Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network mats like why is the founder and president of apologetics and research what is found online for you have questions about Bible doctrine why Grimes is called responding to your questions and is dialing 772072276 truly is a file that we can talk we can blab nobody waiting right now.

Hope y'all had a great weekend all her lunch no traditional mutual. So, if you recall that's all you do 877-207-2276. I want to hear from give me a call if you have a good weekend. I did weekend to do things wanted to debate impromptu debate, teaching things like that really enjoy it and going to the virtual world a lot going into oculus meta-verse you may have heard about her trying to find avenues to witness the final purpose is to witness and better equipment I have, the more I can do.

My wife got me for Christmas and oculus to think it is able to get in there and yesterday by God's grace I was in a room with people and some young, some older and the gospel will praise God that that's the goal give the gospel out and they listen they heard it so I'm I'm so pleased with that. They will do that anyway you pray for me and pray for others who are doing a kind of work for pastors well Lord bless all of that in the name of Jesus that we have for the lines. If you want to give McCall something 72072276 and if you are interested in watching the show, which is not a big deal.

I'm going to update the URL for the YouTube so they can washing the car website go to check that out. I'll do that next minute or two you check that's not a big deal if such action is watching Mexican talking is that guy looks like someone who saw me once and said said you don't look like your voice. I said I don't and it will sound like he said a bald guy with lots with big glasses whose chubby voice sounds like. He said yeah and so I get a kick out of it so is not what I look like, like the other you go so I got a kick out of it. Nonetheless, okay eight 772-072-2760 McCall let's get to Mitchell from Charlotte, North Carolina, Mitchell, welcome here is Norman just doing radio we got bored and logical nature.

Sure, the ontological argument against the Greek on toss nature or essence of something at some of the basic argument is saying that there is nothing greater then what can be conceived of as a true Christian God successor to me. Nothing greater than that.

Then he exist ontologically, that's what it is I don't find the argument compelling at all.

Use it SO you have going to speak you use a transcendental argument. I prefer that seat for example is talking online with a guy who can explain something so you can understand why the argument works the way it does. So there are people who hold to is called physicalism. Naturalism, which means that the natural world is all there is and that everything operates under the laws of physics and motion and matter chemistry and things like that and so out of that naturalism could come something called methodological naturalism and with that is is the position that you assume that there is no supernatural. You don't argue, from the position that includes anything supernatural almost be based out of the naturalistic views alright so that's the position and so what I'll do is I'll say that that's a risk self refuting position and will say will household are different ways to show it wanted to do with the chemistry of the brain. If the physical brain is limited to the laws of physics and coping motion and matter chemistry then what your brain is producing its chemical necessity, not logical necessity.

You can't justify that system using proper logical inference under those say not become the give some argument on this if you bring make you say that and so they're stuck in a loop, but another thing is that in methodological naturalism, it presupposes the universals of the laws of logic salute the universals.

For example, law of non-contradiction. So if you and I are discussing something over the phone in your thousand miles away from me and I contradict myself and you pointed out what you're doing is you are you are rightly pointing out a contradiction based on the universal law of logic called LNC law of non-contradiction and so what you're doing is you're you're seeing this and it's a logical thing will in naturalism. How do you justify the universality of it because if you point out something to me I go. You're right, I did conduct myself. I'm a thousand miles away yet.

I'm apprehending that same law and submitting my rationalization to it as well in naturalism. How do you justify the transcendent nature of those law because of everything is physical. You justify a nonphysical transcendent thing and so therefore whenever the methodological naturalists argue logically, there ultimately refuting their own position there abandoning it by arguing that way. So it is more to it.

