Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at KARM.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick live.

Francis taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. Hey, thanks for tuning in again.

And if you're a newbie, check it out. You might be interested in what we have to say. Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe it'll upset you. This is a Christian radio station and I teach Christianity. And boy, I'll tell you, it's uphill work sometimes because there's a lot of heresy out there.

Yep, that's right. So much heresy, so little time. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 8772072276. And you can, we can blap.

All right, no problem. If you don't want to call in or you can't or whatever it is, you can also email me a comment or question at info at KARM.org. C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. We got plenty of radio questions to go into and ask and respond to. And I can go unearth some old hate mail that I've not read on the radio. And I love hate mail. I really do. So maybe we'll do some of that too.

It'd be fun, some old hate mail. All right. I hope your day's going fine. We blew a circuit in the house today and took me about, I don't know, half hour to figure out how to get it going again. There's a hidden GFI.

And now, right before the show, one of the areas in the house still doesn't work and everything's right. So, I'm confused. Well, hey, I'll figure it out.

Just pray and go. So, like I said, if you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. You can listen on, let's see, on, actually, you know what, I just realized, if you were to go to KARM.org forward slash social media, I'm going to do this, just KARM.org forward slash, just type in social space media and see what happens. It should go to our page because, yeah, and it does. And so, everything there on the page, it'll get you all you need for Discord, Facebook, Clubhouse, and different things that we are on in order to, you know, to participate if you want to do that. You can jump into some of the chat rooms and stuff like that. We have people doing that right now. It's a lot of fun. Okay, whoa, there we go.

All right, we got nobody waiting. So, I think what I'm going to do is, let's see, I'm starting to read. I'm going to go into the emails, the questions and comments. Let's see, a person says, I love your ministry. Grateful to the Lord for using you. Hey, I know that you are a fan of the movie, Nefarious.

Yes, I was. I've seen it five times. I just saw it for my second time yesterday and, man, it honestly is one of my all-time favorites. I have a question regarding something in the movie, and this might get into eschatology. This may be a spoiler.

That's right, it might be a spoiler for people, heads up. No, what the movie is, it's a Christian movie, and it's well done. It really is well done. It's one of the few really good Christian-produced movies. And so, it's about a convict who's on death row, he's about to be executed, and a psychiatrist has to go in to interview him to see if he's sane or not, whether he can be executed or not. And so, the demon in the convict talks and has a conversation with a psychiatrist who's an atheist. Or is it a demon? Is it or isn't it? And that's the thing of the movie, so it's really good.

I enjoyed it. Anyway, so the demon apparently offers this guy power and riches, compliance. That's right, in reference when Christ was tempted. Okay, my question is, since at the end of Matthew, Christ takes all power and heaven and earth have been given to me, therefore, does the devil still have the right to things that... Yeah, yeah, it's not the right to. It's that the devil certainly will step through open doors. The demonic forces use open doors.

Let's put it this way. Let's just say that someone gives you an Ouija board, and for birthday present, Christmas present, it's in their house. It's an occult device. It's a door. It doesn't mean you're going to be possessed, doesn't mean your house is going to float away and turn upside down and stuff like that. But it does mean that it's a door, and is the door open or is it not open?

That's the question. Well, people, if they use it, it's tantamount to opening a door to the occult. And it could be different ways that you can get involved in the occult with different doors.

For example, astrology, reading the astrology thing, you know, unless, whatever it is, and the sun is in the right position for you. That's occultism, and Christians should have no business with it, along with Alcoholics Anonymous should have no business. That's a doorway to the occult also.

Shouldn't be in any church. And so there's different ways, and then people can be influenced. And then little by little by little, what happens is the demonic forces can take possession if it happens. This is just the generic stuff. So anyway, he still can do that. Just wanted an opinion. There you go. There's my opinion. All right. There you go.

Yeah. And I used to be involved in the occult before I became a Christian. I used to do seances. I've seen things materialize. I've seen lights move, heard voices, stuff like that. No drugs, no sleep deprivation in the occult, seen stuff. And that was in my mid-early teens, and I got saved, and there you go.

