Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. I hope you're all having a good day, and that if you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 877-207-2276, and hey, guess what, so I've had some debates lately on oneness, and they're coming out of the woodwork, and so I don't know how I got on this one Facebook page, and there's some pretty insulting and condescending oneness people on there, not that all of them are, but one thing led to another, so tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, I'm going to have an impromptu discussion with some oneness people, and I'll do it on StreamYard, but I'm going to broadcast it to CARM and stuff like that, and I'll put the links and stuff up on CARM forward slash calendar, CARM forward slash calendar, and that's what I'll put it on half hour or so before the 15 minutes before the show, before I do it tonight. Anyway, no big deal, just letting you guys know if you want to participate, watch, it'll be on Facebook, it'll be on YouTube, and if you can get in here into StreamYard, we'd have discussions, and hopefully they won't be obstreperous. We don't want to be obstreperous now, do we?

No, we don't. Hey, folks, go check out odyssey, O-D-Y-S-E-E dot com. We're moving a lot of our stuff over there.

The powers that be at YouTube are a little bit sensorous, and so what we're going to be doing is gaining more people over there, and some other platforms are going to be doing stuff. So, odyssey.com, just register and then do a search for CARM, and you can sign up, and you can follow us. No big deal. See you pretty easy.

Oh, I think I have Odyssey, I think, put it on this show today. All right, one open line, 8772072276, let's get to Buskman from Ohio. Buskman, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, how are you doing this afternoon, Matt?

I'm doing okay, by God's grace, that's how I'm doing. So what do you got, man? Well, I've got a question for you, sir. I've got a friend who was called into the ministry, called to be a pastor several years ago, but he's always had a yearning for a small business. And so he and the remaining staff are all unpaid, but yet stipend, okay? There's a worship leader and a children's director, and then he himself, and they take a small stipend from the tithes and offerings.

And I'm just wondering, I know Paul was a tentmaker when he met with Priscilla and Aquila, who were also tentmakers, and that's Acts chapter 18, if I remember right. But my question is, Matt, is I know it's okay to be bivocational, but is there a line, sir, for instance, like, would you miss a Sunday morning teaching, you know, a regular church service, to go do your small business? If you're a pastor, no. Yeah. What's the typical reference for that? There are exceptions.

Okay. Well, the idea is, there are exceptions. I mean, let's just say that it's a small town and you know that the pastor is bivocational. Let's say there's 30 people, 40 people in the congregation, because it's a small town. And let's say, you know, he's got a business that he uses and that's what he pays his bills with. And so he's got a backup elder that can preach, and let's just say that he's been preaching for five months, no problem, and all of a sudden there's an emergency at his business and he has to go take care of it. I don't see any problem with that.

I didn't have the elder substitute in and preach. Just like if his wife were sick, you know, all of a sudden he's got to go to the hospital. All right, folks. Got to take care of this. You know, there are exceptions and as long as it's not a habit all the time, the elders might want to get together and say, you have enough time for this, you know, and what can we do to help out?

Things like that. So I don't think that's just an end. This was a, it's been, bless his heart, and I love this man. He is such a great man, Matt. But it's a bit, he just started this business and that's not his income. And obviously it's not from the stipend that the church gives him. He's actually got, he's actually got a really good job in a, he's got a job. So I guess it would be a, he's got a dream, which is the third thing and it's, he's getting a little bit of income from it as it starts. And I'm just wondering, okay, he's a pastor. He's also, he works for the state. And then he has his dream job that he just now started and I'm just wondering, wow, that's a lot.

Yeah, it is. And for some people that's too much, for some people it's not too much. Some people work better under pressure. I work better under pressure. Some people don't. And you know, I would just say that what you have to do is watch it and to see, you know, to see how he's doing and is it detracting from the issue of pastoring?

And in a... I guess that would be the criteria, Matt. What would be that criteria to say, hey, you're detracting from the pastorate?

Well, let's just say his sermons, instead of spending his normal amount of time, he only spends a half hour on a sermon. And I can see that happening once or twice because life is life, okay? But if it becomes a habit and there's something else going on, then they need to sit down with the elders and they need to talk about it.