But those are the basic kind of things and stuff and I forget what your question was in the ontological argument might use is traded on it. I do that and then there's the argument impossibility to the contrary. So this was called a disjunctive syllogism so you'll have two things to count for something. The universe began okay will just reflect that decision. So the thing that caused the universe to exist was either personal or not personal because it's either a or is not the case of a either personal or it's not personal, there's no third option to the cases personal or it's not the case it's personal. So when you only have two possibilities will count for something, and one is negated. The other is automatically verified because you can't negate both is called a disjunctive syllogism and so impossibility the contrary means the way I use it is that if some alliances talk about the existence of God and is improvement essay is by the impossibility the contrary, in that your position, which is, it implies an impersonal beginning of things is not viable. Cannot work, and once have demonstrated can't work in the other position is automatically verified out of the logical necessity called a disjunctive syllogism so I will debate with people like that and argue that way except under program.I agree about cash and in this is you know it's new but I've done it many many times and then there's another issue something of the moral argument. I like the moral argument because it's easier to work with on people and to train them logically to understand it because sometimes some arguments are just too highfalutin. But the moral argument and will do is is when an atheist. For example, says that something is wrong to Eliza wrong will because just as common sense with common sense to human to be common sense to me. So again, why is it wrong because it just is well. They don't have a way of justifying any universality of moral absolutes. They don't have any transcendent morals, like saying that there it's always wrong took. For example, murder murder is the unlawful taking of life and things like that so okay why is it always wrong.

It hurts people wise hurting people wrong and they think of just being like a little baby wearing diapers why why why I'm asking the question, why you're just saying it, but you're saying it doesn't make it so are you saying then that because you declare that it's morally wrong that's watch morally wrong that no are you then saying there's a universal moral truth that you are apprehending and using dad swear it gets to the difficulty for them because others atheist than Harley justify universal truth principles in a moral sense. What they don't realize is that they have to appeal to a worldview that is not their own, because in atheism. You can't justify inherent moral qualities in objects or actions. So if I move a cup from the left to the right on it desk is it moral will get and stop discussing things like because yes, it is ultimately the Christian worldview and we get into the motivation in the context of such actions will only discuss the nature of actions has an action inherently have a moral value, and these are the kind of thing to discuss with with atheists are not prepared for this kind of things.

Generally, then we find this atheist assume on the moral realist Durham moral anti-realist or of a consequentialist and then we get into these things. They assume certain values, and I asked him to justify why their assumption is correct, and then the they always go to circularity and so these are sophisticated things that I'll get into with people and discussed for hours at a time. I went to the radio very much because justice is not conducive to that kind of stuff and it hurts people's heads driving to try to pick up their muted work on what is he saying it now. There's way more yet we have Richard from Tucson, Arizona, and the soul got a recording that will get to you that maybe if you want quickly to him.

I are able to get line right Goodman all right. God bless you know.

I know folks at that kind of stuff is a little uppity intellectually me. I enjoy a few friends we can discuss these kind of things you know the moral realism well yeah I was right with the universals was moral realism. I just came back with the epistemological initiatives. Empiricism is just result refuting all yes that's correct. That's why then I introduced a disjunctive syllogism on among basic necessity of necessary and sufficient conditions in impersonal company, getting all yeah I guess that I love talking fun. My wife stares at me like it was something wrong with me because I'm enjoying it so you will enjoy sports, you know, the guy grinned on the sideline with the football thing they do want TV and they scream and yell. I thought stuff like that and they go you okay don't get it but me this to syllogisms they look at me like I'm the one who is not normal. They know let's get to Richard from Tucson a richer welcome here and I don't like going awry, now you are putting on the right dividing the word of truth and I came across make an end of the church of the eternal God now that the church of the eternal God, I guess I have and I know we have anything on Carmen on it. Let me see if we have some research on thing on, okay, yeah Molly like don't like taking the meat not the bone you know and wanting it really a lot on their website like what they believe their mission statement.

I thought I found that you know I'm looking at all right now they were netlike and they were now Michael so let me see it says holy Bible. I was getting on talking okay not bad church government. Whatever doctrinal foundation all taught by Herbert W. Armstrong is a noncritical one. All right, I'll bring okay hold on me right back after these messages, please state to you for the lines 877207276 max Y call 770776\the website got most of them actually difficult to deny the Trinity looks like a nicety of Christ other hemming and hawing they say about Jesus.

The Colts will often do things like he really is a son of God, and then they don't say anything further defining effective denying or affirming the of two natures of his God in flesh and things like that the Holy Spirit is a force or power and that quote we believe that God is a kingdom or a family the kingdom or family of God that consists God consists of the father and the son Jesus. But with the potential of man to become part of God's very family, so it looks like the deifying man and things like that so know if this is salvation. I don't seal grace and works with a true Christian are saved by God's grace, not according to their works. But their reward is depend on, but the reward is depend upon on good works, so that's good. But as is always a case you gotta find what they mean by because the Mormons assuming the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox could could say the same thing and they redefine things so yes is not is not critical to stay away from you about any herb, Herbert W.