So no more of that heresy. All right. All right, all right, all right. Let's get on the phones with Alex from Orlando, Florida.

Alex, welcome. You're on the air, buddy. I called in because no one's coming. We got callers. We got another guy waiting, but if I'd have known it was you, I'd have waited anyway. Oh, now you got a guy waiting.

Ah, what the hell. You know, I'd let people know. You know, like this. We have three open lines, folks. Give me a call, 877-207-2276. And don't worry. You won't sound any worse than Alex here.

He'll be fine. Go ahead, buddy. Yeah. Just helping you out. Every time I call in, I have some, like, scratchy connection to it. I don't know what it is. Well, maybe because you're tall, and then the ozone up there does something. I don't know.

Yeah, that could be it. Well, I also wanted to call the insult here. You smell bad.

Yeah, you're terrible. You believe in the Trinity. You don't know. There's no God. And you don't know the true name, Yeshua Mashiach. Man, that was not a very good insult because it has to be contextual and have truth in it.

So there you go. I missed the hate mail. We need some hate mail. Someone call in and insult this man.

Write him a bad email. I'm going to read some old hate mail. I've got some old stuff. I'll read some old hate mail. You really like the hate mail. A lot of people do.

We need to find Atomic Body Man. Find that one. I've heard it, like, you know you've read it, like, five times at this point. I could probably read it by, you know, memory. No, I've only told, just, you know, retold the story how it went.

But I need to find it on, you know, I've done over, like, 3,000 shows. So it's, I don't know where it is, you know, in some place. Anyway, no big deal. So, you got a question? I have a question. So, yeah, yeah, I'm reading through the Bible again and I'm in Exodus. And I had a question about Exodus chapter 2, the birth of Moses. So, in the first couple of verses, his mother says he was beautiful so she hid him. So I'm wondering why she hid him and then why she abandoned him.

It doesn't really say. Well, she, because they were coming through and killing the children. Okay, so there was, like, a decree at the time that they were killing the children during that time?

Yeah. And so, yeah, it was interesting because the, I forgot, it's been a long time since I read it, but the, you know, there was a decree to go kill them just like it was with Jesus. And so she put him in a basket. And what's interesting, when she could hide him no longer, let's see, what could it says that? Yeah, okay, here it says, oh, I remember now why, I remember why Pharaoh did that. So the Jews were growing in number. They were getting to be humongous in their population. So then Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, every son who is born to you are cast into the Nile, every daughter you are to keep alive.

So didn't want the populations to go. And it says, so now the man of the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi, the woman conceived and bore a son, and when she saw that he was beautiful, she hid him for three months. When she could no longer do it, she put it in a wicker basket and covered it with tar and pitch. It's a mini ark because tar and pitch was used in Noah's ark. And she put a child into it and set it in the water, okay, what's really interesting is that he was found by a sister, I think it was a sister of Pharaoh, I forgot, and a daughter of Pharaoh came, that's what it was, made in the Nile. And so the very thing that, this is ironic, irony, the very thing that Pharaoh wanted to do to kill, to save himself and his people, is the thing by which he was destroyed.

Interesting. Yeah, God, it shows God's sovereignty, because if there was no decree, Moses would have never been there. What? What are you, a slimy Calvinist? Okay, what do you want me to say? Yeah, he could have used some other means, is that what you want me to say?

Yeah, yeah, he looked into the future to see what people would do, God rolled the dice and hoped it would work out, yeah. Yeah, no, you're right. Okay, I'm not a, yeah, I'm not a motorist. Openseist. Yeah, openseist.

No, what's openseist? Well, opentheism is heretical, it's flat out heretical. Moanism is just not good.

And opentheism says God doesn't know all events in the future because they're restricted from his knowability because of our free will. It's stupidity, it's a dumb, it really is bad. And so there are people who hold to that. But moanism. Yeah, the only reason moanism is a little bit popular is because it's quite brave, and what?

