Imputation: AI vs. AI

0:00Looking at our world from a theological perspective, this is the Theology Central Podcast, making theology central. Good morning everyone, it is Saturday, September 19, 2026. It is currently 11.37 am central time, and I'm coming to you live from the Theology Central Studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now I have to admit something here, probably right at the beginning, and I just want to get this out of the way. I know typically I come in with a lot more energy, but I am frustrated, irritated, just man, sometimes, you just like what in the world? Part of that is, many of you know I'm having some ongoing health issues, still waiting for the VA, still waiting for them to get what needs to be done approved.

1:00I'm going to call on Monday. Man, I need some answers there. So I had some major issues last night, major issues. So I'm not feeling great, but that's not real. I mean, that's frustrating. Let me just be honest, that's frustrating. Now, you could argue, well, you shouldn't bring that frustration to the microphone, and you're probably right. I probably shouldn't, right? And if you're really frustrated and irritated and discouraged and depressed about that, then you probably should not do a broadcast. And there would probably be a lot of good advice in that idea. But at the same time, I'm not going to allow those issues to just completely control my life. And I do believe I have a responsibility. I have this podcast just last night, someone sent in a gift of $200. That while I have a responsibility, if someone sends me $200, I have a responsibility

2:00to produce content, right? And when people contact me via email or a voicemail or however, I do believe I have some responsibility in order to, and I have a responsibility to provide some kind of response or feedback. I believe I do. If someone's going to take the time to listen to me, then construct an email and send it to me, I should respond. Now, yeah, I can respond with a very just quick brief response, type it out. But you know, I'm not, that's not really my way of doing things, especially when it's dealing with theology or the Bible, because rarely a short response is accurate. I think when it comes to theology in the Bible, there's layers upon layers, there's nuance, there's so many different things. So it just makes some sense to turn on the microphone and then try to respond. But at the same time, sometimes responding to certain things can be very irritating,

3:04right? I think on one hand, I think people do need to know this. Now, some podcasters, what they do is they put things behind a paywall. Hey, if you want to be able to contact the host of this podcast and get them to respond to you, then you have to become a member of our Reformation Club or whatever they want to call it. And then you get access to a special email address and then you get to contact them and then they will respond. I've never done that nor will I ever do that. At the same time, I can understand because when you get emails and you respond, that response can take up hours of your day. It can take up a week depending on the theological issue. Now you have to try to respond to. It's a lot of work, right? And it's not like I'm getting paid by the hour. So, but I think most of the time, I don't care how long it takes and I don't care how many hours. But there are other times I'm like, I'm being asked this question.

4:05I've done 5,000 episodes, right? I've addressed this 50,000 times. I know the math doesn't work there, but you get the idea. I've addressed it thousands of times. So, here we are today. Because I feel like we've been talking about this. And some version, I've been talking about these issues at least for 15 years. At least for 15 years. I've talked about it in sermons, podcast episodes, Bible studies, devotionals. It has come up so many times. Thousands of episodes where I've talked about justification. I've talked about imputed righteousness. I've talked about infused righteousness. I've talked about sanctification. I've talked about assurance. I've talked about the work of the Holy Spirit. I've talked about the law of God. I've talked about the righteousness of Christ. I've talked about whether Christians are actually transformed or not.

5:08I've talked about passages that seem to imply. If anyone's in Christ, he's a new creature. Old things are passed away. All things that become new. I've interpreted that and shown that it cannot mean how Christians typically interpret that. Because if I'm a new creature and the old is gone and everything is new, then ladies and gentlemen, I would not be sinning. I've dealt with the zikua, what 36? The heart of stone has been replaced with a heart of flesh. That is for Israel. Fourth grade rating comprehension can figure that out. Israel is mentioned all over that chapter. I've given with you the chapter and counted how many times Israel is mentioned. And it's specifically tied to when they're going to get the land. And then they're going to basically walking God's ways perfectly. That's not us. I've dealt with so many of these controversial passages over and over and over. I've tried to distinguish. There are some things that are true about us positionally. That positionally, I am perfect. I am holy.

6:08I am righteous. I am new. Etc. Etc. Etc. But practically, I'm still a sinner because the sinful nature is not eradicated in salvation. I mean, I've talked about this so many stinking times. But no matter how many times, I've talked about it. Over and over and over again. We somehow always end up right back here. God commands us to be holy. God demands perfection. We are told that Christians have been set free from slavery to sin. We've been set free from bondage. We've been given a new heart. We've been given the Holy Spirit.

7:10God is working inside of each and every one of us. The Holy Spirit, it's transformed. Has either transformed us past tense, transforming us present tense, or will transform us future tense? Who knows, depending on when they're speaking and how they're speaking? We are supposedly being progressively sanctified, even though we've supposedly already been set free in a new heart. I don't know what we're being progressively sanctified. If we've already been transformed to where a new creature and old things are passed away. Oh my goodness, gracious. Okay. And even though all of these things are said, even after all of those incredible claims that Christians make and pastors make and there's a million sermons on sermon audio making these claims, somehow here's the reality. You sin, I sin, we still sin, and we are in perpetual sin 24 hours a day, seven days a week when you simply compare your life to the standard which God gives, which is absolute perfection, and you've never reached it.

8:10So you're still living at perpetual sin. You still fell, God's law. You still are not perfect. But all of a sudden here comes the explanation. Well, well, well, God doesn't want you to be perfect yet. How convenient. I mean, seriously, God is omnipotent. God is omniscient. God commands perfection. God condemns everything that is contrary to His holiness. God knows every destructive consequence of every sin I will ever commit. God supposedly is supernaturally working within me to make me holy. God possesses all the power necessary to make me perfect immediately. But He does it. Why? Well, come on. Host of theology central sanctification is progressive. God doesn't will your perfection until glorification.

9:11What a convenient answer. So now you can talk, this is so weird. You can talk all of this stuff about God transforming us, changing us. We are freed from the power of sin. You can say all of that at the same time. You didn't kind of revert what you're confronted with, but we still sin. Then you revert back to, well, sanctification is progressive. God doesn't will your perfection until glorification. How could, what? Hey, you've got no matter what, I point out you've got an answer. Hey, God doesn't want me to be perfect yet. Okay. But you haven't answered the question. You've simply moved it. Okay. Now I want to know why God who commands perfection, who condemns imperfection, who knows every single consequence of my sin, and possesses unlimited power to remove, just simply chooses not to make me perfect now.

10:15See, you haven't solved anything. Some people say, well, progressive sanctification, you didn't resolve anything. Yeah, it's just, you're just going in circles. Well, God changes you. God transforms. Well, I mean, he doesn't transform you perfectly. Why? Because progressive sanctification. And he doesn't want you, he doesn't want to. Well, if he doesn't want to, oh my goodness. All you're doing is calling this progressive sanctification. You're not explaining anything. In fact, to me, it feels like you're just making 970 excuses. I said, a dealing with the issues that you are being confronted with. And I know the biblical passages that will be thrown at me. I know, I know. And many of them look, many of them can be easily explained with, I don't know, actually reading them in contacts. Wait, that's for Israel. Wait, I think that's for the apostles. Wait, could that not be referencing our positional reality versus our practical reality, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

11:15Some of them very much leave us with a very great difficulty. But no matter the difficulty, a passage presents me. Guess what I can't do? I can't go, well, this passage is difficult. So I'm just going to ignore reality. I'm just going to somehow pretend that we've been transformed and we've been changed. No, I can't because we perpetually live and sin. But simply quoting verses or throwing verses at me that have the word transform, or renew, or spirit, or fruit, or sanctify does not magically resolve every logical question that we are discussing or that I try to put forth. It went, I make all of these two, three, four, five, ten hours of content explaining my position.