And the goal... Currently it's a... Go ahead, sir. No, you go ahead. Well, I was... Yeah, right now, if I remember right, there are two deacons and then there's the director for the children's area, the worship leader and himself. That's it for leadership.

It's like a plant. We're meeting in a non-church venue as of right now. Are there elders? Yes. Now, that, not that I'm aware of, but I know that the church is being sort of sponsored by an overarching church. I do know that.

Okay. Well, depending on the congregation size, it's a good idea to raise up another man or two within the congregation who can step up for preaching. They should not be too young, too immature, or new believers, of course, but be able to teach doctrine and refute error. They don't have to be the greatest preachers in the world because that's not why we're there. We're there to hear the word of God exegeted.

So it just depends on situations. I think that what you probably do is sit down with him and talk in a loving way. Is this too much for you?

And if we're not going to dump you, if you say, yeah, it's getting a little bit too much, what can we do to help? You want to split the preaching up 50% with somebody else, or whatever it might be, and just see. There's some ambiguity in it. Yeah. Yeah. I just wondered.

Go ahead. Look at this. To say that the congregation was 500 people, it's best then not to have another job because he could be supported full-time in the ministry. That's 1 Timothy 5.17 talks about that. But the idea then is that there's so much to do as a pastor. There's counseling. There are things that he won't tell you that he's doing, not because he's deceptive, but because he's counseling people and he can't really talk too much about it, except, yeah, I did a counseling session for privacy reasons.

So a larger congregation requires more time, a smaller congregation that doesn't necessarily. That's his gray area. Because I know this man, he loves the Lord, he loves people, he's a very outgoing guy, and I've been to his small business and he's just beaming, Matt, when he's serving people. And it's a service business. And it's like, man, I immediately started praying for him, and I'm like, Lord, if his heart is for the business, have him have 100% for the business. Once again, and he's got a pretty large family too, he's a father of many nations, if you will. He's got many children, a wonderful guy, wonderful, wonderful wife, I love his wife, and I'm thinking he's got an awful lot with his day job, the pastorate, and now the, that's a good question.

I'm going to say mid to late, mid-40s, maybe a little younger. He's young enough to be able to handle a lot of stuff. So just pray and just befriend him and see how things are going, and just watch over the period of time. Oh, I'll never stop being his friend, never stop loving him, and I'll support him in either one that he does.

I just want to see 100%, especially for the pastorate, because according to scripture, he's called to shepherd those that come and are in his flock, and I'm thinking how much time does the dear man have between waking up and going to sleep, and so that would be my concern. But yes, it is a small church plant, they're meeting in a small venue that they rent, it's not a church building. Right. Well, I guess I just keep up with them and just see what's going on, okay? Will do. Hey, thanks for your help, Matt.

I always love listening to your show. Good, man. Thanks a lot. Appreciate that. All right.

You're welcome. All right, buddy. Okay, God bless. Bye-bye.

All right. Wow, I like that. Let's get to Tom from Virginia. Tom, welcome. You're on the air. Hello. Hello.

I had a question about, I noticed a lot of resources on the website, but currently I'm just really struggling trying to understand salvation and everything. Am I supposed to know if I'm elect, or I know good works don't save us and everything, but I'm not. Right.

Well, what's your concern? I mean, to know if you're elect, the Bible does teach election, and it's a common question that people will ask when they oppose God's election, even though the Bible teaches it. How do you know if you're elect? And then they try and put doubt in you. And when people have asked me that question, I just say, look, look, God grants that he believe, Philippians 1, 29, and I believe. God grants repentance, 2 Timothy 2, 25, and I've repented. I'm born again, not of my own will, John 1, 13. I know I have eternal life.

1 John 5, 13 says, you can know you have eternal life. And I know this because I'm trusted in Christ, not because of anything in me. And I say, what else you want me to say? Well, how do you know you're really the one who, blah, blah, blah. I go, look, I'm just telling you where I'm at, all right? I'm trusting God at his word. And that's it.