Yeah, I didn't describe moanism, I will now and tell you what it is, okay? So moanism is the idea that God knows all counterfactuals equally with the things that will come to pass. So he knows before the creation of the universe, in what's called middle knowledge, the counterfactuals, that all people will, he knows how all people will freely react and behave under all circumstances, and he chooses the best scenario from that to get about what he wants. The problem is it denies total depravity, and it says that sinners in the right circumstances can simply believe in God, and that's one of the counterfactuals that God considers. And that's against scripture, because Jesus says, no, you can't come to me unless it's granted to you from the Father. So it's not up to people's free will, you know, it's up to the granting of God, and he grants what he believes, Leopold 1.29.

This is the sovereignty of God stuff, which is right there in the Bible. Yeah, no, and moanism, I mean, if you notice, it was a very small minority view. Do you remember the name of the guy who started it, who started writing about it? Joseph Molina, yes, he was a Roman Catholic priest. And he, in fact, I talked to someone who has read a lot of his stuff, it's not translated into English, he read it in the original language, and apparently Molina was, he's a Roman Catholic, he was quite the heretic. Really bad.

Yes, in a lot of areas, he's really bad. So anyway. Okay.

Yeah, that's, yeah, that's, yeah, really quick. So where do I find out more about this decree that Pharaoh had at the time, is that in a different scripture? Well, what I would do is go to, like, a Blue Letter Bible, and go to that verse and see if it has cross-references.

Okay, check it out. But it is, it is in the Bible, the decree is somewhat, it's referenced somewhere, right? Well, yeah, I just read it to you. To kill the children? Oh, you said that in the verse?

To kill the children? Yeah. I said Exodus 1, 22, I think somebody's not paying attention. Oh, yeah, I must have just went over it, okay.

Give me some music. All right, buddy. Okay, buddy. We'll see you there, God bless.

All right. Now, obviously, it's a friend of mine, good guy, Alex, hey, look, there's a break music, so if you're going to hold on, then we'll be right back, Lord willing, after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276.

Let's get to Wes from, well, the United States. Hey, welcome. You're on the air. Hello. Hello. How are you doing? Doing all right. Hanging in there, man.

Hanging in there. What do you got? Well, you were just talking about open seaism. I definitely am not Calvinist, lean towards open seaism, although I don't really agree with everything they say. I wanted to see if you had anything for me, if you could, I mean, I'm not completely settled on it, too, if you wanted to hash it out a little bit or, or try to, try to talk me out of it or maybe you can talk about it a little bit.

Well, I can try. So is there anything in the Bible that says that God doesn't know something? Anything that says that God doesn't know something? Is there anything that God does not know? Are there verses that seem to say that to you?

I didn't ask that. I said to me, are there any scriptures from our perspective? I just asked a quick question.

So are there any verses in the Bible that says that God does not know something? I can help you out. I'd have to. Sure. Yeah. Yeah.

I'd have to. The answer is no. It says God does not know something. Okay. That's different than what you asked. Okay.

So there are places in scripture where God says, for example, now I know. Right? Right.

Okay. Yeah. Genesis 22.

Yeah. Genesis 22. Now let's talk about that and see because the open theists, you know, respectfully speaking here make a huge mistake.

Now with open theists, do they teach, there's variations, let's find out where you are. Do you believe that God knows all things in the present? Okay. I kind of see it like a chessboard with where he knows all possibilities. Okay.

Didn't ask that though. Does he know everything? I'll add the word exhaustively in the present. He knows everything that can be known. Oh, can you find my verse that says that? Can you find me any verse that says that he knows everything that can be known?

Well, I can't find it. I think it's kind of like where, you know, you can't make a rock logically. It's just logically. You know, you can't know anything that cannot be known.

No, no, no, no, no. You're completely getting, sorry, but you're completely getting it wrong. To not know something has to do with knowledge and to not be able to do something deals with, in this context, he brought up with the logic. The universal laws of logic emanate out of the mind of God because they are properties of his being and his essence. So he can't make a round square because it's logically impossible because it's just not coherent with his mind. It's not an issue of knowing how to do it. It's just not possible. And God knows it's not possible because it's by definition out of his universal mind and all possibilities.