12:16Now, why am I frustrated about all of this? Why? Why am I irritated by all of this? Because someone sent me an email that turned into kind of an email back and forth, which then led me to doing two plus hours of explaining, which then led them taking my explanation, giving it to their AI chatbot, which then says, then which critiqued me, but the whole thing just shows one massive misunderstanding. And it's just, oh, it's so frustrating. So here's what happened. Someone sent me an email asking about the difference between imputed righteousness and fused righteousness. Please see my episode on imputed verses and fused where we go through this email exchange. Remember, even after that, I came back and did another hour plus on imputation or imputed righteousness 101. So I've already worked through this like, I don't know, what else can I do?

13:18Not even considering the 15 years of talking about this subject, but that's okay. Now, and some ways what was weird about the original email is they weren't asking me for definitions, because they already understood the basic definitions. Their question was essentially this. Now, please know, even though the original question was, hey, what's the difference between imputed and infused, then they give the basic definition. And for some weird reason, the basic definition did not allow them to see the difference, because they then went and added kind of a presupposition into their, their email, which was, if both Protestants and if Catholics believe salvation is through Christ and God's grace, and both believe that after salvation, the Holy Spirit really changes the believer, then what practical difference does it make, whether that righteousness is called imputed or infused?

14:26Now, of course, if you've listened to me for five minutes, you know, you're making, you're making an assumption, you're making a presupposition, and your presupposition is that the Holy Spirit changes us. Well, you know, immediately I'm going to be like, whoa, you're making an assumption. You didn't even prove your assumption. You just claim it. And if you believe the Holy Spirit changes us and transforms us and does all of these things, why would you email me? Because I've spent 15 years arguing against that presupposition and throwing the reality of the Christian life into everyone's face. But they still wanted me to answer. How can I answer your question when you're already emailing a person who doesn't even agree with your presupposition? So of course, I stopped at the phrase, the Holy Spirit changes the believer because that's a premise.

15:31Before I build an argument, I have to establish what does what do you mean by change? What does the Holy Spirit change? How much does he change? And whose measuring said change? If you say the Holy Spirit changes us, okay, then that's going to be quantified, qualified measure. It can be tested. It can be proven. Now, immediately, guess what you've done. You've already denying imputed righteousness, and you're now trafficking somewhere over there in the infused righteous world to a certain degree you are because you are arguing something is happening inside of us, something is happening to us. Imputed righteousness does not transform us, does not change us, does not work on the inside of us because it's simply righteousness accredited in my account. So there are already there's the difference between imputed and infused. But you're already making the assumption that the change takes place, but I don't accept that premise. And I don't care if you pull up 15 books from 15 different theologians and 17 AI chatbots who

16:38argue against me because you're arguing based on a certain theological tradition that I've already established that I am not bound to. And fact, in the very episode that you gave to AI, I state I am not approaching this from a Protestant perspective or a Catholic perspective. I don't care. I don't care your theological team. I don't care. I've stated that like nine billion times. Yeah, you can tell I'm frustrated. So if you're using AI, I'm just going to go ahead and get this out of the way. Your AI, unless told differently, is simply going to provide you the standard Christian answer. If you just want the standard Christian answer, then you didn't need to ask me because the standard Christian answer is available everywhere from your AI to 50,000 books that's been written.

17:40I don't approach it that way because I think the standard Christian answer is logically, it's a logical fallacy and it's circular reasoning. It just goes in this never ending circle. God is all powerful. God is omnipotent. God demands you be perfect. You're saved. God transforms you. He changes you. He frees you. He gives you power. Well, now it's not going to be perfect and you're still going to sin because because because it's progressive. Okay. Okay. So guess where you end up somehow I'm being changed, but I'm not really being changed because I'm not perfect. So then I have to measure the chain. You don't how do people not see how it's just never ending circle that you just go in. I'm free. I'm transformed, but I'm not actually transformed. I'm just being progressively changed, but that progression is measured by what? By a human standard because if I take that change and compare it to God's law, it's not going to show that I'm changed. It's going to

18:42show that I fell to meet the standard by which God judges change because his standard is perfection. Now from a human standpoint, congratulations. I'm all for you changed. Great. And I even acknowledge change can take place, but change can take. Okay. I'm not I'm going to already go through my whole argument. Okay. Oh, it's yeah, but I've already stated this all. I've stated this so many stinking times. Like I don't understand why I'm here on a Saturday talking about what I've talked about eight billion times. So what exactly does change? I'm going to try to go back and follow my notes. I'm already getting away ahead of myself. All right. So when you talk about change, what change occurs? How much change occurs? According to what standard is this change even being measured or identified? Who gets to measure the change? And how do we even know the change was caused super

19:44naturally? Okay. How do you distinguish where the change is coming from? Change occurs in people who attend alcoholics anonymous. There may not be Christian. They may believe just in some higher power, but they don't even define it as a Christian God. They can completely go from being an alcoholic. So never taking another drink again. That is total transformation and change. And it did not require God. Narcotics anonymous. The same thing can happen counseling it can happen. Other religions that can happen even atheist. But if we take any of that change and you compare it next to God's law, then why do you actually measuring? Because any supposed increase in righteousness that you say, oh, I'm getting a little bit better. All I got to do is put it next to God's law and your good works are nothing but filthy rags. And you're still going to be shown as you don't meet the standard. So that means you're in a perpetual cycle of supposedly improving, but

20:48the improvement never meets the standard. But you then want to celebrate the supposed change. But the change could happen for a million different reasons. I've talked about it before. Someone who's 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, they struggle with lust. They struggle with pornography. They struggle with promiscuity. And then they meet the person they love. They fall in love. They get married. And they enter into a relationship with a very active and satisfying physical relationship. Guess what? In many cases stops. The promiscuity. A lot of other those problems stop. They change. They're transformed only because now they're getting a need met. That wasn't being met. Has nothing to do with God. Has nothing to do with reading the Bible. Sometimes changes can be explained for countless reasons. Not saying change doesn't happen. Oh, man. Okay. Oh. Oh, man. So all of this turned into me doing just recently, just the other day, two hours of

21:57the difference between imputed versus infused and imputation 101. All right. I did all of that. What more can I do? I don't know. But here I am again. Here. I'm still talking about it. So I thought I have been, I've met. I thought I have been so clear on this. I really, taking off my glasses, rubbing my clothes. Just so irritated here. Okay. But apparently I'm not finished. I got to do another hour plus work on a Saturday trying to work through this. All right. Because the person who originally asked me the question took my position to AI and had AI critique it. All right. Now, it's hard for me not to just kind of go, wait, what? This is really frustrating because then it's

22:59kind of like, wait a minute. Now I'm not saying this is what the person did. But this is what it feels like. So you asked me a question for me to state something that I've stated 15,000 times simply so that you could take my statement and give it to AI. Well, then why didn't you just go to AI with your original question? Why didn't you just ask AI? What's, hey, if people are changed, why is there a difference between infused and imputed? But you came to me and when I'm like, hey, you're, you're, you're, you're starting premise. I don't agree with. And of course, anybody who listens to me know I would not agree with that starting premise. Then you go back and forth. Then you take it all to AI. I don't, I just don't get it. All you have to do is go to AI in the first

23:59place. My position has been stated, I don't know a million times. In fact, I've received demos before going, we've heard it all before stop saying it. You've said this so many times. But then I'll still get a question. Obviously, I haven't said it enough. So their AI came back with a detailed critique explaining the problems with my position. All right. Now, my first reaction, I'm going to be honest is frustration. You can hear my frustration. That is my first reaction. I'm being honest with you. I'm just like, what in the world? Look, if you're just going to go to AI, then why am I spending, why am I spending all of these hours trying to work through this in the most detailed logical way possible that no other podcaster, no other broadcaster, I doubt even a pastor with this, okay, I'll go to the pulpit and do two plus hours trying to help you with this. No, no, no, if you were just going to go into why?

