Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. If you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 8772072276. That's all you've got to do.

It's real easy. Dial that and we can talk. We can blab. We have nobody waiting right now.

I hope you all had a great weekend. Oh, there. We've got four open lines now. I've got to turn this down.

I always forget to do that at the beginning of each show. If you want to give me a call, that's all you've got to do. 8772072276. I want to hear from you.

Give me a call. Did you have a good weekend? I did. Had a good weekend. I've got to do the things I want to do. I've got to debate. I mean impromptu debate.

Do some teaching and things like that. Really enjoy it. I'm going into the virtual world a lot, going into Oculus, the metaverse.

You may have heard about it. Trying to find avenues to witness. That's my whole purpose is to witness. The better equipment I have, the more I can do.

My wife got me for Christmas on Oculus 2, I think it is. Able to get in there. Yesterday, by God's grace, I was in a room with people and some young, some older, and I was able to give the gospel out. Praise God. That's the goal. Give that gospel out, and they listened.

They heard it. I'm so pleased with that to be able to do that. Anyway, you can pray for me. Pray for others who are doing that kind of work, for a pastor as well.

May the Lord bless all of that in the name of Jesus. Now we have four open lines. If you want, you can give me a call.

877-207-2276. 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 that you can watch it on the Karm website. You can go and check that out.

I'll do that in the next minute or two. You can check it out. It's not a big deal. It's kind of boring, actually, just watching me sitting and talking. You say, oh, that's what that guy looks like. I had someone who saw me once and said, you don't look like your voice. And I said, I don't? And I said, well, what do I sound like? And he said, a bald guy with big glasses who's chubby. And I said, that's what my voice sounds like? He said, yeah. And so I got a kick out of that. So that's not what I look like, but there you go.

So I got a kick out of it nonetheless. Okay. 877-207-2276. Give me a call. Let's get to Mitchell from Charlotte, North Carolina.

Mitchell, welcome. You're on the air. What's up, Matt? How's it going? It's going, man.

Just doing radio. What do you got, buddy? Could you explain the ontological argument?

Sure. The ontological argument comes to the Greek ontos nature or essence of something. And so what the basic argument is saying that there's nothing greater than what can be conceived of as a true Christian God.

So the sense there can be nothing greater than that, then he exists ontologically. That's what it is. I don't find the argument compelling at all. I don't use it. Okay. So do you have a argument of choice, so to speak? Yeah, I use the transcendental argument.

I prefer that. See, for example, I was talking online with a guy who, okay, let me explain something so you can understand why the argument works the way it does. So there are people who hold to what's called physicalism or naturalism, which means that the natural world is all there is and that everything operates under the laws of physics and motion and matter and chemistry and things like that. And so out of that naturalism comes something called methodological naturalism. And what that is is the position that you assume that there is no supernatural. You don't argue from the position that includes anything supernatural. It all must be based out of the naturalistic views.

All right. So that's the position. And so what I'll do is I'll say that that's a self refuting position. And they'll say, well, how so?

There are different ways to show it. One is to do with the chemistry of the brain. If the physical brain is limited to the laws of physics and motion and matter and chemistry, then what your brain is producing is chemical necessity, not logical necessity. You can't justify that system producing proper logical inference. And they'll say, no, because they'll give you some argument. I'll just say, well, your brain made you say that.

And so they're stuck in that loop. But another thing is that in methodological naturalism, it presupposes the universals of the laws of logic. So the universals, for example, the law of non contradiction. So if you and I are discussing something over the phone and you're a thousand miles away from me and I contradict myself and you point it out, what you're doing is 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 seeing this and it's a logical thing. Well, in naturalism, how do you justify the universality of it? Because if you point out something to me and I go, oh, you're right, I did contradict 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 laws? Because if everything is physical, how do you justify a non-physical transcendent thing? And so therefore, whenever the methodological naturalists argue logically, they're ultimately refuting their own position. They're abandoning it by arguing that way. So there's more to it, but those are the basic kinds of things and stuff. And I forgot what your question was. Oh, the ontological argument.

