Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network Podcast.

And put in the subject line, radio comment, radio question, and we can get to it. And I think that's about it. So, let's see, let's see, let's see. We got that going right there. And if you want nobody waiting. All right.

Well, we do have... Oh, that's right. Today's Friday. Man.

Wow. I forgot today's Friday. Yeah, when you're working like I do. What day is it?

Sometimes I go to my wife. What day is it? Tuesday. It is? Really?

She read her forehead a lot around me. I think it's good for it though. It's a good little exercise. All right. So, what I do on Fridays sometimes is answer emails, try and get to some of those issues that people have raised. And comments and questions. A lot of them are pretty good.

A lot of them are pretty good. So, I think what I'm going to do here is... Let's see, let's see, let's see. Right there we go. All right.

We got a caller coming in, but let me see if I can get to an email really fast. All right. I answered that one already. Hi, Matt. This is that cultic group like Witness Lee's Church Movement seems to get away with making bogus claims by other ministries.

Anybody even remotely familiar with their teachings? TA Sparks understands. I don't know. There's just too much to work on. So, I can't get into that.

Steve Nelson from Boise. Hey, welcome. Yeah, I'm just buried. So, even during our meeting today, we have a staff meeting on Fridays. Even during our staff meeting, towards the end of it, I was working with our web guy trying to develop something else that we're talking about. Trying to get some other things going on. Just a lot of work. I mean, just a lot of work I'm going to do. So, working with two things at once. All right. Whoa.

Now, that's a big email. Man, look at that. Jesus was not the last man Adam at all.

Last man Adam at all. When people come in with a statement that directly contradicts scripture and then they write 8,000 words, I just do this to it. Delete. Because, I'm not going to get into it with them because they're not able to focus.

I met your slick hope and pray all is well with you. I know the debate. I know you debate a lot of atheist folks.

Yes, I do. Have you ever talked with Ronald Reagan Jr. I saw on a commercial once and the only thing that stuck was his comment that he didn't mind burning in hell. Well, I'd like to talk to him.

I would definitely debate him. But to say that you wouldn't mind burning in hell is simply foolishness. People who say that are just taunting.

You know, faint and taunting things. I wouldn't mind if I was suffering forever. Really? Is that what you really think? You know, it's just stupid.

These are kind of statements that are just dumb. It's like saying, hey, would you like it? Would you be okay with you if you just suffered eternally in agony? Yeah, I'm fine with it. Really? Well, you are, okay.

Well, just back away slowly because people like that shouldn't be driving cars. All right, let's just jump on the phones. Phillip from Arizona. Phillip, welcome.

You're on the air. Matt, have you guys taken a vacation recently? Is this the Phil I know from Arizona?

Yeah, that's your Phillip. Hey, man. How you doing, buddy? I'm good.

How are you? I know how busy you are. You're not going to stop for a vacation, and I think it would do you guys good. Well, first of all, I've been thinking about you. I was almost thinking about calling you yesterday, but got busy. I first have to define what that term vacation means.

I've heard a concept. Plus, because of my wife's health, we actually talked about, for example, going to do something together, taking a flight. But it's always a big production for her, and I'm not complaining. It's just her health, and she has to help on the plane, and she has to take pain meds in order to get there. Is it fun for her?

It could be just really painful. So we stay here, and so if I'm going to stay here, what do I do? I've got to work. I know once she was here, she broke a rib.

I don't know if you know a place in Arizona we can go to and relax at. That'd be nice. Yeah, I think you know that I know. I think so, that's right.

I remember Anik was in the car and broke a rib and ended up on the couch. There's nobody with a pain tolerance like your wife, honestly. She's married to me, so she had good practice. That's what I'm saying. That's my main point in saying that. But Matt, it's been a long time since you were around my boys, but I do have an 18-year-old who, in my opinion, is becoming a legitimate theologian, and you have a lot to do with that for sure, but he has not worked up the courage, unfortunately, to call you on your show himself yet.