So, you know, what they want to do, those who hate God's sovereignty, and they do, even within Christian circles, they want their own sovereignty, they will mock and challenge election predestination, which you're clearly taught in scripture, Ephesians 1, 4, and 5, for example. Okay. So it's, um, it's repentance, like, I know that's a gift, is it continual, or is it a one-time thing? Oh, it is continual. Look, if you were to move in at my house for a week, guess how long it would take for you to realize that Matt Slick, the radio guy, is in a constant state of repentance.

It'd probably take you, eh, two minutes, okay? Look, we're always, we're always in a state of repentance. We're always in a state of, oh, I didn't do that right, I could have done that better. Lord, you know, I didn't love my wife enough, I didn't show patience to my neighbor as well. Lord, teach me how to follow your love. It's a form of repentance, and this is always going to go on in our life, always, it just is. Okay.

Thank you. I just was thinking, like, if it was instant or gradual, because I'm just struggling, I still struggle with sin and everything. Well, I'm glad you do. I'm glad you do in the sense that dead men don't struggle against sin. I'm glad you're struggling against it, because it shows that you're alive in Christ. I'm not glad you're struggling with it, because that's sin in your life.

We don't want sin in your life, but you, I'm sure you understand what I mean, it's a sign of life in you. Yes, sir. So keep looking forward.

You want to hold prayer after the break, or is that effective? No. Hold what you want. Hold on. Let's hold on. Okay. We'll talk to, we'll get right back after these messages, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. I've got two open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's get back to Tom. He's still there? Yes, sir. All right. I don't know if we helped. I know he's got a break there, but I want to make sure that you're doing okay in Christ. Yes.

I believe it was effective. I just, sometimes I don't feel like I really do fight, sometimes I just give in to sin, and that's the part that kind of bothers me, I just, you know, it's hard. Yeah, it is. Well, I have a suggestion for you, and that is to have a regular time of prayer each day that's just your own, where even if it's just one minute, it doesn't matter, but you get on your knees and you pray and you say, Lord, I need help with this, and you trust him, and you move forward. And even if you don't have victory, let's just say, right away, you keep praying. You keep doing this because it's an act of faith and trust in your Lord as you depend on him. And you'll find that other things will come to you as well in that time. It's just how it works with us, okay? My last question.

Sure. How do you overcome, like, I'm so worried, and I don't know why I'm worried because I don't have control over it, but I'm so worried about my deceased loved ones, and I'm just like, I don't know if they were elect or regenerate, like, they believed in God and went to church, but that's, you know, like, they probably just knew the regular, you know, the John 3.16 believing and stuff. It's so hard. Well, we're not saved by doctrine. We're saved by commitment to Christ and his work in us. And I had a family member who I doubted that person's salvation. It was my own mother, I must well tell you. And on her deathbed, she was dying of renal failure, had a few days to live, and I talked to her.

She's a churchgoer, and let's just say wasn't real sanctified in some areas. And I was worried, so I remember talking to her, said, Mom, you know, death is coming, and you know, are you okay with the Lord? And she looked at me, she said, she always called me Matthew, says, Matthew, I've trusted in him. I've trusted in him.

What else do you want me to do? And I just left it at that, and I went and talked to a pastor who married my mom and my dad years ago, and we talked about this because he, you know, knew the issues as well as I did, and he told me something I never forgot. He said that God can save people in different levels of sanctification. Sometimes people just don't have victory over certain things, doesn't mean they're not saved. Salvation is dependent on our commitment to Christ, our confession of Christ, not how well we do. Not that it's okay to sin, I'm not saying that, but if we don't do well or we do well, neither one has a bearing on whether or not we are saved or remain saved because our salvation is dependent upon what Christ has done, and since God grants us faith, look at 1.29, the faith that he grants us is sufficient to save us, to justify us, and we need to rest in that. And that way, you're not so busy worrying about, am I saved, am I this, am I that? Now you can say, Lord, I'm saved, but man, I sure have a long way to go before I can be like you.

Please help me. I just fail. And you pray, you trust, and you go. Okay?