Armstrong is the guy who started it. He was a non-Christian cultist and a guy like the that that Charles Tetreault stays Russell okay okay okay you are Herbert W, he's bad you meet an article look great. You know you talk about Timothy and you know you don't, you know, dividing your little bear little eyes that you know this picture there you know the very thing you know, I think the Viennese lowlight right by me and of the law yeah yeah beautiful thing but I guess you dig deeper into what you think that I was going to church for years year 20 years making them overthinking around you know I started battling with the body of the Holy Spirit and know my pastor took it all.

Nothing against them, but I just felt like well that's not the direction I want to go and I'm just going beyond what I'm going to faith community church now here in Tucson, Arizona. Clans like you have with pastors and elders.

There just find out after it hurt when you going to do have women pastors and elders find out okay if they do not leave him to leave a note all yes yellows required.

I like it a lot on what I will talk you again. Sounds good buddy have a doing okay. God bless you to okay all right we have for wide-open lines so that means we need for you to give me a call and all you gotta do is dial 877-207-2276 is good to Mitchell from North Carolina Mitchell welcome and current so organically in the world. Maybe there are fit for life plan. Yeah. So if we have atheists listening feel free to call in and say you believe that the meaning of life is because different atheists hold different reasons for what they believe and why they believe what they do so they can have different meanings of life we as Christians are meaning the meaning of life is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and to preach his gospel truth to glorify God, etc. when an atheist have had different ones I've talked over the years and they say well to love their family something to be good to others to spread love and help.

Some say just to gather as much power money as they can for themselves so we've had had many different atheists tell me different things.

That is what they would say is the Burmese meaning for life. The reason for from not to say one thing is the same for all atheists. They have to answer for themselves. In particular, okay.

I got you. I tried that I have that I will worship somebody or something. I think that I think that you die some holder that's in the wrong for them there people to more and more today who are holy to annihilation is and I absolutely rejected as being scriptural is being logical but cold soul to it like this to church of eternal God that we talked about they hold to that Job's witnesses do Seventh-day Adventists do so to some atheists hold mostly talk to hold to that because they hold to something called property dualism and property dualism is the position that the physical brain produces the mind so therefore when the physical brain dies, the mind dies with the physical brain ceases the mind ceases. So the mind is a property of the physical brain the way red is a property of an apple. So the other position is called substance dualism, and that is that the human mind is separate different substance than the physical brains of the physical brain dies, the mind continues have talked to atheists and most of them are property duelists, but there are some substance duelists so start to make us who believe we continue on after death right early anybody but well since you atheism to go to to you too good to Amazon and you can look at my name Matt slick and then the word atheistic and it's a novella that I've written on atheism and it's a novel with a plot and everything, and the premise you can learn the stuff in there. The premise is that the island develops in the middle of an ocean and a rich atheist Geico billionaire buys the island then developed into into an atheist community and atheist move-in and things are to go wrong so I don't make the things look bad I don't look I have horns coming out of their heads that had atheist Rita said treated him very fair fairly but they understood what I was doing was showing logical problems in philosophical problems because I introduce a character in their who in the means of solving their problems becomes a problem and he's an atheist and stuff like that and so is called atheist or, you can check it out.

You can learn about the if using their okay. We can also go there. Look up a book called called apologetics and atheism, and between those you can learn a great deal.

Okay REMNANT sounds good buddy got bless all rights that see me lower my love from Charlotte, North Carolina. Welcome around here okay well I have no idea. Like there's a race coming up we have a seven Matt Y. Call 77077 still there. All right. Sorry about that. So what is your question all I know the way back out yet don't not like you know why they want to thank I'm going. I think it to become all that weight to explain it.

I will people are not believe that I thing a sure sign sure what I like to do is use time and I say look this is just an illustration is just an analogy. Say, so that God is a Trinity and he tells us in Romans 120 that the characteristics or attributes of God are known in creation is like his fingerprints in creation of what is to say, take time.