We're getting there. But he asked me to call you because he doesn't ever miss a podcast, and he just loves it, as you know I do. He keeps asking me this question, and I'm going to go right to you with it. He's interested, basically, Matt, in your opinion, if you could lay out your remarkably informed opinion, in my opinion, of the order of major events that need, must take place, eventually culminating in the return of Jesus.

I know that's a big question. Well, yeah, but... You know how they have those warning labels? I'm going to give a warning label to one I teach on this stuff, because I teach what's called depressed scatology. And scatology, the study of end times, is depressing. I believe that things are going to get really bad, and I believe, this is my opinion, I hope I'm wrong and stuff, because I don't want it to be true, but when God said to Adam in Genesis 2.17, the day that you eat this fruit, you will die, I suspect that he was speaking not only to Adam, but also to all of mankind, because it says in 1 Corinthians 15.22, in Adam, all die. So Jesus said in, this is my preamble, and I'll give you more specific answers, but in Matthew 24.22, he says, Unless those days be cut short, no life would be saved.

And that literally is the word sarx, which is flesh, but it means life, and so would be saved. So what I conclude is that things are going to get so bad that we as a people are going to destroy ourselves unless Jesus intervenes. I believe that the way that sin is death, mankind is turning its back on God, and the natural result is death, and that mankind will kill itself with nukes or plagues or whatever it's going to be, and at the end, Jesus is going to stop it at the end.

That's my overall position. In the meantime, up to that point, the Bible says that there has to be an arrival of false Christs and false prophets. Those are already here. And there's war that's coming. Well, there has to be an increase in the persecution of the faithful.

So I know that this is occurring in different countries, and it's on the increase, and it's occurring here in the United States on a much lesser level, but it is on the rise, and Islam is playing a large part of that. Islam is invading Europe, and mathematically speaking, England is already lost to Islam. I think they said 50 to 70 years it will become an Islamic country. Yeah, I heard that.

Crazy. And France is on the same path, maybe 50 to 100 years. We have relatives in France, and they talk to us about things that are so bad there, Muslim areas, you can't go in there.

You'd be killed. Islam is an evil, pagan, filthy religion. It's a pagan bad religion. So the persecution of the Christians has to increase, and it is increasing, but it's going to get really bad. There also must be an apostasy.

This is spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2. The apostasy must come first. Well, the Roman Catholic Church is already apostate, and the Eastern Orthodox Church is apostate. We have the rise of false prophets like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, but we're also going to experience in Christendom overall the falling away from the truth. This is happening within Protestantism.

We have the stupidity of the positive confession movement. God wants you healthy and wealthy and all this stupidity. And the rise of humanism inside of the Christian thought process. Humanism is man-centeredness, and so in Christian theology, in a lot of pulpits, Jesus is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian surfer dude dressed in a woman's nightgown, standing at the door of your heart asking permission for you to let him in. This is humanist philosophy, that the sovereignty of man is either above or equal to the sovereignty of God, and he will not violate our free will. So it becomes our wisdom and our ability to make the sacrifice of Christ effective. Even though Christ accomplished what he did on the cross, it becomes effective when we do something, when we apply it to ourselves. And this is the rise of self-idolatry and the increase of hubris within the Protestant movement that is masked in following Christian theology. So there's that, and this has to occur even more, not yet done, as there's still more to go. And then of course there's other things like lawlessness is on the increase, we know that.

Increase of selfishness, love of money. The mocking of Christ, 2 Peter 3 talks about that. But there's an interesting prophecy in the book of Daniel, chapter 12, verse 4. He says, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time. Many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.

So some interpret that to mean that there's going to be a lot of travel, and we have an incredible amount of knowledge available to us on the Internet. And some people think it's fulfilled now. There's also going to be the rise of spiritism, which is on the increase, and it's very informed of new age, and it's creeping into the Christian church, where deification and glorification of man is becoming central. There will be the decay of marriage, which is on the rise, and with the rise of transgender crap and the LGBT mob.