That's what you do. Thank you so much. All right, brother? All right.

Have a good one. All right, man, call back any time, man, okay, because this is tough stuff, and you just need to give me some good words, you know, okay? All right, man.

All right. Hey, folks, let's get to Nathan from Utah. Nathan, welcome.

You're on the air. Hello, sir. Hi. How you doing? Good. Doing okay.

What you got? Well, so I was calling to ask, like I did yesterday, about why I should convert to Christianity, or Christianity. Well, let me ask you, do you believe in truth? Uh, yes, but I don't think that human beings can understand objective truth.

Well, just one thing at a time. So you do believe there's such a thing as truth. Let me ask you, are we obligated to follow what is true? We're obligated to follow our understanding of it, yes.

I would say so. Well, I wouldn't say our understanding is what is true, because we can be self-deceived. I would say that we should follow that which is true. Now, whether we can find that truth is another issue.

Would you agree so far? Yes. Okay. Uh, yeah. Then what you just did is you agreed that there's an objective truth, okay?

Yes. Okay, so. Not that we can be self-deceived. Well, objective truth is something that is true, it's not dependent upon your existence, your reality, et cetera. So there are universal truths that are out there.

Would you agree? Uh, yeah. Sure. Okay. All right. And so you say we're obligated, and I agree with you that we're obligated to follow truth.

Is that obligation a moral issue? Um, yeah. Sure.

Okay. So you're saying we have a moral obligation to follow, uh, objective truth, right? Which means you recognize... As far as we can understand it, yeah. As far as we can understand it. Would you agree with me then that in order to know what a truth is, the only way to know what an absolute truth is, is if an infinitely knowledgeable being revealed it to you?

Would you grant that that is certainly a possibility? Uh, that an infinitely knowledgeable being could grant that understanding to me? No, he would say something like, uh, I'm the way, the truth, and the life, nobody comes with a father but by me, Jesus Christ, God in flesh, John 14, 6. So he's God in flesh. He knows all things, 1 John 3, 20. And therefore, whatever he would say would be true, objectively true.

It's a universal truth standard. So when he says, I'm the way, the truth, and the life, logically speaking, that would be something we should trust, right, if it's true. Um, I, so how, how do we establish the infinite knowledge of the being in question? We don't establish infinite knowledge.

That's illogical, it's a non-sequitur. We don't establish his infinite knowledge. We don't have enough knowledge to establish his infinite knowledge.

It would be a self-revelation. Okay, so then why, why do we follow this being in question if we don't have enough knowledge to establish his infinite knowledge? No, you, you said you don't have enough knowledge.

I do. That knowledge is from God himself, because it's the only way from, uh, for us to encounter God is if he's self-revelatory. We can't go up into the celestial eighth kingdom of heaven of the fourth dimension and pull him down. So he has to be self-revelatory.

Would you agree then that his self-revelation would be, let's just say, a little special? Yes, but I don't see how the claims that the being makes about itself would be able to be verified by a person if we can only understand what we are able to understand through the limits of being a human being. Well, then what you're saying is that you have to have a verification method. Have you verified the verification method as being true, or are you just assuming that? Verified, okay, I mean, it's, human beings have to rely on our sense and our logical faculties, right? Yeah. Are you an empiricist?

And then you balance that with your spiritual and your emotional, I would say. Are you an empiricist? And so, I am not. Okay. Hold on, I got a break. Okay, hold on. We'll do more of this, okay? All right. Hold on, buddy. All right. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages talking to Nathan.

I love these kind of conversations. Hey, please stay tuned and we'll see how it goes, God bless. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

This is Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome back to the show. Nathan, are you still there? I am. I've always wondered what happens during those breaks, and I guess you hear the same thing I do.

Yes, we have a chat room, actually, and there's people also, and we have discussions, and it's a lot of fun. A lot of fun. Sometimes I shouldn't read what they say because it makes me laugh, right, when the break comes off. You know, I gotta get on air. So, can I ask you really quickly, just where your perspective is coming from? Are you an atheist, agnostic, or what? No, I'm actually a very religious man. I venerate my ancestors and I venerate their gods, but I maintain an open mind, and your show keeps coming on the radio, and I don't even listen to the radio, it only comes on when I unplug my phone.

