Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Listen to Matt Slick live if you want. Hey Matt, how's it going today? Oh, it's going man. It's going. Hanging in there. A lot going on.

Alright. Well, yeah, I saw a recent debate. Ironically, it was an evangelist who goes to colleges. Clint can meet you, something like that, and he had an encounter with an Orthodox person. And the whole doctrine of transubstiation came in. And I was wondering, is that even biblical? Because I know a lot of Catholics follow that doctrine. But it seems more like cannibalism, those things that go against even Old Testament law.

But them believing that flesh is actually transmuted and blood is actually converted from wine, that doesn't seem difficult to me. No, it's not. And I can explain why.

They have reasons for it, but I'll explain why those are no good. But, let's see, I'm curious. Did the guy who was doing the Christian, I guess he was the Christian side of stuff, did he affirm transubstiation?

I'm just curious. No, he's just an evangelist that goes to college campuses and has, you know, he just basically encounters a bunch of kids and adults and they engage in impromptu debates, and he gives answers to the reasons for space and whatnot. But he was against it. And an Ethiopian young man, I think it was at MIT College, he just got up and gave reasons why he believed that was a part, that was an essential doctrine of salvation, basically. Yeah, it's a false teaching. It's not an essential doctrine of salvation, and it's something that should be avoided because it violated Scripture, and I can explain why.

And plus there's a logical problem. But nevertheless, so when we look at the Scriptures, go to Matthew 26, and I believe it's Matthew 26, 27, he says, and then he had taken a cup, and when he had taken a cup, he gave thanks, saying, drink from it all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out from many for the forgiveness of sins. And so what they'll do is they're going to say, well, that means it's his blood.

Drink, this is my blood. Well, he's saying it's the blood of the covenant. And so what he's saying is that the wine represents the covenant, because God works covenantally, and covenants have signs. So the sign of the covenant is the blood. Now what he says afterwards is, but I say to you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new in my Father's kingdom. So he still calls it wine.

He does not call it literal blood. So Jesus, by his own words, said that. Now what the EO, Eastern Orthodox and the RC, Roman Catholics do, is they teach something called transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the view that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. And what they'll do is they'll say that the essential nature of the thing is there. And so the essential nature of the blood and body become the wine and the bread.

Now there's a logical problem here, a very serious logical problem, and I'll get to that. But first I want to show that the people, the disciples, along with Jesus at that time, were still under the old covenant. So the new covenant, it wasn't ratified until the death of Christ. And that's per Hebrews 6, or Hebrews 9, 15-16. It says that the new covenant is ratified with the death of the testator. So when Christ was crucified and he died, that's when the new covenant is activated. So this means before then, they were under the old covenant law. Now if you go to Leviticus 17, 14, it says, as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, you are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood.

Whoever eats it shall be cut off. So Jesus would not have been asking the disciples to break the Levitical law. He wouldn't have been able to ask them to do that. But if the view of the EO and RC is correct, well, it's not correct, but their view would then mean that Jesus was asking them to break the law. And this, of course, would be false. It would be heresy.

They can't do that. Now, we could also go into Acts 15, because in Acts 15 we have Jerusalem councils. Now we're talking about after the crucifixion. They wrote, but we are to write to them that they abstain from the things contaminated by idols from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. And in verse 29, that you abstain from the things sacrificed to idols and from blood. And in 21, 25, but concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood. And so the Jerusalem council even said in Acts 15, stay away from the blood. But the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics do this because, well, they're pagan. All right, now, so they violate scripture in Leviticus 17, 14, and they violate the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. All right, now, these are the scriptural reasons that it isn't that. It isn't literally his body and his blood, but that it's the signs of and the covenants of his sacrifice. That's what the bread and wine represent.

Right. Now, there's a logical problem as well with their view. And it has to do with essence or the ontos and properties.

Now, let me explain something. A circle, we can all understand what a circle is. A circle has an essence. And it's an abstraction, but it's a circle. And it has a necessary quality to it, roundness. So roundness is an essential property of what we call a circle, without roundness, it's not a circle. You cannot separate the roundness from a circle and the circle from roundness as it relates to one another.

You can't do that. And so when we have an object, we have something that has a necessary essence to it. And with that essence are necessary properties that emanate. They're what's called essential properties and accidental properties. So essential properties are those things that are necessary to the object. So that without it, you cannot have the object. So again, a necessary or essential property of a circle is roundness.