I've been saying for 20 years on radio that the homosexual movement is going to be the means by which the Christians will be oppressed. And those are the kinds of things that need to be in place. They're almost fully there, but there's other things, too.

I'm almost done here, sorry. The sun and moon have to be darkened, and all the nations have to be gathered against Israel. There's got to be the rebuilding of the temple and the arrival of Antichrist. We have to receive the mark of the beast, and then he will come back. So you see, there's a lot more to go, so it's not quite time. Right, and then as far as the temple is concerned, it seems like all eyes are on Jerusalem right now. I did not know how to answer this question. Does the temple need to be built on the Dome of the Rock?

Do we need to conquer Muslims, or can it be built anywhere in Jerusalem? Well, we've got a break, so let me answer that question when we get back. Hey, folks, hold on. We'll be right back with Phil from Arizona, and we'll talk about Dome of the Rock and stuff like that.

Please stay tuned. All right, buddy, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Phil from Arizona. All right, Phil, you still there?

Yes, sir. All right, now, I've been to Jerusalem a couple of times, a couple of tours. The area of the Dome of the Rock, there's a space area big enough for a soccer field. There's a lot of space around it, and in order to get to that space, you have to walk through another space that's big enough for a soccer field or two.

Both of them are. And you have to walk up a set of steps, and you go through a little arch, and there's the Dome of the Rock. Then you have to walk 100 feet, 200 feet to get to it. So there's plenty of room around it to put a temple. Now, is that going to happen?

We'll see. I'm not an archaeologist. I don't know the areas there archaeologically in those two flat areas. But just from out of my ignorance, I'm speaking, if they wanted to build the temple on the lower section, there's plenty of room to do it, plenty.

And then you'd walk, I don't know, 400 feet to get to the Dome of the Rock. There's a lot of room there, surprisingly. So it's physically possible. Interesting. Well, that is helpful.

I want to let other callers come in. So the last question I have for you, and again, I just didn't know where to go here. I think we know what ends the Tribulation. What, in your opinion, would be the event that starts the clock on the Tribulation? Well, it can't be the pre-Tribulation Rapture. That's just not possible.

Right. The reason is because it's supposed to be exactly seven years before the Rapture occurs to the return of Christ, and no one knows the day of the return of Christ. So if the Rapture occurs, all they do is calculate seven years in advance, and they've got it. So that doesn't work. So the beginning of the Tribulation, I don't know if there's any particular mark, but it seems to be concomitant with the issue of this person who's the Antichrist who makes a pact with Israel and others in order to have peace. That seems to be the beginning of it.

This is not in place. No, I'm 67. Personally, I don't believe I will be alive at the return of Christ. I believe I'm going to pass away before then.

So, you know, I think it's going to happen in 30, 40, 50 years, 60, 70 years, you know, that range, maybe more. Okay. Yeah, that's good. Well, I really appreciate it, man. Thank you so much.

I'm going to keep working on it, because I think when he calls in, you'll see for yourself. But thank you so much. I really appreciate you, man. And I just wish, you know, more people would donate to the cause on a regular basis so that you know what's coming in, because there's so many markets out there. And, yes, there's other Bible answer guys out there, and I truly believe most of them mean well, but they're just not anywhere. They're just not, and I got to be careful in saying this, because, you know, your head and everything like that, but they're just not as informed.

A lot of these guys haven't dedicated their entire lives to what you're doing, and I just wish you were in every market, you know, and maybe one day that will happen. But thank you for answering my question, my son's question, and I love you, man, and always praying for you. Well, good, brother, appreciate it. And let's talk, you know. I'll text you today or tomorrow or something like that.

Let's just catch up because of stuff, all right? Sounds good. Give our love to your beautiful wife and daughters. Okay, will do, brother. God bless, man.

Thanks, man. Bye-bye. Okay.