It's not possible. It's different than, uh, than saying he can know everything that can be known because the problem with that is now, as soon as you say that, then you have to tell me what can and can't be known by God. You see the problem? Um, I would say he can know everything that is possible to be known. Okay. And you have a verse for that. Do you have anything in scripture that says that? That would be any verses that are talking about his omniscience. Well, no, no. You see, what you're doing, and I've had this conversation many times with open theists and they don't see the illogic, okay, if something's illogical, you should not believe it, okay?

So that's a very specific question and you're not able to answer that question, I have to help you out. And I'm not mocking you, I'm just saying, because your position doesn't allow that, and then you say he can know everything that's possible to be known, then what you're doing is you're making a statement, okay? So then I need to know biblically if the statement is valid. So I'm asking you where to say that in scripture. And there is no place in scripture to assess that. Furthermore, what that is to say, well, he can know everything that's possible to be known.

Really? Well, then, like I said, then what do you know is possible and not possible with God? And on what basis? If you say that again, I don't quite understand that. All right. So let's see. So you're saying that God can only know things that are possible to be known. That's a statement.

All right. Then I'm going to ask, what are some of the things he can't know, okay? He cannot know the things that are not possible to be known. But that's not, it's like, what's a circle? It's a round thing. Well, what's a round thing?

It's a circle. It doesn't help at all. What are some of the things he, give me something he can't know. He cannot know decisions that have not been made yet. He cannot know.

He cannot know decisions that have not been made yet. Okay. Now, there is no place in scripture that says that, just so you know. Okay? Okay. So, and I'll tackle that statement. But in 1 Corinthians 4, 6, it says that you're not to exceed what's written. You can't go beyond what's written, and that's what you're doing repeatedly.

You're adding certain parameters into the very nature of God. And you don't realize, well, we'll get into that. Well, actually, there's a whole problem. Okay.

Write this note, we'll get to it, we'll explain why there's, why open theism is so bad, and it really is bad. It just doesn't hold any water. So he said, he cannot know decisions that have been made.

All right. He said that. Now, nothing in scripture says that. So it's not substantiated by God. So it's an opinion that you have.

But let's work with it. And if he can't know decisions that have not been made, then how could he plan for anything that's going to happen, since it would mean that every decision of every individual is future to him, he won't know what it is. How does he then obtain his sovereignty to ordain whatever shall come to pass? By his power, by his ability to, you know, if you played chess against God, he would be able to tell you what was coming, you know, a few moves down the road, he would be able to tell you how he was going to win, what he was going to be able to do, he did not control all of your movements within the game. That's not, no, that's not, he would know all of the, he would know all of the possibilities without knowing all of your means.

No, no, no. Chess has a certain limitation to it. There's only so many moves that can be done. There's an actual limit to it.

Okay. And, well, not necessarily because you can go on to draws and very forms that can continue on, but there's, you know, a high number, but it's within certain operatives, certain operations that are necessarily. But a decision, what you're saying then is that God does now not know what will happen in the minds of billions of people for their billions of decisions. So billions upon billions upon billions and billions of decisions, God doesn't know what's going to happen. All right. Now here's a huge problem, but he knows all the possibilities of those. Well, how do you know?

Because how could he know the possibility of a decision if it can't be known? So we're going to break one looks out, but that's a problem too, but hold on. We'll be right back. Okay. Hey, folks, you're right back after these messages, please stay tuned. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Wes.

Hey, Wes, are you still there? Yes, sir. All right. So I forgot what that last part was. You said something. Oh, man.

So where were we? Well, I think that it seems like God knows is much more maximal in a scenario where he knows all of the billions and billions of possibilities versus only where he knows one definite outcome that he made himself. God is maximally good and maximally powerful, then the more maximally powerful God would be one that allows free will, still knows all the possibilities and still is able to perform his will within the possibilities. That's humanism. That's secular thought imposed on Christianity. Now you've said he has to be maximally this. Can you show me that in scripture? I thought it was a Calvinist doctrine to say that God is maximally powerful. No, we don't say he's maximally powerful. We say that he can do whatever he desires.