I use transcendental. Can I do that? And then there's the argument, the impossibility to the contrary. So there's what's called a disjunctive syllogism. So you only have two things to account for something.

The universe began. Okay, well, let's just work from that position. So the thing that caused the universe to exist was either personal or not personal because it's either A or it's not the case of A. It's either personal or it's not personal.

There's no third option due to the case that it's personal or it's not the case that it's personal. So when you only have two possibilities to account for something and one is negated, the other is automatically verified because you can't negate both. It's called a disjunctive syllogism.

And so the impossibility to the contrary means, the way I use it, is that if someone wants us to talk about the existence of God and then say, prove it, I'll say it's by the impossibility to the contrary, in that your position, which implies an impersonal beginning of things, is not viable, cannot work. And once I've demonstrated it can't work, then 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, if that makes sense. Yeah, I actually understand. I've got a grip on it.

Not a full grip, but I've got a grip on it. Okay. And this is, you know, it's new, but I've done it many, many times. And then there's another issue of something, the moral argument. I like the moral argument because it's easier to work with on people.

I don't have to train them logically for them to understand it because sometimes some arguments are just too highfalutin. But the moral argument, and what I'll do is when an atheist, for example, says that something is wrong, I say, well, why is it wrong? Well, because it just is. It's common sense. Well, what's common sense to you may not be common sense to me. So again, why is it wrong?

Well, 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 it's always wrong to, for example, murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life and things like that.

So, okay. Why is it always wrong? Because it hurts people. Why is hurting people wrong?

And they think I'm just being like a little baby, you know, wearing diapers. Why? Why?

Why? But 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 that's why it's morally wrong and they, well, no. Are you then saying there's a universal moral truth that you are apprehending and using? That's where it gets into difficulty for them because as an atheist, then how do they justify universal truth principles in a moral sense? What they don't realize is that they have to appeal to a worldview that's 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 a desk, is it moral? Well, we can get into discussing things like that because yes, it is ultimately in the Christian worldview and then we can get into the motivation and the context of such actions. But when we discuss the nature of actions, how does an action inherently have a moral value? And these are the kinds of things to discuss with atheists.

They're not prepared for these kinds of things generally. Then what you find is atheists who say, well, I'm a moral realist or I'm a moral anti-realist or I'm a consequentialist. And then we get into these things. They assume certain values and I ask them to justify why their assumption is correct. And then they always go into circularity. And so these are sophisticated things that I'll get into with people and discuss for hours at a time. I don't do it on the radio very much because it just doesn't, it's not conducive to that kind of stuff.

And it hurts people's heads when they're driving, just trying to pick up their kids at work going, what is he saying? Stuff like that. Okay. All right. There's ways. Yep.

We have Richard from Tucson, Arizona. And so one more question and we'll get to you. Let me ask you one more question.

We'll get to him. Okay. All right, buddy. Get in line. All right. Sounds good, ma'am. All right.

God bless. Now I know folks that that kind of stuff is a little uppity, uh, intellectually me. I enjoy it.

And I actually have a few friends. We can discuss these kinds of things, you know, the moral realism. Well, yeah, that's right.

Well, thank you. So it's moral realism. I just came back with a epistemological issue out of his empiricism. It's just for self refuting. Oh, yeah, that's correct.

That's why then I introduced a disunctive syllogism on him on the basic necessity of necessary sufficient conditions and impersonal. He go, yeah, I get that. I love talking like that.

It's a lot of fun. My wife stares at me like, you know, something's wrong with me because I'm enjoying it. Some people enjoy sports, you know, the guys running down the sideline with the football thing they do on TV and they scream and yell at stuff like that. And they go, yeah, yeah, okay, I don't get it. But um, me, Oh yeah, look at this. Just don't have syllogisms. They look at me like I'm the one who's not normal.