All right. That's Phil. Phil's a great guy. He helped our daughter out when she was down there in the Arizona area, and then when my wife and I were thinking about moving to Arizona and we tried to sell the house in order to move for her health down there and the Lord closed the door, we never ended up moving.

We tried three times. Phil was going to be the guy who's going to back us up, and he was going to provide a place for us to stay while we got our feet down there. He's a great guy.

He loves the Lord. Good, good guy. All right. Let's get to Luke from Washington, D.C. Luke, welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt.

How are you? Can you hear me? All right. Yes, I can. Yes, I can. Yeah. So what do you got? Can you please explain to me Acts 238?

Sure. Peter said, repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So some people think that this proves that baptism is necessary for salvation, and it's not.

Now, I've written a great deal on Acts 238. The verse is not a formula for salvation first because it doesn't have the word faith in it. People say, well, it's implied.

No, if it's a formula, then it has to have everything necessary, but it doesn't. Now, furthermore, what is it that is the gift of the Holy Spirit? The gift of the Holy Spirit certainly appears to be the movement of the charismatic gifts. That's the context of Acts Chapter 2. Furthermore, when you go to Acts Chapter 10, 44 and starting, while Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message, and all the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out of the Gentiles also, for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Peter then answered, surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can't he? So he became baptized. So it seems to be the context of both Acts 2 and Acts 10 that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the charismatic movement, not salvation. Now, this is not a common position, but when I read that, that's what I see.

That's what it seems to be. So, furthermore, people will say, well, it says, baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. And the phrase, for the forgiveness of sins, is es afisen amartium. What they say that means is that for the forgiveness of sins is obtaining the forgiveness of sins.

Well, if that's the case, then there's a problem. In Mark 1-4, John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. So I ask people, if the phrase, for the forgiveness of sins, means that this baptism in Acts 2, means that's how they got forgiveness of sins, then in Mark 1-4, when they were baptized in the baptism of John, John the Baptist, did they also have the forgiveness of sins? Because this is the exact same phrase in the Greek, exact same phrase, es afisen amartium. So if that's the case, they have to say, well, yes, they got forgiveness of sins.

Well, then I'm going to ask them questions. If John's baptism was forgiveness of sins, it was not a Trinitarian baptism, was it? Not like the true baptism, is it?

So what about that? Another question is, if John the Baptist's baptism got him forgiveness, did they have to get baptized again under the baptism of the fathers and Holy Spirit? Because if they did, then that means the first baptism wasn't good enough. But if the first baptism's not good enough, it means their sins weren't forgiven. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to get baptized again, if baptism's necessary for salvation. This doesn't make sense. If they say no, they do have to get baptized, and they're saying that's the problem. If they say no, they didn't have to, then the phrase baptized for the forgiveness of sins didn't get them forgiveness of sins. It didn't mean that.

And there's other problems, too. We've got a break. So I'll get back to some more of those after the break. So hold on, buddy. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back to the show, bottom of the hour. If you want to call me, 877-207-2276. Let's get back to Luke.

Are you still there? Yes, yes, yes. All right, so in addition, I was going to say there's another problem with that view that that verse means baptism is necessary. Here's a question. If John the Baptist's baptism was true, because remember the phrase for the forgiveness of sins of Acts 2.38, which they say baptism gets you the forgiveness of sin. That's what it means.

That's what they say. And in Mark 1.5, when it says John the Baptist's baptism for the forgiveness of sins, it must mean the same thing. Mark 1.4, excuse me. So if that's the case, then John the Baptist's baptism got the forgiveness of sins. If they say it didn't, then the phrase doesn't mean to obtain the forgiveness of sins. Then they refute the review on Acts 2.38. If they say yes, it does mean that, then they have a problem because then I have a question. I say, look, if John the Baptist's baptism for the forgiveness of sins, Mark 1.4, I think it's Mark 1.4, let me make sure.