He can accomplish whatever he desires. And this is an issue of scripture because we have to look at what the Bible says. And the Bible says he does whatever he pleases, Psalm 135.6. And Proverbs 16.33, the lot is cast into the lap, but every decision is from the Lord.

So let's take a look at that. There's a man and he hasn't decided to throw the dice yet. Does God know what the dice are going to be actually? Does he? He knows what the dice are possibly going to be.

I got that. But does he know what they're actually going to be once it's thrown? Before it's thrown.

Not until they're thrown. Okay, so God's learning. Yes.

Okay. So the God that you hold to learns. God learns. Learns as it unfolds.

He learns as it unfolds. Okay. That's good Mormonism, okay.

So let's see, let me shift a little bit. Do you believe that Jesus bore our sins in his body and the cross? Yeah.

Okay. Are they generic sins or are yours and mine actual sins? Like the sin we're going to commit in tomorrow exactly at this time, right? Whatever it is. So he knows that, right? Or not?

Yes. He bore... You know, I don't know. That's a good question. I don't know if he only bore the exact sins that everyone committed or if he bore all sins. That is all sins of all mankind. Then you have a problem. I don't believe the limit of atonement. Well, it doesn't matter.

The thing is if he bore all sin of all time and he paid for it, then everybody has to go to heaven because all the sins paid for. So you're stuck. You become a universalist. It just doesn't make any sense. Right.

Yeah. I think, you know, I don't know. Well, look, did he bear everybody's sin and sin that was not committed? Did he bear both what was actual and not actual? How does he bear a non-actual sin? I, you know, I'm not sure how that works, and I don't know that we could find scripture that shows how that works. Well, we don't because it doesn't say that he bore our non-actual sin. It says he bore our sins.

First Peter 2.24. Our sins were imputed to him. They're actual sins. You know, the sin that you commit tomorrow and meet me tomorrow at a certain time, that's sin. Was that imputed to Christ 2,000 years ago?

Yes, it was imputed to Christ. But how's that possible if God doesn't know what sins we're going to commit because he doesn't know what decisions we're going to make? How could he impute billions and billions of people's sins back on Christ, specific sins? If we say potential sin, well, that's potential sin is not sin, okay?

Right. So, now what you have is you have a problem because now, if God doesn't know what the future decisions of people are going to be, then he doesn't know what sins they're going to commit. How can he then impute them to Christ? I don't necessarily, I don't necessarily, you know, I'm not sure about that because the question, the atonement is, I think, I think a difficult one. No, it's not. I don't know that, oh yeah, I mean, I don't, there's a lot of debate over whether there is, you know, whether sin is only to sin.

Let me help you out. You know, the limited atonement has been hotly debated throughout, you know, since the reformation and it's not, that's not like something that is settled there. Well, it doesn't matter if it's settled or not. What does the scripture say? People can disagree all they want, but sin is a legal debt. Jesus equates sin with legal debt. He says, our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come. He says in Matthew 6, 12, he says, forgive us our debts and Luke 11, 4, he says, forgive us our sins. So he equates sin with legal debt. That's what Jesus does. This is not hard. This is not rocket science. You know, people want, they want to debate me on it.

They can't. I was in a debate once with someone who said, Jesus never equated sin with legal debt. And I just quoted this to him and he was stumped. He's absolutely stumped because his whole idea was that Jesus did not actually bear legally our sins because he was not equivalent to sin.

I showed him where it was. He, he, instead of submitting to the scriptures, what he did was he just continued to argue against them. So this is what it says. So Jesus equated sin with legal debt and he bore our sins.

So the legal debts were bore in his body. Isn't that correct? It is correct.

Yeah. Are you saying that it's not scripturally debatable? And so, um, then he will just go with the scripture says, and then it's, Colossians 2, 14 says he canceled the certificate of debt. The Kerografon, the handwritten IOU of legal indebtedness, he canceled our sinful, our certificate of debt at the cross. Not when you believe, not when you get baptized was canceled then. Well, what is it?

He canceled a certificate of debt. Her sin debt. Yeah. All the sins. Yeah.