What do they know? Let's get to Richard from Tucson. Hey Richard, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, Hey, how you doing Mr. slick? Doing all right. Call me man. Yeah, I got a quick, yeah. All right, man.

Hey, I got a quick question. I was doing some studying on, uh, you know, rightly dividing the word of truth and um, I came across, I came across some information and the source was the church of the eternal God. And I was wondering if you've ever heard of that organization.

Oh, the church of the eternal God. Uh, yes I have. And I don't even know if we have anything on calm on it. Let me see if we have something. I think I did some research on comp.

I didn't find anything on Carmen. Yeah. You know, I'm always like, you know, like taking the meat, spitting out the bones, you know, and uh, but I just was wondering if, you know, cause I didn't really see a lot on their website of like, you know, what they believe or mission statement or nothing. I'm fine. I found it. I'm looking at, you know, I'm looking at it right now.

They were in that light and uh, they were in that light. Cool. So let me see. It says, uh, Holy, the Bible.

Um, I'm scanning while I'm talking. We're okay. Not bad at church government, whatever doctrinal foundation.

Uh, those are, Oh, taught by Herbert W Armstrong. It's a non Christian cult. Okay. Non-Christian cult. Hold on. We've got a break. Okay. Yeah.

It's a cult. Hold on. We'll be right back after these messages, please stay tuned.

We have four open lines, 877-207-227. So actually right there. It's Matt slick live taking a call at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt slick. Welcome back to the show. Richard, are you still there? Oh, I'm still here.

All right. So I'm looking through their website and, um, uh, yeah, it's most absolutely, definitely a call to deny the Trinity. It looks like it denies the deity of Christ.

Uh, they're hemming and highing what they say about Jesus. Uh, cults will often do things like we believe it's the son of God and then they don't say anything further defying, denying or affirming. They have two natures of his God in flesh and things like that.

The Holy Spirit is a force or a power and that, um, quote, we believe that God is a kingdom or a family, the kingdom or family of God that consists at God consists of the father and the son Jesus, but with a potential of man to become part of God's very family. So it looks like they're deifying man and things like this. So, uh, no, it says salvation. I don't sell grace and works. We, the true Christians are saved by God's grace, not according to their works, but their reward is he dependent on, but the reward is dependent upon it on good works.

So, uh, that's good. But as is always the case, you've got to find out what they mean by, because the Mormon, excuse me, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox could, could say the same thing and they redefine things. So, uh, so yeah, it's a non Christian cult.

Stay away as far as the, yeah, the church of the eternal God. I mean, now, how would you say it was a Herbert Armstrong? Herbert W. Armstrong is the guy who started it. He was a non Christian cultist and, uh, was he the, was he the guy with the Jehovah Witness or was that another Armstrong?

No, that's Charles Taze Russell. Okay. Okay. Okay. Herbert W. Armstrong. Okay. That's all I need to know because I'll do some research on him.

He's bad. I mean, the article looks great, you know, I mean, it starts talking about Timothy and you know, you know, you know, dividing the word, you know, here a little, there a little Isaiah, you know, the scriptures there, you know, but, um, I guess that's something very interesting, you know, like Satan be an angel of light. Right. I mean, you know, so, um, it'd be a beautiful thing, you know, but, um, I guess you have to dig deeper into it, you know, just an example. I was going to a church for years, years, 20 years maybe. And then, you know, it's over thing came around, you know, and I started battling with the, uh, you know, the body being a temple, the Holy Spirit, and, you know, my pastor took it, you know, I didn't really hold nothing against them, but I just felt like, well, that's not the direction I want to go. And I'm just going to, you know, I went to an, I'm going to faith community church now here in Tucson, Arizona.

And, um, you know, it's a nice, good, yeah. Okay. Do they have women pastors and elders there?

Just find out pastors and elders at my new church, the one you're going to, do they have women pastors and elders? Just find out. Okay.

If they do. Oh, no. Okay. Good. All right.

Cause they do need to leave. I know that. I know. Oh yeah. Yeah.

