is self-contradictory.

[00:34:14]Oh, listen to that.

[00:34:19]He said a gospel that is self-contradictory. Sir, you just made this a gospel issue.

[00:34:28]Maybe you misspoke.

[00:34:30]But when you say Calvinists are preaching a different gospel, which is what that implies, you're making this a gospel issue and now Calvinists aren't Christians. And then the same way I would have to consider you guys not Christians. I don't believe that. I don't believe this is a gospel issue. I believe this is a secondary issue that we need to work out and fight amongst ourselves and figure out. I love you guys. Please sir, I don't know your name. Uh but please be more careful when you say things like that because statements like that lead to stuff like this. God is love, but the Calvinist God is much more of a god of extreme hatred. They slander our loving savior every day. Come on, Seth.

[00:35:14]The Calvinist god, you mean the triune God?

[00:35:20]Is that a god of extreme hatred to you, Seth?

[00:35:24]Come on. But but what he just said leads to this sort of behavior. Yeah. So now I want to give a defense. I'm gonna edit this up. I'm going to give a defense quickly for original sin. And you were dead. When when were you dead?

[00:35:44]Okay, let's look at this. And you being dead. Okay, but when were you dead? We're going to find out. In which you once in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air. This is describing dead.

[00:36:01]Okay, dead is not uh uh something you can choose not to do because you are walking after Satan, following the prince of the power of the air, following the course of this world which is the spirit now works and the sons of disobedience among whom we all this is everyone. We all have sin and fallen short of the glory of God. We all once lived in this way being f following the course of this world. We all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath like most of mankind. No, like the rest of mankind.

[00:36:45]You have to say we were once children of wrath like everyone except infants. This text doesn't say that. It says you were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind. And by nature means basically from birth. Let me show you.

[00:37:03]Okay, let me show you.

[00:37:08]All right, let's show you. Okay, look in Galatians.

[00:37:15]We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners. Notice by birth. Now watch how it's used by Paul. Okay, we have by birth. For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature naturally from birth. Now, we do grow into it. That is, we grow into a fulfillment just like we grow more and more hardened. Um, we are naturally man is made for a woman. Naturally, God gave boys pee peps and women's. Okay? We teach this to my son like men and women are naturally belong. They they are fitted together.

[00:38:00]Okay, that's natural relations and that's something that is true from birth. For when Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.

[00:38:13]How do they by nature do what the law requires? Because men are made in the image of God. You are made in the image of God from birth. How do we know that?

[00:38:21]Because Exodus says or Genesis says if you kill an image bearer of God, you will be put to death. And then Exodus says if two dudes are scrapping and one dude hits a pregnant woman and the baby dies, the man shall be put to death.

[00:38:33]Why? Because the baby's an image bearer of God. Now, if we're all image bearsers of God from birth, one aspect of that is having a conscience, having the law written upon our hearts. So they are by nature enacting in the omo day in their conscience in the law that was written on their heart doing what the law requires. That is not an issue to total depravity though uh some ignorant people believe so we're not as bad as we could be. We do uh good things sometimes we do what the law requires sometimes. This does not mean that they were perfect.

[00:39:07]Keep that in context. Okay. Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcised but and circumcision but break the law. So physically or by nature by nature they're uncircumcised. They're not born into the covenant of God. They are not born with circumcision. But the the big key is they're not born into the covenant with God. But they keep the law. But the point is here by nature they're uncircumcised. Okay? Which is from birth. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Natural branches here refer to Israelites who were born into the covenant. Genesis chapter 17. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, you are born outside of the covenant Gentiles from birth. Does not nature itself teach that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him?

[00:40:03]From birth, men naturally are going to have shorter hair than women. Women's hair naturally grows longer. Again, this is talking about something that can it's a by birth fact, but it can grow at times just like man's depravity. You were born a sinner, but that sin nature continues to get worse and worse and worse. We ourselves are Jews by birth.

[00:40:28]We've already talked about that.

[00:40:30]Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. So, this doesn't work as by birth necessarily. But the point is is that their very essence is that of not gods, which would mean your very essence is that of a child of wrath because you're born a sinner. So far everything that we have talked about is dealing with something either essential to one's nature or uh something that is true from birth, a biological reality from birth. So because you're born fallen in Adam, it's basically essential of your nature now that you are a child of wrath. You're a sinner. you're going to follow the the prince of the power of the air. Okay. Um by birth, this is a fact. You are a child of wrath. That's how Paul uses it everywhere. And no one can show me an exception. I've challenged people thousands of times.

[00:41:35]Romans 5, just real quick.

[00:41:38]Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned.

[00:41:48]Now we can talk about what because I'll sin means but the fact is death spread to all men because of the actions of one man.

[00:42:01]And that means death spread to all men.

[00:42:04]Why? Because all sin.

[00:42:08]There's many ways of looking at this last phrase, but I think the context really helps us. For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given. But sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses. Why? The basic argument here is they didn't die because they violated the law. They died because they were in Adam. Their their their transgression was not like the transgression of Adam and that they did not violate a particular um direct commandment of God. They did violate the law which was written on their hearts of course. But the point is, the argument is is that they died because they were in Adam and death spread to all men. And the wages of sin is death, people.

[00:42:53]If someone dies, they're a sinner.

[00:42:55]Either that or you have God-gi wages to people who have not earned it, and you are making God unjust. You have to deal with that argument. But I've yet to hear it.

[00:43:04]But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one's man's trespass, much more have the grace of God. And the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free g gift is not like the result of that one man's sin.

[00:43:18]For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation.

[00:43:24]But the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. So we see a contrast here. Jesus gives you justification. Adam gives you condemnation. For if because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

[00:43:43]Notice, you have to receive that grace.

[00:43:46]Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. But wait a minute. If Adam makes all condemned, then that means Jesus makes all justified. Right, wrong, look back. You have to receive that gift. Wait, where is it? Receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness. You have to receive that. But there's nothing that says you have to receive Adam's sin.

[00:44:23]For as by one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners, you are made a sinner. Passive voice here, Adam's action made people sinners.

[00:44:36]So by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous. Who are the many here? Those who receive it. And why do they receive it? Because of God's sovereign grace. We know that Romans chapter 8. But the point is this.

[00:44:56]Adam sins and we all are born sinners.

[00:45:00]That's why we were made sinners. If it was that Adam sinned and made it possible for you to sin, it would say that. It doesn't say that. It says Adam's sin makes you a sinner.

[00:45:16]You were made a sinner because of the one man's disobedience. His sin is accounted as your sin. Hence why it says desperate to all men because all sinned.

[00:45:28]It's federal.

[00:45:31]Uh please check out snakecrusher products.online. Use promo code twitchy25 for 25% off. You get free shipping on all orders $49.99 or above.

[00:45:42]Please check them out. They're uh great supporters of this channel. Also, check out uh kintonindustries.com.

[00:45:50]Great supporters of this channel. Uh but when you when you spend on Snake Crusher, I get a kickback. So, please check them out. Uh and then please check out the seven points of Calvinism. You can get it on Amazon.com.

[00:46:04]Also, I got a new coffee company. You can go to the twitchy theologian.com and get some of my coffee. Please uh just support this channel. uh if uh God leads you to do so. And until next time, you stay twitchy internet.

[00:46:36]Heat. Heat.