For example, time is one thing, it's time but time has passed and it has present and it has a future. There's like 33 things within time and so the wildest passes different than the present, which is different. If you have right now so you have to put all three of the artists are still time right that's how God is he's 11 being but there's like three things in that is the one God and that's a good supported yeah they they they shall find a whatever the exiting doesn't is not very good. Okay, it's is different and so time is a is one of the best ways I desire to illustrate it.

It helps people to get all one thing, but there's the lucky word parts because I think it's in the submittal commercialism like you said, just three aspects of what they are three things which, of which God which time is past, present, future. It is not three separate things are time it's all one thing is with how God is one thing, with 311 being with three things and we call them persons okay all the way with low try caught up is just a cultural icon of the body, soul and spirit in his dichotomy which the soul and spirit are the same thing is interchanging Scripture so I don't gingerly go without. I just go with time. Well far more nutrient, less of a problem and stuff like that okay okay so that all ended, thinking that they think they would bag on.

I'm saying that there's different views within theology about them because the Bible says the separation between the soul and spirit. Yet the Bible also uses them interchangeably. So which is the true position were made of three parts were two parts – the crime okay. All right. Thank you very much. I will call you again. They know that they created lots okay it's good to Vicki from Raleigh, North Carolina. Vicki welcome you here terribly written about the fact that everything you where bag on the chronic, my God, my God, my appetite anything referred guide on Christ and that's about how backbreaking my heart.

I reject when I hear that talking to somebody the other guy that died. I guess I'm aware that the Bible the way up and be refreshed my mind. Sure so he says my God my God why you forsaken me. If people see what that means God abandoned them and asked the question okay what is it mean to say that God the father abandoned the sun was mean and if you can't tell me what is suggested to not used to see what we often say things that we just assume have certain clarity and value with the cross-examined we find out that they don't. It's like trying tell Christians be careful of what you're saying and just pay attention so solicited God the father abandoned really ceasing the fellowship which is natural in this and necessary inside the Trinitarian communion was no longer in effect that that means appear Croesus is no longer in effect. In the Trinity. How do you have that what explain the problems at that position can bring right tell people to stick as close as you can to Scripture absolutist state what it says and it's like going off on a journey with you going 10 feet you're off 1° not a problem. You're not going thousand miles off 1°. I miss your destination. The further you go with a little bit of variation, the more likely to miss the target. In this case come into error. So I tell people write as specific as you can like you forsaken me. So that's what that's what he said so now what is it mean what we know is quoting Psalm 22 verse one which deals with the crucifixion so it could mean this will be say. It's possible that it means that Jesus was under the law and become sin, and since Jesus had asked her father to let the cup pass from him but the father did not succumb to that. No, you go through this may be and that is what you forsaken. Is it of doctrinal thing. Or is it a reference to Scripture and to what extent is that if your deceivers are forsaking an actual sense in what sense is it and what degree is it because these things can affect how we interpret the doctrine of the Trinity and what's called the director recess and defined simplicity ontological Trinity economic Trinity and so innocent like myself is more more banal that it was his birthday away. It'll bring issues and so I collected urge Christians. Be careful how the user works with the site particular.

But Jesus okay when like I said in my heart I need at that much more final thing and that I couldn't think I know Matt talked about it frequently. I can't remember what you better anything that will people make a statement asking to to justify the statement they said in these got abandoned. What is it mean to abandon, and maybe you might say that we going I guess you're saying but I just say decreases, particularly around Jesus careful what you say. At the same be careful. You're welcome to come back okay all right it's good to Rudolph from Raleigh, North Carolina Rudolph, welcome you near a good yeah I knew you only you can prove that Christ split wrinkle versus what in Matthew eight there that you link from Florida Minette out of the water right so and ask chapter 8, the Ethiopian eunuch Rico the Ethiopian Munich was baptized by Philip.

It says in verse 30 9X8 39 when they came up out of the water so if they came up out of the water does it mean that both of them were immersed in the water and shall be of course not. So when it says it came up out of the water. It does not necessitate that was immersed.

You could be in the water up to your hips and then you come up out of the water so that's what I try and show them as necessitate immersion it can can be emergent but is logically necessitated to many people what they do things assume what they been told all the time is true that it apex baptism always means immersion.

It does not, I can prove it from Scripture, but when for example neck. Chapter 8 when the Ethiopian eunuch is baptized is baptized by Philip and they come up out of the water if it means that youth UPN eunuch who killed by the water means whose immersed if they came out of the water and it logically means it.