25:05But I've spent all of this time for what? So that you can simply tell me, AI, I think you're wrong. I, oh my goodness gracious. I already know that AI thinks I'm wrong. If AI is simply utilizing the basic Protestant reformed evangelical answer, but I've already told you in my previous broadcast that I don't stink in care what the typical answer is because I already know that I am not on anyone's still a logical team when it comes to this simple subject. I approach this on the basis of logic, reason, reality, and then trying to take the text and understand them in their proper historical literary context to try to figure out what they say and whatever conclusion I come to, it still has to account for the reality. Christians

26:11still sin 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and perpetual sin, and when compared their lives to God, any change cannot be measured. That's a fact. I don't stink in care if you're just going to give me, well, Christians say it's progressive sanctification and well, no, we're not perfect, Jeppo, we will be perfect. And God could make us perfect. He just doesn't want us to be perfect. That's just going in an ever-ending circle. I am not running on your hamster will. I don't care about that. You could have just, if you're already, if you're just going to argue the standard Christian answer, then why are you coming to me when you know I'm not going to give you the standard Christian answer? What are we even doing here? Hey, I want you to give me the non-Christian answer so that I can simply tell you that the Christian answer tells you you're wrong. I already know that I admitted 50 different thousand ways on this podcast. Oh my goodness. It's like I'm just re-

27:15and yeah, but after getting frustrated, I started realizing, well, wait a minute. This could be an opportunity to talk about something very important. Because now what we have here is a real-world case study and how artificial intelligence does theology. And you know I love artificial intelligence. So I think this could be good. Now, I've got to state something clearly because it seems no matter how many times I state something clearly, I'm not actually heard, but I'm going to try. I am not annoyed that someone used AI or for theology or for Bible interpretation, I encourage it. I encourage it all day long.

28:20I'm glad you used AI. That is absolutely awesome. Continue to do so. All right? My problem is it's apparent even from reading everything your AI said, it even states that according to basic Protestant theology, here are the problems with my position. I already stated. That's why I just don't understand. Why are you sending me the standard Protestant theological answer? When I've already said that I don't go along with the standard Protestant theological answer to these issues, I don't even understand it. It's like I start the program saying I'm not following this and then you just turn around and send me what I've already stated that I'm not following. And if you just wanted that standard answer, then why would you be who's I don't understand? Okay. All right. So I'm not going to give another two-hour explanation, but I'm just going to try to give the basic propositions of my position. All right? I'm going to

29:25try to be painfully, I'm going to try to be painfully clear here. I'm sorry I had to cough there. I'm going to try to state my position as clearly as I can for the last time. Okay? My goodness. I don't know how many different ways I can state this. Okay? Here we go. Number one, the righteousness by which I am justified is and imputed righteousness. That is my position. I will not compromise on that and I will not change that unless I give up the imputed righteous view. And if I do, I'll probably become a Roman Catholic. All right? Imputed righteousness is at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. This righteousness is not inherent righteousness that is produced inside of me.

30:27It is a righteousness that is accredited to my account. It's simply a righteousness accredited to my account which declares me to be righteous and allows me to be accepted by God as being righteous even though I am not. I don't even understand why that's complicated. That's everything I'm saying is now that's a very standard historic understanding of it. Number two, imputation does not make me inherently righteous. Whatever other work you're going to tell me that God is performing, we'll have to establish that independently. We'll have to establish what it is, how it works, what is the basis of it, and we'll have to explain if God is doing the supposed work, why is it not perfect? And you can come up with all of your excuses, I don't really thinking care

31:29because in the end of the day, you're going to have to admit no matter how much God is supposedly working, we don't get to perfection, meaning we're in perpetual sin. So I don't care. What have I said before? If you want to believe God is working in you, then fine, go live that way. Just please admit how imperfect his, the perfect God's work is, which is just so, in his so contradictory, the perfect God is doing an imperfect work inside human beings. But hey, don't you dare question that God is working? How dare you? God is moving. God is working. Just imperfectly. You say, no, it's perfect. Oh, it's perfect. And so what you'll, I know all the games people will play. It's just, it's just maddening. It's like dealing with people who hold a conspiracy theory. You just go in circles all day long. All right. But so here's my position. The righteousness,

32:30which I'm justified, is imputed. Number two, imputation does not make me righteous. Whatever other God work you want to say God is doing, you can establish that independently. But you cannot smuggle that into the definition of imputation. If you smuggle it into the definition of imputation, then you're turning imputation into infused righteousness. And they're not the same stinking thing. And I don't understand how you can't see the difference between them. They're not even in the same universe. They're not even. Okay. So number one, the righteousness, which by which I'm justified, is imputed. Number two, imputation does not make me inherently righteous. Number three, Christians continue to sin throughout their entire earthly life, measured according to God's actual law.

33:35Not compared to your former, former self, not compared to your neighbor, not compared to a drug dealer, a prostitute, or a murderer, or a serial killer, not compared to other Christians, not compared to society. We remain sinners. Perpetua, well, Lee, because God says, be holy as he is holy, you never have been, never will be. Practically, I am positionally. I am holy. I am perfect. I am obedient. I have been changed. I am a new creature in my standing before God, not practically. Why is that so complicated? Number four, human beings change. What? You believe that? Yeah, I do. Christians change, atheists change, Muslims change, Buddhist change, people in alcoholics, anonymous change, people in narcotics, anonymous change, people in counseling change, people change because of

34:40marriage, they change because of children, they change because of tragedy, they change because of their age, because of discipline, because of medication, because of education, and about nine billion other reasons. Oh my goodness gracious. That's not what? This is the high number six, number five. Therefore, any observable moral improvement does not by itself establish some supernatural causation, just because there's an observable moral improvement does not mean there's supernatural causation. That's your presupposition. And I don't believe in your presupposition. If someone claims the Holy Spirit produces a particular change, that claim has to be demonstrated rather than assumed. You can say the Holy Spirit changed me. Okay. All right, that's your claim.

35:41I don't have to accept it. I don't have to believe it. Charismatics claim all the time. God did this. God did this. Use it within five minutes of examination. You're like, well, you said that person was ill. They're actually dead. Know that person didn't raise from the dead. All your miracles are bogus and garbage. So I don't have to accept your assumption, your presupposition. You that's an assumption. I don't have to agree with it. I don't care what everyone else says. I don't care. I literally don't care. Number six, progress is subjective when God's objective standard is perfection. If you committed 10 cents yesterday and only five today, human beings can describe that as, you're getting better, progressive sanctification. Wonderful. But God's law does not declare me righteous because I reduce sin by 50%.