All right. Now, so what we have to understand is that the properties emanate out of the essence. You cannot separate the properties from the essence or the essence from the properties. Because if there's an essence that's necessary, excuse me, there's a property necessary to the essence, you can't have one without the other.

You can't have one without the other. For example, a necessary aspect of being human is being alive. You cannot have a human being who's not alive.

It's a necessary quality. I could not transfer that aliveness of a human being and grant it to a rock. Because by definitions, rocks are not alive. You cannot separate being alive from what it means to be human. If you kill someone and there is no life, well, he's not human.

Now, I hope I've made myself clear because this is why we're going to apply it. We have what they say, the bread is the essence or the body of Christ in its essence. And that the wine is the essence of its blood. But the necessary properties that go with each are not manifested in the bread and the wine. So when you look at the bread under a microscope, the quality and nature of the bread is still bread. It's not human flesh.

And the same with human blood. The properties of what makes something human blood is not in the wine. What they have done is violated the laws of logic and the philosophical requirements of the essence and necessary properties that relate to the essence. They've violated this and they've offered what's called an impossibility.

It's non-sequitur. So their view is, well, now you have the essence of the flesh and the bread, but there's no properties of it. And you have the essence of blood in it, but there's no properties. Well, then how do you have the essence of both things without the properties also being with it? Because there are necessary properties to each thing, but the necessary properties don't show up.

Well, therefore, it's not human flesh and human blood. It's just simple. Okay? I hope that makes sense.

Yeah, I think that was very thorough. Wouldn't it not really even matter? I mean, to me it's obviously spiritual because you can also claim that, well, you're not even following the same recipe as whatever bread was used. That could be sacrilegious in a sense because you're just kind of using newer ingredients to try and duplicate something that you just haven't. It just makes no sense. So that whole doctrine is kind of silly to me. Yeah, it is. It violates Scripture in Leviticus 17, 14, and Acts 15, 20 and 29, I believe it is. Let me see if I remembered those correctly.

Let me get back up to there and look at that. Yes, 20 and 29, so it violates that, and it also violates just logic. Now, I don't want anybody to think that I put logic above Scripture. No, logic and the universal laws of logic exist because they're universal abstract entities, and the necessary precondition for the laws of logic is the universal mind of God because the laws of logic reflect the thinking of God because he is the source and the foundation by which we can then justify those laws.

And so, therefore, anything that is not logical cannot be true. A round square is not logically possible. So people say, can God make a round square? No, he can't because it's logically impossible and it violates the very nature of his essence since he thinks a certain way, and we have then been able to participate in his thinking as we codify those things in the laws of logic and the basics.

So we can't have something that violates those laws and also be true. God even says in, I think it's Isaiah 1 or Isaiah 6, he says, come, let us reason together. And so, let's see what verse is that. So Isaiah 118, he says, come, let us reason together. So he wants us to do thinking and he wants us to apply logic. And the if-then statements are in Scripture as well, deductions there, et cetera, et cetera.

So the EORC view of transubstantiation is unbiblical and illogical. Okay? All right. Thank you, man. I appreciate it. Amen.

You're welcome, buddy. There you go. All right.

A lot of good stuff there. So I guess he's gone. All right. Hey, folks, if you want to give me a call, the number is 8772072276. I want to hear from you.

And you can also, transubstantiation with my notes, you can also email me at info at karm.org and put in the subject line, radio comment, radio question, and we can get to it later. All right. God bless. Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 8772072276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, it is easy.

All you have to do is dial 8772072276. Now, this is a follow-up on transubstantiation and the false doctrine that it is inside of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I have had this discussion countless times with them. And what's really interesting to me is that they don't really care what the scriptures teach. They will take one aspect where Jesus says, this is my body, and they'll say, that's what it means.

See, this is my body. And so therefore it has to be understood that way. And they fail to take the rest of scripture to bear, that Jesus would not have been asking them to violate Levitical law. In fact, when I brought this up before, I've had some of them say, well, he can do whatever he wants. He wants to violate that. He can't because he can do that. And the reasoning is atrocious.

They aren't able to think beyond what the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church tells them what to think. So there you go. And that reminds me. So I did a video today. It's been taking me a long time to get the video stuff ready, and I finally did it. And I got the notes ready. You get the whole bit.

I did a 15-minute video on Eastern Orthodoxy and on it being the true church that has a true doctrine. And then talked about the issue of if it's doctrine of salvation. And went through it and made the quote.

I just quoted it. It's really bad stuff. And then when I'm done, I look up. Oh, man.