All the sins. Good. All right, good.

So now you just affirmed. Can we get it first John 2 too? Yeah.

Yeah. He's a propitiation only for our sins, but sins of the whole world. There can mean two things, two, three things. It can mean every individual who ever lived, it can mean just the local area and it can mean all the nation groups because in Matthew 15, 24, Jesus says, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He was not sent to the whole world because covenantally God was only sending the Messiah to Israel. Israel broke the messianic, I mean, broke the covenant laws and requirements, rejected the Messiah.

And so we, the Gentiles are grafted in. So not only for our senses, as John says, but the sins of the whole world. So if you're going to say this, that the word world there means every individual, then you have to demonstrate that that's what it means, where I can demonstrate from scripture that a very good, strong case can be made that it's just talking about all kinds of people groups because Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That's Jesus' own words I just quoted.

He said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Furthermore, the word propitiation in Greek is phalasmos, or hilasterion, and it means the sacrifice that removes wrath. It doesn't mean the sacrifice that makes the wrath removable if you do something, it doesn't mean that.

It means it's done. So if he's a propitiation, then the sin debt is removed for every individual who ever lived. 1 John 2, 2. You go to 1 John 4, 10, we can do the same thing. I know this stuff, and Jesus said on the cross, he said to Telestai it is finished, which is a legal term, legal debt's been paid. So if he cancelled the sin debt, then he actually bore our sins. But if he actually bore our sins, then how is that possible if God doesn't know what sins they're going to commit? Open theism risks the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. That's the point I want to make.

That's a good point, I'll need to study that out a little bit. I feel like the limiting 1 John 2, 2 is not necessarily saying we're going to read scripture as it is, but actually reading something into it, because it could be read either way. Nope.

Nope. Look at John 3, 16. God shall love the world. What does the word world mean? The whole world. What does it mean?

All of humanity. It does? You're sure? Yes.

Okay. What about Psalm 5, 5 and Psalm 11, 5? God hates all who do iniquity. What about 1 Samuel 3, 14, where God says that the, now quote it, I've sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquities of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So God says he's not bearing the sin of the iniquities of their house.

So the word world, how could it mean every individual? This is not reading into the text. This is examining it.

Most people read into it and don't even realize they do. I can prove it to you. I'll show you a trick if you want. Hold on. We've got another break.

This is what I do in the evenings, folks, I have conversations like this, usually a little bit slower though. Take two, we'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Hey, welcome back to the show.

We have three open lines. If you want to give me a call 877-207-2276, Wes, are you still there? I am.

I am. Okay. So we're having a conversation, I appreciate the time.

Hey, no problem. You know, that's what I do. I want people to hear this and you're pretty typical of representing open theism.

And I'm not mad at you or anything like that, but I want you to know that it's a very serious problem. You're reducing God and you're limiting his ability based on nothing in scripture. And when there are statements, like in Genesis 22, God says, now I know about Abraham and Isaac.

The reason Abraham and Isaac were offered is it's a representation of Christ and the crucifixion. And God will say things anthropomorphically. So an example of this is Adam and Eve were in the garden and the pre-incarnate Christ came to them after they sinned. And he said to the man, where are you? Well, God, he didn't know. He didn't know where Adam was, of course he did. He was walking with Adam, but he's not a man, but he walked. He spoke as a man, but God was not a man, but he spoke.

And then he asked, where are you? These are all anthropomorphisms and God does this and that's what's going on there. And furthermore, if God knows all things present, then he would have known the condition of Abraham's heart, he would have known exactly what his decision was.

So it was acted out for our benefit because it was a mentioning of the cross without the mentioning of the cross being there, it's typological. Because God had said to Abraham in Genesis 12, three, and you, all the nations shall be blessed, not go off of your son. He'd only be God's son, but Ishmael was born 13 years earlier.

It took three days for them to get to the hill. Jesus was in the grave three days. Both the sons carried wood on the back of the hill, a ram caught in a thicket of thorn with Isaac, and Jesus bore a kind of thorns and it goes on and on. Jesus says in John 8, 56, Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad.