Yeah, Mark 1.4. If it got them forgiveness of sins, then did they need to continue to offer sacrifices in the temple because the sacrifice of Christ had not yet been offered. So the new covenant was not in effect. If the new covenant is not in effect, then did they still have to offer sacrifices in the temple if all their sins are forgiven? That's a very difficult question for them to answer.

So there's more, but you see, there's lots of reasons why Acts 2.38 is not a formula for salvation, and I believe it is a promise of getting the Charismata. That's what I believe it means. Okay. Yes, thank you. Okay. There you go. All right. All right. Well, God bless. Okay. Let's get to Buskman from Dayton, Ohio.

Buskman, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. I was approached the other night. My friend and I was having a Bible study in a park, actually, and the sweetest LDS girls showed up, and I'm doing that. So they tried to share with me Joseph Smith's teaching. I did as best as I could to channel my Matt Slick, and thank you, brother, like Phil was saying. Thank you for information, but I'm in the busmobile right now, and I'm wondering, can I get an elevator speech, Matt, to kind of, you know, get us in the hearts of these LDS folks that approach to at least make them think, maybe not convert them, Matt, but at least make them think. So what would be like a list of two or three or five, or however many you want to give me, brother, to start thinking that they're on the wrong path?

Thanks, Matt. Sure. One of the things that I do, I just go straight to. When I want to get straight to the point, I really want to mess them up quickly. Let's just say this, because I don't have time, and they don't have time.

What are those situations? I did this once at Walmart. I could tell a bunch of Mormons were talking, young men and women. I could tell they're Mormons, and I said, hey, are you guys Mormons? They looked at me like, surprise, yes, and so we had this conversation. I said, have you converted to Mormonism or born in it, or all born in it and raised it, and I said, look, can I ask you a question?

Do you really believe? And they said, yeah, sure. I said, do you really believe Joseph Smith saw God the Father? They said, of course he did.

I said, everything's based on that, right? They said, well, yeah. That's the first vision. If he didn't see God the Father, then nothing, because he claimed he saw God the Father.

It's one of the essential things of the restoration that Mormonism claims occurred, because Joseph Smith was called at the age of 14 to be a true prophet, and the Book of Mormon plates, and God the Father and Jesus appeared to him and commissioned him. This is critical. And I said, well, then I do this. I say, 1 Timothy 6.16 is really important. 1 Timothy 6.16. I said, you should read 1 Timothy 6.16.

I start saying it over and over to them. And I said, because what it says there is that, speaking in the context of the Father, 1 Timothy 6.16 says that he alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light to whom no man has seen or can see. I said, so did Joseph Smith see the Father?

And they'll say, well, yes. But Paul the Apostle said no man can see him. Did Joseph Smith see the Father? Well, yeah, we bear our testimony he did. But the Bible says in 1 Timothy 6.16, no man can see the Father.

No man has seen the Father. Sometimes I'll say, well, they saw God in the Old Testament. Now me, I'll say, yeah, in Genesis chapter 3 and Exodus 6, 2 and 3, numbers 12, 6 through 8, Exodus 24, 9 through 11, they saw God.

I understand that. But you have to understand that in John 6.46, Jesus is aware of all that in the Old Testament. And Jesus says, not that anyone has seen the Father except the One from God.

He's talking about Himself. He's seen the Father. So they were seeing God, but not God the Father. And 1 Timothy 6.16 says that God the Father can't be seen. So did Joseph Smith see the Father? This is how I go back and forth with them. And I've told many Mormons, if you believe 1 Timothy 6.16, you can't believe Mormonism is true. It comes down to this. I've done this many times and I've had Mormons just flat out tell me, I choose to believe Joseph Smith over what the Word of God says.

Is that okay? That that will echo on the day of judgment when you're cast into eternal fire because you have denied the truth of God's Word. You've said that God cannot keep His Word pure and secure.

As the Book of Mormon is supposed to be the restoration truth and the 8th Article of the Mormon Church says the Bible is correct insofar as correctly translated. They always cast doubt on the Word of God, just like Satan did to Eve. Did God really say?