Those requirements. Right. Yeah. Good. All right. All right. Hey, well, I think, thanks a lot.

Um, Matt and we'll, uh, we'll talk to you again. Sounds good, buddy. Have a good one. Okay. God bless. All right. You too. Okay. All right. We have four wide open lines, so that means there's room for you to give me a call and all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. Let's get to Mitchell from North Carolina. Mitchell. Welcome. You are on the air.

Hey Matt, me again. Um, so what exactly is, I'm a moron, but what exactly is the, I guess, atheistic worldview? I guess like maybe their purpose for life.

You know what I'm saying? Um, 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, uh, to preach his gospel and truth and to glorify God, et cetera. But an atheist, I've had different ones I've talked to over the years and they say, well, to love their family. Some say to be good to others, to spread love and help.

Some say just to gather as much power and money as they can for themselves. So we've had, uh, I've had many different atheists tell me different things. That is what they would say is the, um, the means, the meaning for life and the random, the reason for it. So I'm not going to say one thing is the same for all atheists.

They'd have to answer with themselves in particular. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to kind of, uh, I mean, as far as, you know, denying the existence of God and everything, I mean, yeah, you've got like tribes, you know, deep in the jungle that sacrifice for something and it just seems like everybody has that built in them that they sacrifice or worship somebody or something.

Yeah. For me, it's just hard to think that if someone thinks that, you know, you die and that's it, nothing happens. Well, some hold to that, uh, and they're wrong for that. Uh, there are people to more and more today who are holding to annihilationism and I absolutely reject it as being scriptural and as being logical. Uh, but cults hold to it. Uh, like this church of eternal God that we talked about, they hold to that.

Um, Jehovah's Witnesses do Seventh day Adventists do. So, uh, to some atheists hold mostly that I've talked 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 was. So therefore when the physical brain dies, the mind dies. So when 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, a different substance than the physical brain. So when the physical brain dies, the mind continues. And I've talked to atheists and most of them are property dualists, but there are some substance dualists.

So there are some atheists who believe we continue on after death. Okay. All right. Okay.

Yeah. I just really, uh, I guess I just never really understood, uh, you know, some people say, you know, I'm not better than anybody, but I'm just asking about, well, since you, you know, brought up atheism, you could go to, um, to you, I mean, not YouTube, but, uh, uh, Amazon and you can look at my name, Matt Slick, and then the word atheistica. And it's a novella that I've written on atheism and it's a novel with a plot and everything.

And the premise, because you can learn this stuff in there. The premise is that an Island develops in the middle of an ocean and a rich atheist guy, kabillionaire buys the Island and then developed into an atheist community and atheists move in and things start to go wrong. And so I don't make the atheist look bad.

I don't make them look, they have horns coming out of their heads. I've had atheists read it and said, treated them very fair, fairly, but they understood what I was doing was showing logical problems and philosophical problems because I introduce a character in there who in a means of solving their problems becomes a problem and he's an atheist and stuff like that. And so it's called atheistica and you can check it out. You can learn about atheism there. Okay.

You can also go there and look up a book called, I've written called apologetics and atheism and between those you can learn a great deal. Okay. Okay. All right.

I'll check it out. Thanks brother. All right then. Sounds good buddy. God bless. All right. Let's see.

Mila or Mila from Charlotte, North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air. Thank you. Um, I just have, I just have a question.

I'm a Christian, but I never can explain. There's a, there's the break coming up. Can you hold on? Sorry to interrupt you, but can you and we'll get back to you after the break.

Okay. Hey folks, we have a two open lines. If you want to give me a call, eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six. We'll be right back. Please stay tuned. Welcome back to the show. We're at the bottom of the hour. If you want to give me a call eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six.

Let's get to Mila. Are you still there? Yeah. All right. Sorry about that.

So what was your question? Oh, um, I'm a Christian and I, I never know how to explain the trinity in a way that, um, it doesn't help stupid, you know, not like you're using the water and the air and whatever, the egg samples. I think it has to be some other way to explain it. I mean, people are not going to believe it, but I do, but I do want to explain it with some kind of intelligence. Well, what I like to do is use time and I say, look, this is just an illustration.