So I thought I'd call and see what you got. So you venerate ancestors and their gods, okay. So what you said- I'm a polytheist. Yeah, you're a polytheist, okay. Which is logically impossible. A polytheist doesn't work.

God knows. Yes, it does. Polytheism, as far as I can tell, is logically impossible, but okay, it's fine. Okay, I'll tell you why polytheism doesn't work, and I'll give you the quick answer here, and it's because truth is absolute, and it's ubiquitous. You have said already, for example, you ought to follow truth because it's moral. Well, that asserts, then, that you are establishing a universal moral truth.

Now, that's just in the issue of morality, which I could expand quite a bit, but there's also the issue of rationality, the laws of logic, the law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded mental law, of proper inference. These are the basics by which we hold rational discourse, and they're universal principles that are not dependent upon space and time, therefore they're transcendent. But they are abstractions. They require a mind. So if you have a polytheistic system, which mind in the polytheistic system is the ultimate mind?

Do you have any answer to that? When you're a polytheist, Christians have sort of redefined what divinity means because this was not the traditional understanding in the past. Polytheists do not understand divinity to mean all power and all knowledge. So then you're saying that these gods are not all-powerful, then there is no ultimate, right?

No, I didn't say that. Is there an ultimate? No.

Sure. That would be the one, and that being the noble because we are all composed of it. So there isn't an ultimate, a single being who's ultimate, right? And he can't be known, right? Then how do you know if he can't be known, how do you know there's a single being who's the ultimate?

Well, because it would be a logical inference from what you see going on around you in the world of the universe. Okay? Well, logical inferences require a single mind. Hold on, hold on, Nathan.

Nathan. Okay. A logical inference that you're talking about universals, the universal truths of logical beliefs, laws of logic, can't be housed in multiple minds, they can only be from a single ultimate.

But you said it's a single ultimate, but you can't know the ultimate, so how do you know there's a single ultimate? As I said, okay, and allow me to correct myself. Okay. I understand, it's something people get caught on, but you sort of misstated what I said earlier. When I talk about truth being something that people need to follow, I submit fully that these things belong to people's understanding of what it is.

Okay. Subjectiveism. Because we can only perceive, yes, by everything, all perception is subjective.

And these things are established through consensus in a community. So all perception is subjective. Is that an absolute truth, that all perception is subjective?

Is it an absolute truth that all perception is subjective? I mean, I guess not. Okay.

Well, then it's a self-reporting statement. So let's go to something more absolute, okay? What I'm trying to do is show you that you're inconsistent in your worldview and that there's logical problems and coherent procedures you have in your system. So look, let me ask you a question.

Because we can, you know, I can get really into depth, I love this stuff, and a lot of people who are listening don't have any idea what we're talking about, but let me ask you a question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? No. No? Not at all. Why not?

Why not? I mean, I don't think that it's impossible, but because I've read a lot of the critical literature of the Bible, and I'm more of a contestant with credit. Critical literature of the Bible. And, you know, I've read a lot of that too, and a lot of it's bunk. And have you read any of the counter evidence to that? Are you being objective?

Are you looking for something that's only going to show your position? Yeah, I've tried to read both sides of it now. So Jesus rose from the dead, written by the eyewitnesses, right? Why should we believe that that is written by eyewitnesses? Because the book of Acts was written around 60, a little bit earlier AD, because it does not contain the death of Peter and Paul, which occurred around 62 AD. And so the logical assumption is that it was written before then, because it's already had recorded the death of Stephen in Acts 7. So the book of Acts is a historical marker. That's a non sequitur.

No, it's not a non sequitur. Yeah, because the Iliad doesn't record Achilles' death, for example. But everybody... We're not talking about that. We're talking about Acts. We're talking about Luke, who wrote the book of Acts. The book of Acts contains... I understand, but you're incurring that it doesn't mention something, that it has to be a historical document that it happened beforehand, correct? Nathan. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, a superbly important event.