36:45Before the standard of God's law, what do I remain? A law breaker, a sinner. And even even if I stop those five sins, there's a possibility that I could have stopped those five sins for fleshly reasons and not spiritual reasons. So when you say I'm becoming more righteous, God is changing me. I want to know by which standard you're measuring, measuring said change. Now listen, if you were committing 10 and now you're committing five, I will applaud it. I will celebrate you. That's wonderful because you may the five sins you were committing out of that 10. You may have been committing sins that could assure you're marriage, your life, your reputation could cause scandal. And if you stop those five, well, then that's a wonderful thing. I am by no means diminishing how good that could be. I am diminishing or I'm denying that that proves one, some kind of progressive sanctification.

37:49It just proves you've changed and there could be a million reasons you change. You may have changed those because you knew of the irreparable damage they could have caused. Sometimes you're fleshly motivated to change more than it's spiritually motivated to change. Next, number seven, progressive sanctification does not logically follow from imputation. Now, if you want to establish progressive sanctification from other biblical passages, wonderful, examine them. But an entire another premise is required because imputed righteousness does not lead to progressive sanctification because imputed righteousness does nothing to me on the inside. It just declares me to be something that I'm not. That's the difference between imputed and infused. That's why if you go with your presupposition that we change, you've destroyed the difference between the two. I don't accept the change argument. Why am I still... Good gracious,

38:56I've said this so many times. All right? Number eight, if God is omnipotent, nothing prevents God from making me perfectly holy. If God wills my immediate perfection, he possesses all necessary power to accomplish it immediately. That's just the fact. If God is omnipotent, he can change me, remove my sinful nature, and make me perfect. That is a fact, or that's a logical inference that flows from the fact that he's omnipotent. He can do it. That's what omnipotence is. Number nine, if God is omniscient, then he knows every remaining sin that I will ever commit, and every consequence that sin will produce in my life, who it will hurt, who it will destroy, or how it will mess up my life. Nothing surprises him. God possesses the power to change me, and he possesses the knowledge that if I am not changed, what exact things I will do. Those are just facts.

40:00Number 10, God commands holiness, and he condemns sin. Remaining sin is not just morally neutral and perfection, according to Christianity, sin destroys, sin harms, sin corrupts, and sin brings death. God commands it. He has the power to stop it. He knows exactly what I'm going to do. He knows the exact consequences, and he commands holiness, and he condemns sin. Therefore, number 11, simply saying God doesn't will your perfection yet, does not solve the problem. I don't know why Christians think that's get out of free jail cart. Hey, God doesn't, God doesn't will my perfection yet. Boom, boom, it solves everything. It doesn't solve one stinking thing. It just creates a new question. Why does the God who commands holiness,

41:07who condemns sin, who knows all of the consequences sin brings, possesses unlimited power to eliminate that sin, and supposedly is, as supposedly, working supernaturally within me towards holiness, intentionally leaves me an estate of imperfection. And then condemns me for that imperfection, even though it's God who's supposedly working in me, but he does a desire for me to be perfect. He's working to keep me, I mean, what else can you say? He's working to keep me an estate of imperfection because his work doesn't get me to perfection. So I don't even know what his work is supposedly doing. If God is working in Christian A and Christian B and Christian A, I don't know, finds himself in a same-sex relationship, committing homosexual acts, it destroys his marriage, his family, his life. Person B, God is supposedly working in them, they never commit

42:08homosexuality, but they're a gossip, they're a liar, then why did God work in one person to and just let's them be kind of, you know, minimal sinner, but he's working in the other person and they get to commit graves in. Now you're going to say, well, it's not God's fault, it's their fault. Oh, so God is stopped by the will of other. Now, now we just, this just becomes never ending circular issues. See, simply saying, hey, it's progressive sanctification. That doesn't answer the question. You're just giving me the proposed process. And then if you say, well, ultimately God wants us to be glorified or ultimately God will glorify us, number 13. So number 12, progressive sanctification doesn't answer the question. It just names the process. Number 13, glorification just makes the question, I think, more difficult, not less. Because if you're in your, in your theology says, well, God will eventually make us perfect, then apparently perfect holiness is completely compatible with

43:14what we will be and what we should be. So apparently, then why is he doing it later and not now? Hey, I'm going to make you perfect, but for now, I'm going to leave you in perfect, but in your imperfection, I'm going to condemn and I'm going to, and I know the damage it could cause. I mean, I mean, hey, God is working in people. I mean, I bet you, I could be wrong, but I think that there's a woman, some king walked out on a roof, saw her, decided he wanted her, had relations with her, she gets pregnant. And then that king set up that woman's husband to be killed. I sure bet that husband who got killed would have really preferred if God would have worked a little faster. Yeah.

44:14So just saying, hey, God will make us perfect, does not answer the problem of why we're not perfect yet. All right. Okay. Another part I will argue is that context matters. That's another part of my position. Whenever you're dealing with all of these scriptures about supposed to change transformation, a promise to Israel cannot simply be quoted as though it's a promise to me. That doesn't work that way. A positional statement talking about my positional standing before God does not simply become an experiential one. Something connected with the apostles cannot automatically be universalized to every Christian narrative cannot automatically become normative, descriptive cannot become prescriptive. That I've only stated that a million times. Number 17, I am not on a theological team. I'm just

45:18trying to go through all of these basic statements that will summarize as my position. All right. I mean, we're already at 45 minutes. Oh my goodness. All right. I'm not on a theological team. I don't care if the answer creates problems for Catholics. I don't care if it creates a problem for reform theology. I don't care if it creates problems for Lutherans, Baptist, evangelicals, dispensationalists. I don't care if it even creates problems for something I said yesterday. I want to know the truth. I want to know scripture. I want to know context. I want to know logic. I want to know facts and I'm not going to deny reality. Now, we're 46 minutes. See, now you just want to, you know what I just did. I just spent 45 minutes stating what I've already stated. Now for multiple hours, I don't understand this. It's just maddening. But I guess I got to keep stating these things

46:20over and over and over until someone catches on to my position. But now let's just, I went through, I had to just shorten some of that. There's probably like 20 different statements I could give about my position, but I tried to summarize it. All right. So this is where AI enters discussion. All right. The AI and I'm not going to go, they gave me this long email. I think I can't remember how many different points. It felt like there's like 20 different points. If I work through that, it's going to be six months of working through it. But basically, this is what happened. There AI essentially took my position and said, hey, his position is internally forceful, but it's biblically unbalanced. And it began identifying where I supposedly went wrong. And many of its criticisms come from a very familiar theological framework. It starts with this idea, God progressively sanctifies believers. I know that's the assumption

47:20that I'm already arguing against. It's operating from that assumption and I don't accept it. Christians retain remaining corruption. I do believe that justification, as sanctification must be distinguished. Okay. I got no problem with that. God works while humans remain responsible. Okay. That's just an assumption you made. How does that work? It, if you don't think that raises a million questions. Hey, God works, but humans remain responsible. If you don't understand all the logical and philosophical problems that derive from this, how did I end up a sinner? Not by sinning, but by being born a sinner. So I am already starting this game with a card stacked against me. The game is fixed. I sin because I'm already born a sinner. And I cannot be held responsible for my sinful nature because I didn't ask for it. I didn't choose it and I didn't request it. I was born with it. So therefore my natural operating system will lead to sin, which is

48:23exactly the reality of the human world, which to me is one of the best proofs of Christianity is because we, no matter what we try to do as humans, we cannot stop evil. We cannot stop sin. We cannot stop selfishness, greed, racism because we're all broken. We come from the womb broken. So, but these are just, these are just, you're just giving me the talking points that come from basic Christian theology. I don't know. I think I know these basic, basic presuppositions. All right. Perfection comes at glorification. Regeneration produces genuine inward renewal. The Christian has been freed from sins, dominion, but not its presence. And various biblical passages were offered to support these categories. Everything that they're a-I did goes completely against what I stated I was doing.