Philip was immersed, but that doesn't make any sense. So the phrase to come up out of the water does not necessitate immersion.

That's what I'm saying I say I pick my words carefully doesn't necessitate it doesn't mean it's a logical necessity. It does not mean that when someone comes up out of the water.

It does not mean they were not immersed but you can't say it means they were just simple logic and what I do with people trying to get them to see these distinctions and then argue logically from that position because if they argue logically to be less likely to make errors so I can show you after you more about baptism and how to use the word so is using the context sprinkling Scripture from Scripture to go to what Thanksgiving on a goblin hey folks for the lines 877207 mass like why call 77077 and let's get to and from Ohio and welcome hello clear question on the doctrine of the Trinity, and I don't like the oneness doctrine, but at a Bible study. I had a person who is presenting pretty strongly that when Jesus was baptized for on transfiguration and there is a voice from heaven. This is my son and well pleased that that was basically just Jesus himself speaking that because he is the one with father.

There is not technically two people so what's the correct answer to a person like that.

That's heresy is a false teaching needs to not be teaching anything in the Bible study, and boy was a settlement. Okay, so he needs to be corrected lovingly and patiently, and hopefully the Bible study teacher would know enough, they don't have him call me we can talk on the phone. I can teach him to set a statement on that note to say that Jesus was. It was only him speaking is not the correct it says in the father spoke out of heaven. So this is oneness theology and its heretical oneness theology is non-Christians occult. It denies a true doctrine of the Trinity.

And because of that it denies the true incarnation and denies the true gospel. So this person is teaching false, got a false gospel ultimately not he may or may not be consistent and teachable sinks falsely but no, Jesus did not say it was not ventriloquism. Jesus is there on earth, and that he speaking to himself out of heaven and that's not biblical right that sounded almost what they were saying that he was sort of think anything on the character in their case by I am the father are one and other verse similar to that as John 1030 it's reference to probably six of four hero Israel is one Jesus is on the father are one.

Notice what he says Jesus is the father and I that's a distinction of two right. There are one or 1 W problem here is that oneness and the telling of the city again. Oneness is not Christian okay flat out not Christian. And so what they're saying is that God is reviewed within oneness with God is one person, and that in the so to speak incarnation there's two persons in the body of Christ.

The human person and a divine person and that sometimes the human person is speaking is sometimes a divine person speaking and this is heresy. And so if the divine person is everywhere all the time is not just simply incarnate. He's just indwelling of the body of Christ, but not incarnate in the body of Christ that he could speak from heaven, and yet be in Christ.

At the same time. This is their view, but it denies a true incarnation denies a hypostatic union denies the commuter car to Indo lot. Okay. All right, so it's non-Christians think if anybody in the in the group needs help to understand it. I can help them in the can. Hopefully talk to that person help them along.

Okay.

And it would be under a certain topic at Carl wondering his ear oneness just just look up oneness oneness theology and there's a whole bunch of stuff there earned. I've debated what many oneness people over the years and it's non-Christians and there's probably a couple different shades of one Dr. Wright Yetter because there are problems within oneness logically and to different people, different ways to defend their heresies and so they deviate from each other slightly. One view is called Motl this Motl menarche this that the father became the sun. The sun changed and became the Holy Spirit. This Motl menarche in this one God in different modes. Then there's another view that says no, he just one person doesn't change his modes, he just changes his expression change in his nature to fight, that his expression is altered that he still the same person.

So they do that because there problems with Motl is more so than there are, logically, with oneness, the manifestation idea and or so problems with it with her trying to do is adapt to the criticisms and sold them for their theology changes and I've asked. I've seen that change over the decades that that oneness theology has definitely changed from Motl. Menarche.

Ms. him tomorrow for simultaneous or consecutive manifestation of one person because it's not difficult. Okay.

All right. God bless. Okay.

All right, now let's get to Emory from Charlotte North Carolina. Every welcome your on the air all right on your own first Caribbean has therefore been a good thing. Baudelaire about longhair, what about longhair. No longer on the manager around: the context of first Corinthians 11 is the idea that women are the ones who had long hair and are the ones who did not have long hair. You'll notice Samson in the Old Testament had long hair and it was not considered a sin. He was a Nazirite so the conditions it was Nazirite soup and make a vow before God would not cut their hair, they can have long hair so there's debate about what this is. Talk about the first Corinthians 11 because Paul knew the Old Testament would've known about Samson.