As soon as you can doubt God's Word, then you'll believe a prophet like Joseph Smith who was involved in the occult, who did money digging, was in contact with demonic forces, and well documented. He did this called necromancy. He said that God is an exalted man, but not a world. He has a body of flesh and bones and you become a god of your own planet. He has a goddess wife.

I mean, really? Where's that in Scripture? It's not there in the Bible. But they believed Joseph Smith.

Here's the thing about Mormonism. James 1.5 says, If any of you lack wisdom, let them ask of God. And so the Mormon missionaries rip that out of context and say, pray about the Book of Mormon and if it's true, get wisdom.

That's not what the text is talking about. He's talking about those who are already believers in the true and living God. If you need wisdom, ask God.

He'll give it to you. They are not true believers in the true and living God. What they're saying is, ask wisdom about a book written by a guy who claimed he saw God the Father when the Bible says he can't, and that he put a stone in a hat and then translated, so to speak, supposedly the Book of Mormon is the letter at a time and Oliver Cowdery is the one who recorded it and yet it's been changed thousands and thousands of times since it's in English. And so I say this to the Mormons. I've been doing this for decades with Mormons. I know it well.

And I just try and show them. Now there's another technique you can use, another technique which is quick and slick, which has destroyed the testimony of many Mormons, Mormon missionaries. And what that is is a little more difficult to obtain because you'll need to get a copy of the 3,913 changes in the Book of Mormon.

3,913. Now that was being produced. That's just a low estimate. But it was produced by Gerald and Sandra Tanner in Utah, and I know Sandra. And she told me that she and her husband went through with an original Book of Mormon, original, first edition, and they compared it to the 1960 version, whatever it was they had at the time, and they marked out, they photocopied each page and marked out all the changes. And she said, that wasn't even all of them, she said.

Absolutely amazing. And what you do is you take a Greek New Testament, the Nestle-Allen Greek New Testament. You don't have to read Greek, but it has a textual apparatus which has textual variants of the New Testament. And I say this, I say, let's fan through the 3,913 changes in the Book of Mormon, say stop, stop, 10 changes. Do the same thing in the New Testament.

It might be three. You do this over and over and over, and you say to them, page after page after page, the Book of Mormon's got so many changes and alterations in it. It's only 200 years old, and the New Testament's 2,000 years old. Why is it that you can't trust the New Testament when the Book of Mormon has been changed and altered a whole bunch more?

Right. Where can one get a copy of that book? Well, it's out of print now, from what I understand, but if you can ever find one, just get it. But I think that you're going to try and reproduce it with Bill McKeever's ministry, Mormonism Research Ministry. We were talking to Bill about that last week, or a couple weeks ago, three weeks ago. That would be awesome. Please keep us aware of that, Matt.

That would be great. God bless. Thank you, Matt.

There's a break. Okay. God bless, folks. We'll talk to you later. Hey, folks, we'll be 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. Welcome back to the show. Wow.

Chuck's been waiting for 36 minutes from North Carolina. Sorry for the long wait, but hey, you're on. Good evening. First, I have to say that I was born into the Roman Catholic cult. I didn't agree with a lot of things, but I didn't do anything about it until I was about 29 and started reading the Bible on my own, which they told me I wasn't able to do or capable of understanding.

And now for the last 53 years, I've been trying to debunk their teachings to anyone who will listen. But I find myself a little bit stuck on the wording of Matthew 16 and 18. 18 or 19? I think it's 18.

About the keys? Oh, that's 19. All right. Okay, sorry.

I'm blind and I have to rely on Alexa now for the Bible. No problem. Yeah, because 18 says, Peter, this is rock.

19, you have the keys. All right. So what's happening there? Let's see.