It was a representation of him, as Jesus says in John 5, 39, that the scriptures are about him. So when God was there, he goes, now I know. But God didn't know what Abraham was going to do. God had to learn. Well, if God learns that, then he must be a pretty good guesser. How could he know exactly what would happen to bring about the cross?

How could the cross be guaranteed? So first of all, I think that God is an actor in the world. He's actually exerting force on the world, just like anybody else or just like a king would exert force over a kingdom. So he's able to press toward his will.

And he's also infinitely wise, so he's able to look at all of the possibilities, including the moves that he is able to make, and then make predictions based on what he knows to be possible. What you've done is reduced God, you've elevated man. That's what open theism does. It's a reduction of God's power and knowledge. Calvinism reduces God.

No, it doesn't, but that's another topic. Let's just stick with open theism, because you also have a problem with Ephesians 1.4, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. How could he choose people?

Did he know what they're going to do? Because it says he chose us in him, but it's in Christ. The Father chose us in him before the foundation of the world. But how's he going to do that if he doesn't know what choices people are going to make? You know what we would say, what an Armenian would say about Ephesians 1.4.

He said, you've been doing this for a long time. It doesn't say that he chose us in him, you know, chose the individual people to be in him. He says he chose us in him that we should be whole and without blame. Yeah. The choosing there is not for salvation. The choosing is a thank you notation for the people who receive it. And it's typical anti-Calvinist, you know, we can. Yeah, it's typical.

And it's also pretty weak. Okay. I'll explain why. He chose us in him before the foundation of the world. The choosing was done by God.

It doesn't matter if you want to say sanctification, justification, it doesn't matter. How could he do that if he doesn't know that decisions are going to be made by people? He doesn't know what people are going to be alive. Here's another problem. So are the two people who are married, are they deciding to have children or not? God doesn't know what child they're going to have. In fact, let's just say, here's a problem. So let's say, you know, I don't know, whatever place in history, you know, we'll use our present time.

All right. So, there's a man and a woman, they just got married, they're on a honeymoon and he's driving the car next to a very steep cliff area on some vacation spot. Now, does God know if he's going to drive off the road or not? Does he know if he's going to, the tire is going to blow?

Does he know that if the tire blows, that this man's going to do something he should or should not do while he's driving and he drives off the cliff and they both die? But if they don't die, they have children. Well, the children are going to be saved? Well, they're not going to be saved? Well, what choices are they going to make? Well, he doesn't know what's going to happen in the future because he doesn't know what choice they're going to make when he's driving. He can't know.

Right. See, you guys are the ones who limit God severely. You reduce him to a very good guesser of possibilities where he's hoping things work out. So when it says, just as he chose us and him before the foundation of the world, you say that's not salvation. Second Thessalonians 2, 13, but we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation. How could he do that? How could he choose you from the beginning for salvation if he doesn't know what choices people are going to make? He doesn't know they're even going to be alive and be around.

What if a person makes a choice, a free will choice to drink? What was the verse you just read? Second Thessalonians 2, 13. Second Thessalonians 2, 13.

Mm-hmm. God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation. That doesn't say anything about chosen you before the, that doesn't say anything about before the foundation of the world. It says he, well, it doesn't matter.

It says he chose us from the beginning for salvation. What's from the beginning? It doesn't say what's from the beginning is. Good. So would it be the, I actually didn't, but I didn't, I just read it. You said it can't be from the beginning of the early, you, you, you've concluded that.

Hey, remember, I'm pretty slick. So here's the thing. Yeah, so, so yeah, so, so he chose, absolutely read that, chose you from the beginning of, you know, since they got saved, he chose you since they got saved, but it says he chose you for salvation. It doesn't say for salvation.

Yes, it does. For salvation chosen you to salvation through sanctification. No, no, no, no. Where are you getting that? Where are you getting that? I'm just reading the verse.

No, you're not. What, what, what Bible, what version? King James version.

Yeah. See, okay. I say to people, stay away from the King James.

It messes you up. You know, I'm saying this more and more, uh, King James is not a good Bible to use for apologetics. So I'm looking at the Greek. Okay. You should use a more modern translation.