It's not recorded at all in the book of Acts. Why? Why?

Because it could be written from the perspective of people who were living at a certain time. Okay. So in other words, it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to find a way to deny it. Now, this is why... No, not at all. Yes, it is.

Yes, it is. No matter what I say, you're finding a reason to deny it. I can give you the evidence, and you give me irrational responses. You're going to say that your subjective experience trumps the eyewitness accounts of Scripture. Jesus rose from the dead. Come back to the eyewitness accounts of Scripture for a second.

I tried to, but you don't believe them. I understand. Mm-mm.

Hold on. Nathan. Nathan. Nathan.

We're on the radio here, so I don't have much time to do this. The book of Acts does not contain the death of Peter and Paul, and nor does it contain the destruction of Jerusalem. Is it logical to infer that this is because they hadn't happened yet when it was written? No. No. Okay. Well, we're done. Okay, we're done talking. Okay, because you're just being logical.

And if you're not going to be logical, then as even as a possibility, then there's no point in continuing with someone who's irrational, because he is irrational. And we need to move on. Let's get to Rudolph from Raleigh, North Carolina.

Rudolph, welcome. You're on the air. Okay.

All right. How did King David know that it was okay to eat the shootbread from the temple that was not lawful to eat? How did he know? You know, it's a good question.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but I believe it has something to do with the switching of the bread, that there was a time when it was supposed to be switched on, I think, on a weekly basis, and that he could either eat that bread or, since there was no other bread and he was doing the work of the Lord, that it was consecrated for him to be able to do that. Those are the two answers that I would go with and work through those. Okay. Okay.

That's it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

You're welcome, Buddy Guff-less. All right. Let's get to the next longest is Mark from Virginia. Hey, Mark.

Hey, Matt. I'm in Virginia. I'm really from North Carolina. Okay. Okay. I'm working.

I'm working out of town. All right. Anyway, me and you have talked before. Okay. Just as you were hanging up, or we were finished, and you said something about the King James person. Uh-huh. And you told me to call back, and it's taken me a couple of months just to get the nerve to call back. There was something wrong with the King James person.

Now, my grandfather, my father, me, I'm 65 years old also. And that's all we read. That's all we study.

That's all we do at church. But there was something wrong with the King James person. Well, the King James is a great Bible, and as long as you know the textual variants and issues that are associated with it, you can teach through it and work through it. There are some issues, only because the King James, which was done in 1611, which people don't use today. They don't use the original King James. They use a modified version of the King James, and they call it the King James Original, but it's not. So the original King James is difficult to even read. So anyway, it was done with manuscripts that I think were the 600s, 700s, the oldest. And since the King James has been translated, they found even older manuscripts, and there are some textual variants here and there. And so the newer translations have some advantages in that they have access to older manuscripts. Just because it's older doesn't mean it's always better. But generally that's the rule, generally.

The other advantage to the newer translations is they don't have the words the and thou in them. And that's important, and I'll tell you why, after the break. Hold on. Hey folks, we have two open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. This is Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show.

We have two open lines actually, 877-207-2276. All right. Mark, you still there? Yes, sir. All right. So I was saying about the thes and thes. We don't speak in thes and thes.

If you want to relate to people, Jesus, when he became one of us, spoke the normal language of the place and time where he was at. And the thes and thes are two, three, four hundred years old. And when you go to someone and you speak like that, you go to scripture, it's, in my opinion, it's a cause for a disruption of the flow of the conversation. I remember this when I was young, and I was using the King James. I quoted it to somebody and they said, what are you saying thes and thes for?

And instantly I realized this is a problem. And I switched Bibles ASAP for that reason alone, because I want to build a witness to people. That's just another thing. You told me that, what it was, the Bible, and I didn't write it down, but I got a pen in my hand if you'll tell me what the Bible is. There are also issues with the King James. For example, in my opinion, it badly mistranslates Romans 5.18. It badly mistranslates.

