Justification Debate With Matt Slick Debrief

Was going to go a bit longer but got tired of pausing and unpausing to deal with the sound of hammering from the roof. Next video will expand on the last point on this powerpoint- not sure how it ended up showing as I don't remember clicking it on. But it will deal with the question of what "works of the Torah" means and develop something which was latent in the debate but which I was able to think through in more depth in the aftermath, spurred by a youtube comment I received.

[salibthaqil]

Kabane as you gave your defense of the reason for the hope that is in you I saw something in you, something that humbled me. I saw that light of Christ shining in you, that rare quality of speaking the truth in love. Other apologists and lovers of Christ should take note.

You did a great job brother. 🙏🏽🙏🏽

[natedogg]

I've listened to a handful of debates with Matt and I agree, he was quite gracious compared to what I've seen in the past.

[silentsentinel]

Slick got absolutely destroyed. Anyone who understands the arguments being made can see that from a mile away. But I have to be fair: it's not a personal limitation of his, but rather of the theology that he adheres to. The most persuasive Calvinist cannot "win" a debate with a reasonably informed apostolic theologian (yes, this includes Catholics too, although they have some visible errors like papal supremacy that make their position much harder to defend).

But I am reminded of a comment I saw in a video on James White (another Calvinist), where the writer pointed out that when you listen to him speak it makes perfect sense and sounds deeply convincing, until he engages with someone knowledgeable of a different persuasion and then it comes apart (White won't engage with Dyer, by the way, at least so far). You can do all the complex hermeneutics in the world and be wide of the mark. If you see the text only in legalistic terms, you're not a theologian, you're a lawyer.

[Sl]

I think of Elvis when you say "Thank you, thank you very much" lol.

[LightOfAllMankind]

Well done not taking the bait that Matt threw out there, when he said “what informs your interpretation” after saying how much he doesn’t need councils and Patristic writings. He was itching to take this debate off course and into one that would’ve become Sola Scriptura vs Tradition.

[abrahamtoulabou]

A tough topic, well explicated. Thanks !

[lhinton]

Great job @Kabane. That point at the end about the justification of life (Romans 5:18) is crucial. This verse stands out: “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (Gal 3:21). The Law does not enliven us; only our God does in Christ by the Spirit. The righteousness and life parallel point backs to our union with Jesus. This passage supports your connection between justification and sanctification: “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30). If you walked exegetically through Romans 3-5, that would make good premium content for your channel. God bless you!

[brandonmayfield]

Hey Kabane.

Watched some of the debate and just thought of something I wanted to share: If we are justified through imputed righteousness then why is Paul in the context of the unrighteous not inheriting the kingdom of God saying in 1 Cor 6:11 that "ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God"? Surely, it sounds here like justification is a work of the Spirit in us, realigning us with the righteousness of God.

Coming from a protestant background, I am becoming more fascinated by the orthodox understanding of justification although I can't say I have learned much about it yet. My impression is there is a lot more depth to what Paul is teaching than what has been understood by the protestant tradition.

Blessings to your ministry