It's just an analogy. And I'll say so that God is a trinity and he tells us in Romans one 20 that, uh, the characteristics, attributes of God are known in creation. It's like his fingerprints in creation and what he is to say, take time. For example, time is one thing. It's time, but time has past and it has the present and it has the future. There's like three, three things within time.

And so the past is past is different than the present, which is different than the future. Right. And they'll say, yeah, see, but all three of them are still time, right? Yeah. Well, that's how God is.

He's one, one being, but there's like three things in them that is the one God. And that's a good, simple way to do it. Yeah. Better than the, the egg and the shelf and the whatever. Yeah. The egg thing doesn't, is not very good.

Okay. It's just different. And so time is a, is a, the, one of the best ways I've found to illustrate it.

It helps people to get it. Oh, one thing, but there's, I don't, I don't like these word parts because that gets into something called partialism. But, uh, you know, I'll just say, so just three aspects of what, you know, three things, which of which God, which time is past, present, future. There's not three separate things that are time. It's all one thing.

And so that's how God is. One thing with three, one being with three things in it. We call them persons. Okay.

People go, Oh, I see. Right. And men as a person too, as with three things. Well, some people, it's called tricotibilism, called trichotomy, body, soul and spirit. And there's dichotomy, which says soul and spirit are the same thing. It uses interchangeably in scripture. So I don't generally go with that.

I just go with time because it's far more neutral, less of a problem and stuff like that. Okay. Okay. So the soul and the spirit is not the same thing that we're trying to say with dichotomy. I'm saying that there's different views within theology about them because the Bible says a separation between the soul and spirit. Yet the Bible also uses them interchangeably. So which is the true position?

We're made of three parts or two parts and that's the question. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

I will call you again. I know. Thanks. Appreciate it. Okay.

All right. Let's get to Vicki from Raleigh, North Carolina. Vicki welcome.

You are on the air. Hi Matthew. Um, the other day I'm pretty sure I believe that you spoke about, um, somebody had mentioned the fact about the verse in Matthew where Christ said when he's on the cross, my God, my God, why has self forsaken me? And they had referred to that as God turning his back on Christ. And you spoke about how that wasn't correct. And I know that in my heart, I totally reject when I hear that. But when I was talking to somebody the other day and they said, God turned his back on Christ and I go, it doesn't say it in the Bible.

Where does it say it in the Bible? And they're like, well, what else would it be? And I couldn't remember what your answer was. And I wanted to refresh my mind.

Sure. So he says, uh, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And people say, well, that means God abandoned him. And then I'm going to ask the question, okay, what does it mean to say that God, the father abandoned the son? What does it mean?

And if they can't tell me, I'm going to suggest that they not use that. See, we often say things that we just assume have certain clarity and value, but for cross examined, we find out that they don't. And so I try and tell Christians, be careful of what you're saying, you know, and just pay attention. So someone says, well, God, the father abandoned.

Really? So you're saying the fellowship, which is natural and this and necessary inside the Trinitarian communion was now no longer in effect. That, that means the perichoresis is no longer in effect in the Trinity.

How do you have that? Oh, what, you know, I have to explain the problems that that position can bring. What I tell people is stick as close as you can to scripture. Absolutely. Stay what it says.

All right. And it's like going off on a journey. You know, if you're going 10 feet and you're off one degree, not a problem. You're going a thousand miles, you're off one degree, you're going to miss your destination.

The further you go with a little bit of variation, the more likely you're going to miss the target in this case, come into error. So I tell people be as specific as you can. It says, why have you forsaken me? So that's what, that's what he said. So now what does it mean? Well, we know he's quoting Psalm 22 verse one, which deals with the crucifixion.

So it could mean, and that's what we say. It's possible that it means that Jesus was under the law and becomes sin. And since Jesus had asked the father to let the cut pass from him, but the father did not succumb to that.