Yeah, yeah, that's what you told me that night. And it's because of the theology that's taught there, which I'll have to explain sometime. It takes five minutes to explain what's actually going on in the Greek there. And Romans 5, 16 through 20, roughly, these verses are incredibly deep, and most people don't dive into them. In fact, it mistranslates Romans 5.18.

But there are also issues with the text. You can go to, for example, you can go to carn.org forward slash kjvo, King James version only. And you can see lots of articles written by Luke Wayne, one of our staff writers. He's a great guy.

And he did a great job on this. And I'm looking at one of his articles right now, Missions in the King James Version. And for example, in Jude 25, in the NASB, it says, To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In the King James, it says, To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty. So it omits Jesus our Lord. You know, see, one of the attacks that the King James only people will do is say the modern translations omit certain things. Well, really, the King James omits certain things. So they have a double standard. And we don't want to do that, do we?

Here's another one. This is out of James 4.12. There's only one lawgiver and judge, the one who's able to save and to destroy.

The King James says there's only one lawgiver who's able to save and destroy. So why is the, oh, they'll say because they had the better manuscript, because the other stuff was corrupted. So now we have a problem, because what the King James only people will do is start saying, this is the true version.

And I've actually had King James only people tell me that the King James version in the English is inspired and that it's more inspired than the Greek in the New Testament. I have people tell me that. It's just ridiculous.

No. Yeah, I've never thought that, but our association and everything that I've been taught has been going on for 150 years. And it's in our articles of faith that we only read and study and conduct Sunday school everything from the King James version. So what do you do if someone who's a Greek instructor, can he use the Greek New Testament and he goes on the Bible study? All of a sudden, no, he can't do it. Now you've got to do the King James. Now you're getting into weird legalism.

Yeah. Look, this is the King James of one of the more important verses, John 14, 14, if ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it. But the NASB says, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Whoa. If you ask me anything, that's an attestation of his deity, because you're talking to him and praying to him. But the King James says, if ye shall ask anything in my name, that doesn't mean he's divine. So you see, we can pick and choose.

If you want to use the King James, now what was you saying, Matt? What was you saying? The NASB? NASB. That's the one that's referred.

Yeah, the NASB, yes. I like it because it's more literal in the Greek. And as an apologist, I want to be able to do as literal understanding as the Greek as possible, because I need to have that. But you wouldn't need that. You're not an apologist at that level. And so no big deal.

But if you want to use the King James, use the King James. It's fine. It works. I got you. That's good. I mean, I can't change the whole association. Yeah.

It's all right. If they knock other translations, they shouldn't do that. They're just elevating the King James. And in a good debate, some knowledgeable on this could destroy King James-only advocates. And there are verses where the theology is actually altered by what the King James says.

Not a good way. Romans 5, 18 is one of them. Yes, I wrote it then. I wrote all this then. Okay. Now you have to compare the NASB and the King James.

The NASB is the correct translation. The King James is not. And what you can do is go study them, and if you want, call me back another time and I'll explain why. It'll take me about three or four minutes. All right?

You have to become familiar with it, and I'll tell you. All right. It's not saying the King James is a horrible translation. Not at all.

God has used it mightily and skilled on us. Okay. You know? It's okay. But it took me a while to call you back, because I was afraid of what you were going to say. What?

I'm a nice guy. But I do remember you saying something about the Romans. Right. Right. Well, you know me, I'm a doctor. Yeah, you're very well learned, yes sir.

Well, I don't know about that, but I talk a lot. So there you go. Okay. All right, buddy. We're going to move on.

We've got other callers waiting. All right, buddy? Thank you. All right, man. God bless.

All right. Let's get to Chuck from North Carolina. Chuck, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt.

How are you doing? Thank you for taking my call. Sure. Matt, when do you believe that... Yeah? Wait one second, Matt.

Here. Okay. Matt, when do you believe that time began? On a Tuesday. That's a joke.

Okay. I have no idea, because we have to define what time is. Because without defining something, you can't really discuss it very well, and there's still some debate even within science circles about what time really is.