49:30I explicitly stated that I was not beginning with the standard Protestant synthesis. I was putting pieces of that synthesis under the microscope examining it. So, if my question is, does the traditional doctrine of progressive sanctification actually solve these logical problems? And then if the response is, hey, that guy in theology central is wrong because historical Christianity teaches progressive sanctification, then the framework under examination becomes the standard by which my examination is judged. And that's circular reasoning. I already reject the standard answer, but the standard answer is determining that my answer is wrong, but I'm not operating under the standard answer. If you wanted the standard answer, you shouldn't have asked me because I'm not here to give you the standard answer. In fact,

50:30if you want the standard answer, you don't even need me. Now, I want to make this very clear. I'm not saying, A.I is bad. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I applaud the person for using A.I. Use A.I. Analyze everything I do. Use it. Fact check me. Check my Greek, check my history, check my quotations, check my logic, check whether I'm representing another theological position accurately. Check the biblical context. I use A.I. constantly. So the problem isn't how dare you use A.I. Use it. But the problem or the question is how did A.I. approach this assignment? Because A.I. does not magically descend from heaven, possessing perfectly neutral theological methodology. If you ask it a theological question, it's going to recognize patterns from an enormous amount of theological material. So guess what

51:33it's going to give you? The standard justification, regeneration, sanctification, glorification already, not yet indicative, imperative, divine sovereignty, human responsibility, remaining corruption, union with Christ, fruit of the spirit, and these categories can be useful. But they can literally become the framework that that A.I. is using to organize the entire problem. Now here's the thing. I know how this works because me and my A.I. have had a long history. I don't even know how many years we've been going back and forth. But we've had major arguments over this. Major issues. That's why I've had to train my A.I. So many times A.I. will start saying something and I'll be like, I can get very aggressive.

52:38Because it will start giving me the standard reformed answer. I'll be like, no, no, I didn't ask for the reformed answer. It will say, but historic Protestantism, distinguished, and I will say, no, no, no, no, no, no, I know what historical Protestantism distinguishes. Does the distinction actually answer the argument? It will tell me what commentators traditionally say. Sometimes I'll be like, I don't care what they say. Sometimes I'm trying to look at it from a logical perspective. Sometimes I want to know what the standard answer is. Sometimes I will say, hey, here's what I'm arguing. Now give me the standard answer and contrast the two. All right. So that's fine. Hey, how does Christianity standardly, what's the standard Christian answer for these issues and what is his answer to the issues? Why do you think he's arriving at this conclusion and Christianity is arriving at this conclusion? All right. So man, all right. So

53:40so here I'm going to go through this quickly. This is why their AI and my AI ended up on completely different conclusions because they were using the standard that their AI was operating from the standard Protestant reformed evangelical answer when it comes to were changed, but we're not changed and and and at the end, it's fat. Well, I'll I'll I'll end this episode with this. I'm going to go a little over an hour, but I'm going to because when it's all said and done, after you read everything their AI gave, I just went down to the very bottom and you know where it ends up. I mean, God changes us, but we're not yet perfect. It just restated. It just restated the problem. God changes us, but we're not really changed. Really, I know that. So the issue is if God is changing me, but I'm not really changed. Oh my goodness gracious. Like it's so it's all right, but here's how I've trained my AI first. I basically tell my AI

54:45no theological team is to be presumed to be correct. I don't care. I don't care the theological team. I do not want you to presume or act like it's automatically correct. Reformed theology doesn't get to win because it's reformed. Catholicism doesn't win because it's ancient. Luther doesn't win because I go to a Lutheran church. Calvin doesn't win because he wrote the institutes of the Christian religion. The Baptist don't win because I was a Baptist and I'm very baptismal and some of my doctrines even today, even though I attend a Lutheran church, I'm not a member because why? Because I'm still Baptist very much in my understanding of baptism. Dispensationalism doesn't win even though I'm very dispensationalism in some things that don't just get necessarily a pass. I don't win. Theology central doesn't win. None of that. No, none of that wins. We're going to we're not going to look at that from that perspective. So don't give

55:48one system the assumption of being right and I am adamant about that with my artificial intelligence. Second, I want you to identify the premises. If an argument depends upon presupposition A, I'm sorry, I don't say presupposition. I take that back. I use the word presupposition a lot, but in this particular case, I would state it this way. I tell it to identify the premises. So I think I've stated it this way and I'm always changing and trying to modify these. So I think I typically say something like this. If an argument depends upon, let's say, proposition A, establish that proposition before using it to prove BC and D. So that's how I've trained my artificial intelligence. If an argument depends on proposition A, establish that proposition

56:50before using it to prove BC and D. And that's exactly what happened in this entire argument. You wanted to know the difference between imputed and infused righteousness, but you started with a proposition, the Holy Spirit changes the believer. I've already trained my AI to figure this out, but I don't even need AI because immediately I'm going to go, whoa, whoa, there's the proposition. We've got to establish that proposition before you use that proposition to prove BC and D. The Holy Spirit changes the believer. Uh-uh, no, no, no, no, no, no, stop. Let's define that. Let's establish that. Then we get to continue. That's exactly how I've defined my, worked with my AI. Find the proposition being made. Let's find it. Let's establish what the premise is. Oh, that's the premise. Okay. Well, that premise can't just establish C, D, E, F, G, H, no, we've

57:50got to establish it. We got to def- we got to test the proposition. This is like, this is like elementary logic. Okay. Number three, I tell my AI, distinguished scripture from theological inference. Okay. Uh-uh, just distinguished scripture from a theological system, uh- distinguished scripture from theological systems and their answers. All right. If scripture says X, but a theological system concludes X, therefore, how can I say this? Um, if scripture says X, and a theological system concludes that X leads to Y, well, now that they're making- they're- they are making a conclusion. They're making an inference that that what scripture

58:53says leads to this conclusion. So then I'm like, no, no, no, no, okay, okay, okay. They- they took X and they arrived at this conclusion. Let's test this inference. Let's test this conclusion. All right. If that makes sense, I- I don't know how else to better say that. I just want them to distinguish- let me say it this way. This- I'll state it this way. I will tell it, distinguished scripture from what a theological system does with that scripture. We've got to figure out what scripture says. Philological systems will take a scripture and then arrive at this conclusion. I'll make- I'll make it simple. And the Bible, it says that if we are in Christ, all, uh, the old is gone and all things have become new. We are new creatures in Christ. All things, uh, all the old is gone and all things have become new. I know I'm paraphrasing it, but you get the idea. If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature. All things are passed away. All things have become new. All right. Now that's what the scripture says. Now, what does it mean? That- no, no, no, no, no, not what theological systems

59:59do with it. That's their inference. That's where they arrive. No, no, what does the scripture say? Who's it talking about? What does it mean in Christ? Wait, is that referring to my position or my practice? Wait, if I'm a new creature, shouldn't that mean that I'm perfect? Okay, well, wait, what's going on in this chapter? Is this saying how we should, uh, understand that we see Christians as being a new creature because of their position in Christ and not hold? Okay, yeah. Now there's a million issues. I don't care that a theological system draws an inference from that. So what many Christians will say, we'll see we're a new creature. We're completely transformed in our practice. That's your infer- that's what you've inferred from that. That's your- the inference you've driven from that. I want- we have to establish what scripture says. I don't care what theological systems infer from it. All right. If you say, well, in the ZEQO 36 it talks about getting a new heart. Okay, and you apply that to me. Now that's your theological inference because if I go to a ZEQO 36, I can prove immediately that that promise has nothing to do with me, has something to do with Israel.