He said, no, you know, you're going to go through this. Maybe in that he said, well, why have you forsaken me? Is it a doctrinal thing or is it a reference to scripture?

And to what extent is that if we were to say there's a forsaking in 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 in what's called the parakeriesis and divine simplicity, ontological Trinity, economic Trinity. And so, you know, someone like myself is, you know, more, uh, more, uh, anal about it. Let's just put it that way. It'll bring issues.

And so, um, I'd like, I'd like to urge Christians to be careful how they use their words, what they say, particularly about Jesus. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. I just, I couldn't, when he said, well, what else would it mean? You know, and I'm like, I was searching my mind and like I said, in my heart, I never accept that, you know, to me that's like something so much more final kind of a thing. And, but I couldn't think of anything like, and I, and I was thinking, I know Matt talked about this recently. I couldn't remember what you'd said or anything.

So thank you very much. Well, when people make a statement, ask them to justify the statement. They said, it means God abandoned him. Okay.

What does it mean to abandon? And maybe he's, he might say that's where you go. Yeah, I can see what you're saying, but I just, I say to Christians, particularly around Jesus, be careful what you say. That's what I'm saying. Be careful. Okay. I agree with that. Cool. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. God bless. Okay. All right. Let's get to Rudolph from Raleigh, North Carolina.

Rudolph. Welcome. You're on the air.

How you doing? Yeah. I knew you always did that. You can prove that Christ was sprinkled versus, but in Matthew, it says that Jesus immediately coming up from the water, coming up out of the water. He came out of the water.

That's right. So in Acts chapter eight, the Ethiopian eunuch, let's see, there we go. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip and it says in verse 39, Acts eight 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?

The answer will be of course not. So when it says it came up out of the water, it does not necessitate that he was immersed. You can 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. Okay. That doesn't necessitate immersion. It can. It can be immersion, but isn't logically necessitated.

Too many people, what they do is they just assume what they've been told all the time is true. That baptism always means immersion. It does not. And I can prove it from scripture. But when, for example, in Acts chapter eight, when the Ethiopian eunuch is baptized, he's baptized by Philip and they come up out of the water. If it means that the Ethiopian eunuch who came up out of the water means he was immersed, if they came out of the water, then it logically means that 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.

When I say I pick my words carefully, it 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. This is just simple logic. And what I do with people is try to get them to see these distinctions and then argue logically from that position. Because if they argue logically, they'd be less likely to make errors. And so I can show you after the, if you're interested, I can show you more about baptism and how it's used.

The word baptizo is used in the context of sprinkling and pouring. I can show that in scripture. From scripture. So anyway, but there you go. Okay, buddy.

You want to stay on? Are you done? Okay. I'm done. Thank you.

God bless. Hey folks, Four Open Lines, 877-207-2276. Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome back to the show. The last segment of the hour. If you want to give me a call, excuse me, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. And let's get to Ed from Ohio.

Ed, welcome. You're on the air. Hello. Hello.

How are you today? Yeah. Hopefully a simple, hopefully a simple question on the doctrine of the Trinity. And I don't know if it's a type of oneness doctrine, but at a Bible study, I had a person who is presenting pretty strongly that when Jesus was baptized or on transfiguration, there was a voice from heaven, this is my son in whom well pleased, that that was basically just Jesus himself speaking that because he is the one with the Father, there's not technically two people. So what's the correct answer to a person like that? Yeah, that's heresy. It's a false teaching. He needs to not be teaching anything in that Bible study. Well, he wasn't a teacher.

Okay. So he needs to be corrected lovingly and patiently. And hopefully the Bible study teacher would know enough. If they don't have him call me, we can talk on the phone.

I can teach them. But to say that, well, 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 it's heretical. Oneness theology is non-Christian.