Get over here. So this is something the Catholics will use in order to bolster the idea that their priesthood has the authority because their priesthood is privy to the keys, which symbolizes the authority that was given to Peter and therefore to everybody else in their priesthood. That's their position. So what Jesus says is, I will give you, and the you in Greek is singular. That means just the individual of Peter. The keys of the kingdom, whatever you bind on earth, shall have been bound in heaven. Now, there's a couple of issues here. What is meant by the kingdom of heaven?

And we could discuss that, but I don't think it's really relevant right now. But it does say shall have been bound. Now, this is important because what it means, well, I'll get it this way. It's what's called a future perfect passive. What that means is this. Future is future tense.

It will happen. Perfect is a past action that was occurring in the past that's still occurring now. And pluperfect, a past action that was occurring in the past, it was completed in the past.

So here's an example of the perfect tense. I have walked. I have walked. And pluperfect would be I had walked. To say I have walked means it was in the past, but it didn't end in the past. Pluperfect, I had walked means it was in the past and was completed in the past. So this is important in Greek.

We learn this stuff when we do Greek, when you first start learning all this stuff. So future perfect passive. So the passive here deals with receiving the action. So it shall have been bound. So how they translate it is it shall have been done.

So what's the, how do we interpret this? Let's say that Peter, he binds and looses in heaven. Personally, I don't have a problem with that because Peter was an apostle and certain authority was given to apostles to do various things. So that doesn't bother me.

But I have questions with it. Does that then mean that it was passed down through the Catholic priesthood? Nothing in scripture says that's the case. Now what they're going to do is go to a laying on of hands. But it doesn't mean any apostolic authority is transferred down so that they can bind and loose.

Furthermore, I have an article on Carm. Does the Catholic church have the same authority as Jesus? And no, they don't. And I go and show why they don't according to scripture. But that's another topic.

And there's another question I ask. If Peter does the binding and loosing, does it mean that God himself is obligated to bind and loose what Peter did? This is a question that's necessary to ask the Catholic because what they want to say is that the office of Peter, the papacy, has that authority to bind and loose. If that's the case, then whatever the papacy binds and loosed is God obligated to follow suit. I recently asked this question of a Catholic, a variation of it to a Catholic, and he couldn't answer it because he knew that if he did, he'd be stuck either way. If he says no, it doesn't mean that, then in what sense is he binding and loosening? If it does mean yes, well then why was God obligated?

So basically the best way to understand it is to say that what is bound and loose has already been accomplished. That what Peter was doing and what the apostles were doing also. Because in John 20, 23, we have another verse.

I know I'm going a lot. This is all interconnected. So in John 20, 23, there's something similar. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them.

If you retain the sins of any, they have been retained. And this is similar in that it's the perfect tense. It has been done. Which means, it's like saying this, if you do this, it already has been done. That's what's going on. It's not saying that they are the ones who are officiating and accomplishing and actually doing it by their power. But then the Catholics will come back and say, well it's not their power, it's the power and the authority of Jesus that they're acting in. If that's the case. May I make a comment? Sure, one sentence. If that's the case, then all Christians have that ability because we're in Christ and we have the authority to be called the children of God, the dunamis. And we can do that too.

But anyway, go ahead. When you said, shall have been, that clicked something in my mind, it sounds to me as though Jesus is telling Peter that he will be given the wisdom to lose and bind in accordance with heaven's wishes. That's the way I would read that. And I don't believe in the papacy period because Peter himself in Acts and again in his letters talks about the rock. He talks about the stumbling stone, the cornerstone that's rejected. So I think it was clear that Peter understood when Jesus said, you are a rock. And upon this rock, he's not telling Peter that he's basing the church on Peter.

He's not making him hope. He's telling him based on what Peter said that made him have that conversation. Very good. He said, you are the Christ, the son of the living God. That's correct. That's very good.

And one of the things that I understand also, and one of the things there, hold on one sec. Yes, I'm on the radio. My wife just came in and I'm on the radio.

I've only been on the radio here for 20 years. And she goes, oops. Should have seen her face. I have a wife too.