1:01:02That's based off the text. So you have to distinguish the scripture from the theological inference. Number four, I tell it, I want context to control the interpretation. I want you to tell me who is speaking to whom it is spoken to. When was it spoken? Why was it spoken? What comes before? What comes after? What covenant on historical circumstance existed at the time? What problem is the author addressing? So I tell it specifically when we get to scripture context, context, context, context. Number five, I say it, do not automatically universalize. Israel is not automatically the church. Israel is not automatically every Christian. Do not handle scripture that way. The apostles are not every Christian. They are unique and different. Treat them as such. Narrative is not automatically prescription. Description is not automatically prescription.

1:02:07A promise does not mean it's automatically mine. So don't universalize. I have to tell AI to do this. I have to tell it. Why? Because it's going to be pulling from millions of things within Christianity where they universalize all day long. All right. Number six, distinguish between positional truth from practical experience. So I will tell my AI, if scripture says something is true of me and Christ, do not automatically assume that that is describing an observable moral condition that exists within me. It may be describing a positional reality, not a practical reality. I need you to demonstrate the difference and the connection. Number seven, I tell my AI, follow logical implications even when they become uncomfortable. I tell

1:03:09my AI to do this all the time. I follow the logical implications. If, if A is true, what follows? I don't care if it goes against every Christian. I don't even care if it goes against me. I tell AI all the time, follow the logical path. I don't care. Tell me I'm an idiot. Tell me I'm stupid. Tell me I'm wrong. Do not just simply agree with me. Follow the logic. If something does not follow from A without another premise being added, identify the missing premise. For example, does progressive sanctification flow from imputed righteousness? It does not. So you're adding in an additional premise. What is that additional premise?

1:04:10Oh my goodness gracious. Okay. Number eight, never, never. And I tell my AI this all the time. Never smuggle the disputed proposition into the answer. If we are investigating progressive sanctification because progressive sanctification works this way, that's not an argument. All right. Don't just say, well, this is the way it works because this is the way progressive sanctification works. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you're smuggling the proposition into the answer. You're you're you're basically saying, well, progressive sanctification works because this is the way it works, but you're you're assuming that it works and that it's true. Don't smuggle the disputed proposition into the answer. Number nine, I tell my AI this reality matters more than my feelings and more than church doctrine. If we are making claims about things supposedly happening inside actual human beings,

1:05:16then observable reality is relevant. Empirical claims should have empirical content. Number 10, distinguish between correlation and causation. This is just like, this is like, if you went to a freshman logic class and I just try to get my AI to operate under these and these and and and sometimes I give them an order, sometimes I sometimes I'll be like, well, what are you doing? No, no, no, no, remember, I need you to do this. I need you to do this. I'm constantly going back and forth with AI to operate in a way that's going to get me closer to truth, to logic, to fact, to reality. I don't want it to be my friend by just telling me I'm right. I want it to be my friend by telling me I'm an idiot when I'm an idiot and I don't want it to just give me the standard Christian answer

1:06:16because I don't I am not bound by any theological team. I'm willing to challenge all of them and that typically makes me unpopular, but I don't thinking, care, I don't. Number 10, distinguish correlation from causation. A Christian becoming more patient does not prove the Holy Spirit caused the increased patience. You have to establish the causal claim. Oh my goodness. Number 11, don't replace God's standard with a human comparative standard. If we're discussing righteousness, if we're discussing holiness, if we're discussing sin, determine what scripture identifies as the standard. I don't care what anybody else's standard is. Number 12, historical theology and confessions. They tell me what people believed in the past.

1:07:17They are extremely valuable, but Westminster cannot be used to prove the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Council of Trent cannot be used to prove the Council of Trent. The London Baptist Confession cannot prove the London Baptist Confession. Use them accurately to represent their positions, but we will test those positions. I say that all the time. Number 13, difficult passages are allowed to remain difficult versus simply finding a typical answer or the typical Christian answer. Number 14, and I tell AI all this challenge my position. I want you to be as aggressive with my position as you are with anyone else. I don't want you to tell me that I'm right. I don't want you to tell me that hey, you're doing great. No, no, I want you to tell me, hey, hey, that does not

1:08:22logically follow. No, that's not what the Greek says. No, you've ignored the context. No, you're that historical claim is false. No, you're misrepresenting the person. That conclusion requires another premise. If it if I'm wrong, I want you to be blunt and I want you to tell me, but I don't want you to just tell me I wrong. I need you to demonstrate why my argument falls apart and what is wrong. Don't simply say, well, you're wrong because you've departed from the traditional Protestant answer because I don't stinking care. Now, I want to know, now listen, I want to know that I have, but don't simply tell me that I have, tell me that I have, and then we will try to go back and forth with the traditional answer and figure out why I've departed from it and maybe the traditional answer is wrong. I want to know that I have, but don't just simply say you're wrong because you go against their traditional answer. No, let's challenge it.

1:09:27So you can see then why my AI would be different from your AI or why my conclusions would be different from your AI because what I gave AI is how I operate. So your AI said, hey, from the standard Protestant answer, he's wrong. Okay, well, I acknowledge that for I stated that from the very beginning. Okay. Oh, man. So I don't know what else to say. I could go on for a couple of hours here, but I think this. So here's here's what we're going to do. I'm going to end with this. I think I've stated my position. I've given you how I've trained my AI. All right, I've given you how I don't know if that will be benefit some of you. Wonderful. Here, AI is an

1:10:30amazing tool, but it requires a lot of work, especially when you're doing with theology and the Bible, because it's going to reach out there on the internet in a sense and around it's going to pull from what everyone else is saying and the majority of the answers already know the majority of the answers. I already know the majority of the answers. The whole this podcast exists where we don't just teach theology, we do theology. That means I create hypotheses, we challenge, we test, I don't just simply follow along. That's why I can this. Okay, but here's what's so frustrating. After all these distinctions, after all the proof texting, after all the appeals that his AI gave to regeneration, sanctification, glorification, human responsibility, divine sovereignty, already not yet and so forth. This is where the hit the and I've got the email to prove this. His AI ended here. This is just,

1:11:31I almost lost my mind. The Holy Spirit genuinely renews them, but that renewal remains. Incomplete. Oh my goodness gracious. After saying I'm wrong, their AI simply returned back to the basic premise. You're renewed, but not completely. My entire argument was explain how you're supposedly being changed, but you're not yet changed. All it did was restate the very thing I was asking for an explanation for. The problem. It just repeated the problem. So watch the circle. Why are Christians perfect? Well, because sanctification is incomplete.