It's a cult. It denies a true doctrine of the Trinity and because of it, it denies the true incarnation and it denies a true gospel. So this person is teaching a false God and false gospel ultimately. Now he may or may not be consistent and teach all those things falsely, but no, Jesus did not, it was not eventual equism and Jesus is there on earth and that he's speaking to himself out of heaven and that's not biblical at all.

Right. And that sounded almost what they were saying, that he was throwing his voice sort of thing, basing it on the scripture in their case by I and the father are one and other verses similar to that. Yeah, it's John 10 30 and it's referenced to probably Deuteronomy 6 4. He wrote Israel, the Lord of God is one. Jesus says, I and the father are one.

Notice what he says. Jesus says, the father and I, that's a distinction of two right there, are one. Are one what? The problem here is that oneness, and I'm going to tell it, I'm going to say it again. Oneness is not Christian.

Okay. Flat out not Christian. And so what they're saying is that God, and there's different views within oneness, but 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 to sometimes a divine person is speaking and this is heresy. And so if the divine person is everywhere all the time, he's not just simply incarnate, he's just indwelling the body of Christ, but not incarnate in the body of Christ, then he can speak from heaven and yet be in Christ at the same time.

This is their view, but it denies the true incarnation, denies the hypostatic union, denies the communicatio idiomatum. Okay. Okay.

Well, thank you very much. All right. So it's a non-Christian thing. If anybody in the group needs help to understand it, I can help them and then they can hopefully talk to that person and help them along.

Okay. And it would be under a certain topic at quorum. Yeah, oneness. Just look up oneness. Yeah, oneness theology and there's a whole bunch of stuff there and I've debated many oneness people over the years and it's non-Christian. And there's probably a couple different shades of oneness doctrine, right?

Yeah, there are. Because there are problems within oneness logically and so different people come up with different ways to defend their heresies and so they deviate from each other slightly. One view is called modalism or modal monarchianism, that the father became the son, the son changed and became the Holy Spirit. That's modal monarchianism, one God in different modes. Then there's another view that says, no, he's just the one person doesn't change his modes. He just changes his expression. He doesn't change in his nature or anything like that.

His expression is altered and he's still the same person. So they do that because there are problems with modalism more so than there are logically with oneness, the manifestation idea and there's still problems with it. What they're trying to do is adapt to the criticisms and so their theology changes.

And I've seen that change over the decades, that the oneness theology has definitely changed from modal monarchianism to more of a simultaneous or consecutive manifestation of one person because, yeah, I'll get into that later, but it's not a Christian cult, okay? Okay. Well, thank you very much. All right. Well, God bless. Okay. All right. Now, let's get to Emery from Charlotte, North Carolina.

Emery, welcome. You're on the air. How you doing?

Doing all right. I want to know what you mean. What's your point of view on 1 Corinthians 11, chapter 14, 15, verse on hair? About long hair? What about long hair?

What's your views on long hair on a man and short hair on a woman? The context of 1 Corinthians 11 is the idea that women are the ones who had long hair, men are the ones who did not have long hair. Now, you'll notice Samson in the Old Testament had long hair and that was not considered a sin. He was a Nazarite. So there are conditions in which Nazarites who make a vow before God would not cut their hair, they can have long hair. So there's debate about what this is talking about in 1 Corinthians 11 because Paul knew the Old Testament would have known about Samson and the long hair issue. Yet he says it's a disgrace for a man to have long hair because in the culture of the time, this seems to be the best explanation, that women are the ones who had long hair, not men because it was a showing of being effeminate and a showing of femininity that they were adopting and that was a disgrace.

So this is the idea behind it in that context at that time. Do you see how many years I didn't think about his long hair? Yeah, I've got friends. I have one friend, he has long hair down past his shoulders, he's got a beard and everything and he's very much a Christian.

His name is Nathan, he's a good guy and he's got long hair, whatever. I asked my wife if I should grow my hair long, you know, in my age, in my 60s and basically there's not much to help my looks so she says why bother. I'm almost 72 and my hair is falling out. Well I'm 65 and I still have a good head of hair even though it's thinning a little bit here and there but I've still got some so no big deal. There you go, the way you touch your hair is gray. I got gray hair, I'm looking at it right now on the camera. I got a lot of gray hair, yeah that's right. My wife says it looks good on me though but you know it looks good on me but it looks at me apparently from a distance. I say okay honey, I'll give you a hug.