Was that? I have a wife too. That's a pretty good face. I'm going to bug her about it later. So I'm enjoying that.

Okay, so aside from that distraction, I'm getting a total kick out of that. Okay, what was your question again? I was making a statement. I don't believe in the papacy. I don't believe Jesus intended to establish Peter as pope. I think that Peter understood that because of what he said in Acts and again in his letters. He talks about Jesus as being the cornerstone that was rejected. So it's clear to me that the rock that Jesus was talking about was not Peter, but the statement that Peter made that thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. That's a very...

Upon which he built his church. Absolutely. It's a very valid interpretation.

It is. Because contextually it's basically necessary. But what is also there is that the word petros, which is what Peter is, is masculine. And petra, which is what the other name, rock, is feminine. And the reason that's significant is because petros means a small rock.

Like something you can pick up and move. But petra means something you can't pick up and move. And Jesus is called the petra in 1 Corinthians 10.4. He's specifically referred to as the petra. And Peter refers to him as the petra also in 1 Peter 2.8. So, yes, and on the confession of who Christ is, the truth that Christ is the rock. He says, Peter, you're the rock.

It's a pun and a play on words that Jesus is doing with what's going on. Excellent. Thank you. Okay.

That settles it for me. I've been at this for 53 years now and I'm starting to get a handle on it. Well, you know what? I'll tell you what you can do. I'll tell you what. Seriously. If you'd like, what I'd like you to do, Chuck, is email me at info at karn.org. Just email me at info.

So, Chuck, this is Chuck from, okay, whatever. And I will attach my notes on Catholicism, which are 228 pages. It's an outlined form, okay? But I'm blind. I'm blind, so I can't read. Oh, darn. I appreciate the thought. You can send me emojis, too.

A lot of people like to do that. Oops, sorry about that. Do you have a reader, though? Do you have a reader? No. No, it's too hard to manage.

They offered me one from VA, but I'm 82. It's getting a little late for that. Okay. I still stick with it. All right. Because I know they have some readers, and I have a friend. He used to work with us.

His wife is blind, and she has a setup that she can listen to things and just repeats it. So, okay. Sorry about that.

Forgot all that quickly. Thanks again. You helped. God bless. All right, man. God bless. Okay. All right, we'll see you.

Hey, we have nobody waiting right now. Just to finish up on Catholicism, I'm going to say something that I've been saying before. I'm going to say it again. The Roman Catholic Church is not Christian. Its official doctrine is not Christian. Official doctrine regarding salvation. It curses the true gospel. It adds works to salvation. It also promotes a false priesthood.

Its priesthood is supposed to have the authority to reach into the treasury of merit and administer it through the sacraments to different people for different reasons at different times and different ceremonies. It also has a false view of Mary, and they've elevated Mary to the level of a goddess. That she can hear millions of prayers simultaneously spoken in thought. Then you have these apparitions of Mary. When you read them, they're demonic because they point to themselves.

They point to themselves. And Jesus says the Holy Spirit will bear witness of him. The scriptures bear witness of him. The Father bears witness of him. The miracles bear witness of him. The prophets bear witness of him. But these apparitions, they will say things like, come to me, and I promise salvation whoever exalts me, and all this stuff.

These are the apparitions. They are demonic. And the poor people who bow their knee before statues of Mary and pray to her and the saints are committing idolatry. And another thing the Roman Catholic Church has done is replaced Christ with the Church. Functionally replaced Christ with the Church. They say they have not done that, but in order to get to Christ, you have to go through the Church, the priesthood, the sacraments, Mary, whoever, whatever. So they say, no, it's all from Jesus, but it's not. So the Roman Catholic Church is a false church, and all who die believing its official doctrines of Mary and salvation and the priesthood, unfortunately, will enter eternal damnation.

There's the music. May the Lord bless you. And by his grace, we're back on air on Monday. And I hope you have a great weekend, everybody. God bless. Bye.