1:12:35Well, why is sanctification incomplete? Well, because it's progressive. Well, why is it progressive rather than complete? Because God doesn't intend it to complete it. Well, could God complete it? Well, yes, he's omnipotent. Well, God eventually completed it. Well, yeah, on glorification. So why doesn't he complete it now? Well, because sanctification is presently incomplete and guess where you are? You're right back at the beginning. It just went in one big stupid circle. So after everything, after all the verses, after all the theological distinctions, after all the criticisms of my argument, we have arrived right back at the very proposition that started the entire discussion. The Holy Spirit changes us but not completely. Okay, why? You haven't answered the problem. You just gave me AI

1:13:38restating the problem. The... I mean, who determines how incomplete this renewal that is supposedly happening in me will be? It can't ultimately be because God likes sufficient power because God is supposedly omnipotent. It can't be because God doesn't know what's preventing further progress because He knows what's preventing further progress. And if the answer is that God wills the incompleteness for now, then we've moved right back into the other problem. God commands what His incompleteness violates. I'm not sure you understand that. If God doesn't want me to be perfect, He literally is commanding perfection while His very own work. And it is, it violates His own command. God wants you. God is working in you to renew you. It's imperfect. Okay, well, that imperfection violates the very command that the very God who's working. Get oh my goodness,

1:14:41gracious. How do you people not understand that? God commands perfection. God is supposedly working, but somehow God doesn't want perfection yet. Well, then if He doesn't want perfection, then His very work is going against the very command which He gives which is for perfection. Oh my goodness. God commands what the incomplete work violates. God condemns what remains unchanged. God knows all the suffering that the sin that remains is going to produce. God possesses the power to remove it. And eventually God supposedly will remove it. Why not now?

1:15:43But simply telling me the Holy Spirit renews, but that renewal remains incomplete. That's not an answer. That's not a staking answer. It's, you know what it is? It's a restatement of the evidence which I provided. So I asked, hey, this supposed claimed supernatural transformation. What does it actually produce? And what is the answer I get back? Well, it produces an unfinished product. If I become 8% more patient, 17% less angry, 12% less covetous, and 6% more loving,

1:16:56then maybe that could then be described as a measurable progression. But nobody possesses that measurement. Nobody's even able to per all you can do is say, oh, He stopped certain behavior. Stopping a certain behavior does not necessarily prove anything because I could be committing that behavior internally, which I would still be content. Oh my goodness. Christchus, how do Christians not understand this? So we end up with incomplete sanctification, which returns right back to the same problem. I'm the one who pointed it out. So there's something kind of genuinely funny. I'm going to try to find some kind of humor in this. There's something genuinely funny about the fact that after the enormous critique of my position

1:18:01sent to me by someone who took my position and gave it to AI, they eventually drove the theological bus around the entire city and dropped everybody off at the very same bus stop where we are standing 50 hours ago. You drove us around the entire town to come right back going, oh, you know, God changes us. I mean, it's not complete change. There you go. What does that fix? So let me say it infatically. Imputed righteousness does not change you because it's imputed. Infused does. I don't believe in infused. And you say, well, what's the difference between imputed and infused? If everyone believes God changes you, not everyone does. You do. If you do, fine. Go believe God is changing you and just go live it out. Show it, measure it,

1:19:08test it, put it on Instagram. Tell everyone how wonderful you are. I don't care. If you come to me, I don't accept that pre-supposition. And I don't care if everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to stand on my ground. Here I stand and I'm not moving. Why? Because of reality. Well, one theology and one reality, theology, imputed righteousness by definition can't lead to change because it's imputed. Unless, now if I get rid of imputed righteousness and I go with infused righteousness, then I'm with you all day. Man, we're being changed. We're being, why is it not going to work? Well, because if I commit a mortal sin or a venial sin, I can stop it all. So I'll just go back and be Catholic. But I'm not Catholic because I reject infused righteousness as the basis for my justification. I hold to imputed righteousness. Do you not see the difference? Imputed does not

1:20:10lead to moral change because it's imputed. You say, but okay, but I believe in imputed righteousness. However, there's something happens that transforms us, that changes us. Okay, now that's a completely different premise. Now, guess what you have to do? You have to prove one, how that change is happening since the change is not perfect and how an omnipotent God can't get that change to be perfect and how you use language at times that sounds like it should be perfect, but somehow it's not perfect. And then you're going to have to even measure, how does that change is even judged or critiqued because you can't really know. Even if someone stops an outward behavior, they could be committing the sin inwardly three thousand times. So is that really change? Here's what I know. I'm say, by imputed righteousness, that cannot be measured, that cannot be tested. Boom, end of discussion. This change happened. It can happen for a million different reasons. I've articulated all of those reasons. Is God working in us? I don't know. Well, if you find me a

1:21:14passage that seems to indicate, I'll just say, okay, he does. But here's what? Just finding a passage that seems to indicate that God is working in me doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean anything because I can't establish all these other points simply by saying, well, God is doing something. Okay, God is doing something, but we all have to agree. Whatever that something is is not getting me to perfection. And if it's not getting me to perfection, that means there's something holding that perfection back. That's either ongoing sin inside of me, or that means I'm somehow stronger than what God wants, or that somehow God doesn't want me to get to perfection. And if God doesn't want me to get to perfection, well, oh my goodness. I had to mute the mic because I was wanted to just start screaming. Do you just see the circle we're going in? I can draw a clear distinction between imputed and infused because imputed does not change. It cannot be measured. It is based purely

1:22:19on what God has declared in his word that by faith, apart from works, I am declared to be righteous because the perfect and passive obedience of Christ is accredited and imputed to my account. I stand before God is perfect, and I'm accepted by God as I am perfect done. I can't test it. I can't do anything because it's imputed. Boom. Now, what happens after that? You have the Christian life. What do I know factually true about the Christian life I live in perpetual sin based on God's standard? So any supposed change or progress is going to be very hard to measure because the standard by which I would be measured against is perfection. And any supposed change never reaches the level of perfection. So therefore, it cannot even be measured logically. And now the fact that God has supposedly progressively changing me leads to all the questions now that I've not only repeated 750,000 times. And if you want to go to certain passages of Scripture, then that would require

1:23:21each Scripture to be taken and then see what can be derived from it and what cannot be derived from it. And I'm not going to allow a Scripture to be used by a theological system to arrive at an inference that the Scripture itself may not lead me to. Ezekiel about a change heart is not about me. That's a fact. Some of the passages about the apostles are not about me. That's a fact. Some of the some passages may be referring to my positional reality and not my practical reality. That's a fact. But my goodness, no matter what Scriptures you give me, I'm not going to be able to look, you can give me 50 Scriptures. Here's what here's what's going to happen. I'm just going to end it with this because I'm tired of this. I'm just done with this. Give me and look, I'm frustrated with this. Not with the original email or I'm frustrated with it because I had people thinking, leave my church over this very argument. And it was just and even there we just went in circles