It says God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation. So I'm not, I'm not really interested in the modern translation. Yeah. Well, Romans five 18 is butchered by the King James and it makes a mistake in, uh, and denies the DT of Christ or reduces the DT of Christ in, and, um, Oh, crud.

Where is it? Two 13 to a tightest two 13 and breaks it. Great.

The Granville sharp rule. Uh, it has a lot of mistakes in it. Lots of stuff. Romans five 18 is a horrible translation of the King James. And it's a very, very, very significant verse that has very significant theology. And you'll never see it. You'll never know it. If you look at the King James, no, not at all. You're just stuck on stuff on all men.

What's that? It says the free gift came upon all men. The free gift is not in the Greek. It doesn't say that at all.

Look, I've had four and a half years of Greek. I've been discussing that particular verse for decades and, uh, the King James just butchers it. And I can go through and explain why.

I can give you an article on another website of mine that goes through it in depth and explains it. But it just butchers it. Part of the reason the King James only is because I feel like if we don't have a single authority and we can slither around to whatever, whatever, uh, out, excuse me, I don't mean slither around. We can, we can choose whatever translation that we want in order to fit our doctrine. I mean, that's what you're doing with the King James is pretty strong against limited atonement. Now look, look, stop, stop with the limited atonement stuff.

You keep going. We're talking about open theism here. We're talking about the issue of God's knowledge. You're stuck on limited atonement and if you want to call back on Monday and we could have a discussion on that and I guarantee you won't be able to address the issues I'll raise and I will be able to answer your objection, but you won't be able to answer mine and yet you'll still hold onto the view that Jesus paid for the sin of every individual who ever lived and yet those same people go to hell. How can they go to hell if their sins are paid for and canceled by Jesus? And then what you're doing is you don't realize that you're accusing God of sin by saying he's paying for their sin and he's still going to judge you for them, but they're already removed. There's a problem with the other position.

Trust me. I know that topic even better than this one, but the issue here is if God chose you from the beginning for salvation, it doesn't say to salvation, okay? Because the Greek word is eis, into, and it can have different meanings in different contexts for in the case of. This is why you got to stay away from the King James.

It's going to lead you astray if you're going to do serious study. So let's say it means you go with eis, into, or whatever. That still doesn't show that he's choosing you before the foundation of the world or salvation. He's choosing the people who have gotten saved, who have received him to as many as received him, to them gave you the power to become the sons of God, who were born again, not of their own will to be saved and says they were born not of their own will.

The next verse, there goes your open theism. See, you didn't realize, that's John 1.12, okay? You said it is received him, to them it gave the right to become him. No, it doesn't say that. It says the will of man or but of God. It says you're born of God's will. God grants that you have faith.

Did you know that? He grants it to you. Right, he grants that everybody has faith. No, he does not, because God grants, no, he does not grant that everybody has faith. It says to each man has been given a measure of faith, but that's not the salvation faith of Philippians 1.29, where God grants that you believe in Christ, which is John 6.29. He grants that you believe in Christ. What is the measure of faith that he grants to everyone? Well, that's a good question, because people believe that the cars driving at you with a yellow line in between won't crash into you. They have a measure of faith in that. They have their faith that the other car will start.

They have every belief something, because they're made in the image of God, but salvation faith is something completely different, and this is only granted by God. That's correct, whom God chooses. You don't like that, but you're stuck on the sovereignty of God versus the sovereignty of man, and that's the problem. But hey, man, there's a time, we're out of time, man, we've got to go, all right? But enjoy the conversation. Call back Monday, okay? I can talk to you, yeah. Yeah, I enjoy talking to you. Yeah, well, good.

I enjoy talking to you, too. Call back tomorrow, I mean, Monday, get the best anti-limit atonement versus you got, okay? Whatever you want to say. We'll see. Okay, sounds good.

We'll start it. Have a good weekend. Oh, I know that one. That's easy. Go to the Deuteronomy 28, 32.6. Bye. The Deuteronomy is powered by the Truth Network.