So I can't answer the question, did it have a beginning or did it not have a beginning? Because is time part of God's essence, in that as he exists and time is defined, it includes his essence, or is time defined that excludes? Because if it excludes God's essence and it's only related to the physical world, then in that case we'd say time began when the physical universe began. It all depends on how you define time. Right.

That's what I would think. But if God exists eternally, without time, how's that possible? We don't know. But yet God does things, and doing things implies time. Time is often described as a sequence of events that passes from one point to another point. That's discerning, that takes duration. Does this apply to God, or is God in a non-moving mental, spiritual state from eternity without any cognition?

Well, it doesn't seem to make any sense. Well, if you can have cognition, then it implies the idea of time, which is sequence. But then how can God have cognition? Yes. But how could God have cognition if he knows all things eternally? And then there's the inter-Trinitarian communion.

It just gets complicated, and I can make it really complicated and then come out the other side saying, I don't know, I don't know when it began, or if it did. Yeah. Good point. All right. Yeah. Could I ask one more quick question? Real quick. Okay. Yep.

Real quick. Do you believe that faith is the material? Faith is immaterial. It's an abstractions concept.

And it occurs inside of us. We can't wait to take a picture of it, et cetera. Okay. Okay, Mike. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your show. Thanks. Always thankful for taking my call. Hey, no problem, buddy.

Keep calling, Chuck. All right. Let's get to, let's see. Steve from Utah.

Utah. Are you still there? Yeah, I'm here. All right, man. What do you got, buddy?

I was just wondering about the Cup. I believe that it's a myth, the Hall of Souls. I wonder where that came from.

I don't understand. The Hall of Souls? Yeah, the Guff. Hall of Souls.

What the heck is that? Yeah, it's something that I've heard the term a few times, where there's a Hall of Souls, and it implies free existence, and it's called the Guff. Okay, I'm looking. Yeah. Okay, I got you.

I'm reading a little bit of a synopsis on it. Okay. So, when we go to 1 Corinthians 15, 45, I believe it is. Let's see. No, no, no, no.

Where is it? Oh, darn, darn. The first is spiritual. Let's see.

Okay. And then the second is physical. Okay, that's right, 1 Corinthians 15, 46, however, the spiritual is not first, but the natural and the spiritual. Now, the context here is talking about the resurrection of the resurrected body. The spiritual, the resurrected body is not first, but the natural. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that there was a pre-existence of souls. There's nothing in there. I've heard a few Catholic people talk about it, and I don't know if that's part of their doctrine.

No, it's not. I know the Mormons believe in a pre-existence, but I've heard Catholic people talk about the Hall of Souls and it's called the Guff. Well, a lot of people don't know what biblical theology is, Catholics and Protestants included, especially Mormons, but the idea of pre-existence souls is not biblical and it's illogical because you have this problem. Yeah, I didn't believe so. I thought the myth came from, I read a little bit about it, actually I heard it came from ancient Israel, but I don't know if there's anything to that.

No. Biblical theology negates the idea of pre-existence souls, and even if a Mormon wants to call me up and talk about Jeremiah 1.5, I can explain that, but the issue here is that if something is existing, then why is it existing and who created it? Is the Creator multi or singular? Are there multiple gods out there creating, then they're bringing them into existence from where? If there's pre-existent souls, what brought those souls into existence? What brought that thing, the beginner of those souls, into existence? It goes back and there's some serious problems with this kind of logic. The only area that makes sense is to say there's one God who brought us into existence, and the revelation of scripture teaches us that it occurs in the Bible with birth, with conception. Is Adam and Eve... Yeah, I believe... Oh, there's the breaker. Yeah.

And then there's this introducingism. Okay, we've got to go, buddy. Okay, sorry about that. Hey folks, well, I hope you enjoyed the show, and by God's grace, we'll be back on the air on Wednesday, that's tomorrow. And may the Lord bless you. Have a great evening. Remember tonight I'll be doing an open discussion in about an hour on Trinitarianism and religion. One this, if you're interested in finding it out, go to karm.org forward slash calendar. karm.org forward slash calendar. Another program powered by the Truth Network.