She's asking for trouble. Well it looks good, alrighty. So I'm just having fun. Alright buddy? I do appreciate it, thank you. Alright man, God bless.

Alright believe it or not we have nobody waiting right now so if you want to give me a call 8772072276. So someone mentioned earlier about the issue of sprinkling versus immersion and what I'm going to do is I'm going to show you that, just to do it, that baptism can mean pouring okay and a lot of people think no it cannot, it doesn't. It always means immersion, really does it? Well, so and if you go to, I'm going to do this right now, go to the book of Acts for example, Acts 1-5.

Now check this out. John baptized with water, okay. So people say that means immersion, okay. But you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. That's Acts 1-5. John baptized with water, well okay. And you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. So if the word baptism means immersion, you'll be immersed with water and but you'll be also immersed with the Holy Spirit.

Well is that 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 to Joel 2-28 it says, it will come about after this that I will pour out my Spirit on all mankind. And so when you do research you find out that the Spirit is poured out.

In fact, when you do more research on this you'll even find that Peter in Acts chapter 2 quotes Joel when he says I'll pour forth my Spirit and then he also says in those last days I'll pour forth the Spirit and they shall prophesy. So what the Bible says is the coming of the Spirit of God is by pouring. So now when we go and we look at Acts 1-5 where it says John baptized with water, you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Now if they say baptism means immersion and dealing with water then we have to be consistent and say that means you'll be immersed with the Holy Spirit but that's not what happens. The Holy Spirit is poured. So the issue of baptism here doesn't work if it means immersion.

See it's just real simple. So what it's basically saying is being poured upon. But then there's this phrase of baptized with the Holy Spirit. Well what does that mean? Some people think it means the Holy Spirit comes upon you with great power and you speak in tongues and things like that. Well if that's the case that means the Holy Spirit has come upon you but how it comes upon you by being poured. So you see that's just one instance where the word baptism by context and scripture cannot mean immersion but the context is meaning pouring. So there you go.

And I can show other places like this. Now am I saying you shouldn't be immersed? Not at all. You know if you want to be immersed. When I baptize people I prefer to immerse them.

I think it's just awesome. But 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 show different things as well. I'm not negating immersion baptism. Like I said I like it and I practice it.

I'm just saying from that verse you can't make that case. Alright let's get on to Patrick from North Carolina. Patrick welcome you're on the air. Hello Matt.

Hello. Matthew 28 18 Jesus says that he has all authority in heaven and earth. Does Jesus have authority over God? No it's not what it means. In heaven and earth it's talking about the authority that's given to him by the father because he says all authority has been given to me. And that's what it says.

Right there. Given to me. And this is because Jesus is made under the law and he.

Look at the text. All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. So then the father gave it to him because he's made for little while lower than the angels Hebrews 2 9. Made under the law Galatians 4 4. And so as someone who is in that position and he will eternally be in that position the authority was given to him. It's a designation of his deity and supreme authority that he has. It's not authority over God the father in that sense ok. Yeah but that's not what it says. It says Jesus says all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Not that God gave him that authority.

It says all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Who gave him the authority? Who gave it to him? Well then who has the most authority in the trinity? Patrick. Who gave him the authority?

It doesn't say. Ok so I'm asking you. Who gave him the authority? Well Jesus has authority to God.

Patrick you're not asking the question. Who gave him the authority? All authority has been given to me.

Who gave it to him? So I'll tell you what. We're out of time.

You need to answer that question because if you ignore it then you're going to get into further errors I can tell you already are. Call back tomorrow and we'll be talking about it. May the Lord bless you with a gracious and open heart to the truth. Hey folks we're out of time. May the Lord bless you with the highest grace back on there tomorrow.