1:24:22and circles and circles and circles and circles and circles and circles and nobody can ever understand the logic that I'm trying to follow it logically. So here's the thing and even your own AI arrived at the same stupid conclusion. We're being changed, but we're not going to be perfect. So you can give me 18 Scriptures about see God is working, God is changing, God is working. Congratulations, God is working, God is changing. Guess where it's going to end up? Let me see. You're still a sinner who lives in perpetual sin. So congratulations. You've got 10 verses that say God is working. What's the result of that work? Is it perfection? No. Are you still in sin? Yes. Are you in perpetual sin? Yes. How do I know that? Because the very scriptures themselves give us the standard. Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect. Be holy as God is holy. Love God with all your heart, my body and soul. Love your enemy. Love your neighbor. Turn the other cheek on and on. Do all things without crumbling and complaining on and on and on and on and on and on and on. You never do that. You never will do that. So you're in perpetual sin. So

1:25:24whatever change God is supposedly doing in you, it doesn't stop you from being in perpetual sin. So why are you arguing about some supposed change when the change does not stop the perpetual sin and what you are living. It's a ridiculous argument. Man alive. You want to believe God is changing you. Be my guest. Just acknowledge how incomplete that change is. Doesn't make you feel better. Oh man, God is changing me. God is working inside of me. Great. What's the result? Oh, in an amazing. You believe God is working in you. I question the whole concept and guess where we both end up. We're both sinners in perpetual sin. In fact, I may read my Bible more than you, study more than you, listen to more sermons more than you and have more theological

1:26:26understanding than you. Does that make me better than you? No, it doesn't because I'm still a center. You may do other things better than me. Congratulations. You probably more patient. You probably don't lose your mind and you probably don't threaten to go to the liquor store every time you listen to a sermon. Great. You're better than me. All but the reality is you're not because you're still a center. So now how much you want to talk about God moving and working and you still are a center. And your own AI arrived at that same conclusion. God is working. Yet it's incomplete. And what does that incomplete mean? You're still in sin. So what's the end result of all of this? Imputed does not lead to change because it's imputed. Infused does. But I don't believe in infused. And if you believe in infused, then reject the imputed. Then base your justification on infused righteousness. And I'm sorry, you're going to hell because guess what? All that work that's happening in you is not going to meet the standard. So you'll go to hell. But I reject that. I believe

1:27:28I'm say because of imputed righteousness. So I go to heaven not because of what I can do will do could do because whatever I can do will do could do won't be good enough. So therefore I need perfect righteousness, which comes by faith apart from works. Oh, good gracious. It's like it's like what is this? So in the end, you want to believe God is working in you. Go for it. Go forth and live. Why are you arguing with me? I don't care. I don't have to believe that. Because even if I believe that God is working, I'm going to end up with the same. The bus is going to stop at the same bus stop. Get off everyone. Where have we arrived? Well, God is working. However, it's incomplete. It's going to be incomplete in this life. So you're still going to be in sin. But you're progressively getting better. How do I measure that? Well,

1:28:31you can measure it humanly and you can be better than Tom over there. Who's you know, he sleeps with five prostitutes a week. You can be better than him. But how do I judge being better than him when the standard is God's perfection? So whether I'm better than Tom doesn't really matter. Because when I look to God, I'm still a sinner. Well, that's because we don't measure progressive sanctification and light of God's law. We measure progressive sanctification and light of what our church wants you to be. Well, then great. I'm not playing your reindeer games. And again, many of these comments are not directed at the original emailer. In many cases, this is just directed at this never ending argument that I've heard for I don't know 15 years. And I've had every Christian in the world argue with me about it over and over and over and over and over and over again. I've had people leave my church when I was a pastor literally over this ridiculous argument. And again, I don't know where the wherever they go to church today. They may be thinking they're morally superior. But I know what they still are. They're still a sinner. They may not be committing the sins

1:29:34that they were committing that I knew of. They may have stopped those sins. But trust me, they're still sinners. And guess what? After all of these years, I'm still a sinner. Oh, there may be some sins I'm that I used to commit that I'm not committing now. But I'm still a sinner. So it's I can't measure how much progress I've made other than just looking at certain behaviors. I've changed. But once I look to God's law, all of that all of that progress just goes and what do I say? What was me? I am undone. Lord, I don't stand and pray. I think the God that I'm better than these people. I say, Lord, I am unworthy. I'm a sinner. I deserve nothing. And I all I can cling to is your righteousness. That was accredited to my account. And so I want to make it very clear. My position, even though I don't care about what the standard

1:30:36position is, my position ultimately ends up very, very, very much within the framework of historical, biblical Christianity. I hold to imputed righteousness. And when it comes to whatever changes are taking place, I can only acknowledge that whatever those changes are, watch the point of arguing about them because we all agree that they're imperfect and that nobody's going to be perfect. And so that we're all perpetually in sin. Therefore, why are we arguing about a change that takes place? All right. How many other can I say that? I don't know. I'm done. I'm just done today. All right. The good thing is I made it 91 minutes without passing out and dropping dead. Okay. I was having a West Consonz listening. Nebraska's listening. Maine is listening. Ohio, North Carolina,

1:31:40South Carolina. Arkansas, Texas. And in Canada is British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. And I would like to say, hey, Toronto, Indiana fever beachy yesterday. I'm sorry, Indiana fever, man. WNBA, Canton Clark, Kelsey Mitchell. All right. Sorry. We're better. Sorry, Canada. I love you. Awesome. Okay. But you know, got some good music that's come from Canada. I won't go through it all, but just got to say Indiana fever all the way. Okay. I'm just giving you a hard time. I'm trying to end somewhat from a humorous standpoint because, man, I just get frustrated by all of this. It's just a, and I know I'm going to get 50 emails now. And it's going to be like, do I have to read? Do I have to go through this again? How many times do I have to argue about this? So I'm not, and at this point, I'm not going to argue anymore. We're going to move on to other things. Not today. I don't know if I'm going to get anything else done today. But I've given you imputation versus infused righteousness

1:32:46as far as trying to argue with the premise that was being given to me and the original email. I did imputed righteousness 101 to really explain what I mean by imputed righteousness. And then I've gone through my entire position here. I've went through all the ways in which I train my AI to handle theology and biblical interpretation. And immediately you can realize that if you put what I give to your AI and you have not trained it that way, your AI is going to compare what I say to the standard typical Protestant reformed evangelical answers. And if you've ever listened to this podcast for crying out loud, you know how much I challenge many of those standard answers over and over and over and over again. So it just seems odd that you would come to me wanting to know this, throwing up a, a presupposition, you already know that I'm going to reject and then go to AI anyway. Just go to AI and get the standard answer.

1:33:50And maybe the person was like, well, I don't want the standard answer. But then I, it's just I just don't get it. I don't know what just happened. I don't know. But I did everything I could. Don't ever say that when someone emails me, I don't put in the work and time to give you a detailed response because I do. All right. At my own expense, right, my own time. I've taken up a good portion of my Saturday. I've tried to answer. I've tried to walk through everything. I've tried to give everyone a training manual and how to train AI to do theology and, well, no, most people don't want their AI to do what I do. They want their AI to answer it according to their theological team. That's the thing. I don't want mine to give me a theological team's answer. I want to approach this logically and I've historically and all this. Now, there's times I ask for all the other theological teams answer because then I'm going to contrast my hypotheses with their answer. And then we find where we're in conflict. I got no problem doing that. I don't know. I feel like now I got to say

1:34:5650 other things to explain everything that I've said. But okay, I'm just going to stop. Everyone have a good day. Wow. All right. God bless.