The longhair issue, yet he says is a disgrace for Amanda have longhair because in the culture of the time seems to be the best explanation that women are the ones you had long hair, not men because it was a showing of being effeminate and a showing of femininity that they were adopting and it was a disgrace. So this is the idea behind it.

In that context. At that time. Okay. Here, there longhair I've got friends of what one, one friend he has long hair back down past her shoulders.

He's got a beard and everything that is very much a Christian named Nathan. His music is good guy and home longhair where I asked my wife and my as my wife. I should go my long hair logging on my age in my 60s and basically cheat in Somerset to help my looks as my father almost hundred are all about what I'm 65, and I still have a good head here, even though ceiling a little bit here and there, but I've still got some so you know, big radioing. A great here in the camera and a lot of great here. That's right, I wife is looks good on me, though you looks good on me but looks at Ethan Perley from a distance okay honey look at Jesus is asking for trouble with its good home remedy for wealth, all right, but operated by goblins or a believer. Now we have nobody waiting right now if you want to give me a call 877207226 so someone mentioned earlier about the issue of sprinkling versus immersion and when we do is to show you that just just do it. Baptism can mean pouring okay and logical thinking. Now, what cannot it always means immersion really doesn't, well, so if you go to do this right backs.

For example, X15 don't check us out. John baptized with water, okay people's enemies emerged okay, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. It's actually five John baptized with water, okay, and you'll be baptized in the Holy Spirit. So the word baptism is immersion you will be immersed with water and but you'll be also be immersed with the Holy Spirit was at the case.

No, it's not because the Bible talks about the coming of the spirit and how it will be and it's always by pouring so when you go for example 2 Joel 228 it says it will come about after this that I will pour out my spirit on all mankind.

And so when you do research to find out that the spirit is poured out. In fact, when you do more research on this even find that's that Peter in acts chapter 2 quotes Joel he says I'll pour forth my spirit and then he also says in those last days will pour forth the spirit they shall prophesy.

So with the Bible says is the coming of the Spirit of God is by pouring so now when we go we look at acts 15 where it says John baptized with water, you be baptized with the Holy Spirit now. If they say baptism means immersion deal with water then went to be consistent say that me to be immersed to the Holy Spirit. That's not what happens was for the sport so the issue of baptism here doesn't work if it means immersion sees is real simple switchback, basically saying is being poured upon but then there's this phrase of baptized in the Holy Spirit will what is that some people think it means the Holy Spirit comes upon you with great power.

They speak in tongues and things like that. Look, that's the case that meets Holy Spirit come upon you, but how it comes upon you like being poured six and that is one instance where the word baptism by context and Scripture cannot mean immersion, but the context is is meeting pouring there you go, and I can show other places like this, not am I saying you shouldn't be immersed and all the immersed of my baptized reflector for two immersed I think this is awesome. I'm just saying don't assume that the word baptism automatically means immersion it doesn't, I just proved it from one verse, and there's others that can show different things as well. I'm not negating immersion baptism like at night. I practice it distinct from that person. That case all right. Let's get on to Patrick from North Carolina.

Patrick welcome that all hello Matthew 2818 Jesus said that he has all authority in heaven and earth for Jesus to have authority over God now is not what it means is in heaven and earth is talking about the authorities given him by the father because he said all authority given to me and that's what it says right there right given to me. This is because Jesus is made on the law and he looked would've the text also is been given to me in heaven and on earth.

So, than the father gave it to him because he made for little while lower than the angels. Hebrews 29 made on the log license for four and so as someone who's in a position and he will eternally be in a position authority was given to him as a designation of his deity and supreme authority that he has is not authority for God the father. That's not what Jesus all the learning of America given to me… God authority. It says all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth who given the authority given to them what is the most authority in the Trinity. Pat Patrick who given the authority to say okay so I'm asking you who gave him the authority will Jesus Patrick Patrick you not answer the question, who gave him the authority to me. David okay what time to answer that question.

If you ignore it. Call back gracious and they fall short of time in the Lord bless you another program powered by the Truth Network