Look at the monitor and it says, hey, recording was paused because of. And I'm like, oh, man. And, you know, it's always something.

Man. So now I can do the whole thing over again. And I'm telling you, I'm the producer, the writer, the editor.

Oh, it's so much to do. Oh, that's the way it goes. All right. Hey, look, if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276.

All right. I'm going to get some e-mails here. Maybe at the bottom of the hour I might get in some parables. I don't know if you want me to do a parable or two, as I did yesterday. Then call up and say, yes, parables.

Leave the notes, producer. And if not, no big deal. That happens.

Let's get to the e-mails. Tim says, so if God chooses, who will be saved? And he does. This is what the Bible says. 2 Thessalonians 2, 13. He chose us from the beginning for salvation. Ephesians 1, 4 says he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we be holy and blameless.

Before in love he predestined us. So, yeah, the Bible does teach that. So if God chooses, who will be saved according to predestination, which is biblical, yes, does that mean even though I trusted Christ and his death, burial, and resurrection for salvation, that I might not be saved or get to be saved because I wasn't chosen?

Well, the question is a typical question, and it demonstrates, you know, respectfully, just a little bit of a lack of understanding how it all works. So when God chooses you, and he does, that's what the Bible says, folks. Ephesians 1, 4, Acts 13, 48, 2 Thessalonians 2, 13.

That's what it says. And so if he chooses us for salvation, then does it mean that you can try to be a Christian, trust in Jesus, but if you're not chosen, you can't be saved? No, that's not how it works because those whom he chooses, he grants faith to them. Now that's Philippians 1, 29, to you it has been granted to believe. And Jesus says in John 6, 29, this is the work of God that you believe on him who is sent. In John 6, 65, he says, you cannot come to me unless it's granted to you from the Father. This is what the Scriptures teach.

I know a lot of people don't like it. And then they want to say things like, well, it's because of your free will. And then, you know, show me that in the Bible. And so anyway, if you believe in Jesus and all that, it's because God has granted that ability to you, and he doesn't do that to people he hasn't chosen. So if you believe, it's because you're chosen. Now this may sound foreign to a lot of people, and I get this question a lot, but I'm forced to just read Scripture and believe what Scripture says. And I know people will want to counter this with John 3, 16. For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, whoever would believe.

They go, see, it's up to your free will. It's not what it says there about whoever would believe. It doesn't mean, oh, it's just up to your free will. It doesn't mean that because the free will of man of the unregenerate is incapable of understanding and receiving spiritual things, 1 Corinthians 2, 14. And he's a slave of sin, Romans 6, 14 through 20, et cetera. And so if it was possible for people just in the wisdom of their own mind and understanding to receive Christ, why does Jesus say you can't come to him unless it's granted by the Father?

You can't. Well, okay, that's what it says. How many of you believe that? How many of you believe out there, listening, driving along, listening, frowning, maybe staring at the radio, one eyebrow lifted, I don't know about this. Well, John 6, 65, Jesus says, you cannot come to me unless it has been granted to you from the Father. John 6, 65. Just think of John 6, 6, 6, one verse back. John 6, 65. You go check it out yourself. It's what it says.

And so I'm sorry, but that's what it says. I have to teach what the word of God says. That's why I'm quoting the scriptures. The only time that I'll do when I'm discussing those people is I will say things like, well, heck, you know, I believe that God chooses us from the beginning for salvation. And they'll say, no, he doesn't. Well, yeah, he chooses us from the beginning for salvation.

I believe that. And they'll say, no, he doesn't. And I say, but I was just quoting 2 Thessalonians 2, 13. He has chosen us from the beginning for salvation. And I'll quote these, the very verse, I'll quote the exact words, put it into my delivery of something I affirm.

And they don't know it's scripture and they'll deny it because they understand what it says and they don't want to believe what God's word says. It happens a lot, especially with the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. And so there you go.

I hope that helps with that one. Let's see if we can get to another question. What are your thoughts of the new agnostic and skeptic Alex O'Connor who believed Jesus never claimed to be God? He's an agnostic. Well, I guess he doesn't read the Bible. Jesus did claim to be God. John 8, 24, John 8, 58, John 10, 30 through 34.

He certainly did. John 5, 18. I can go through different verses that talk about that. So he also claimed John 8 adds to the Bible where the Bible says it can't be added to.

That's not what the Bible says. Man, you know, a lot of times I meet critics and they say they understand what the word of God says, like an atheist, and they don't. You know how many times, I can't tell you how many times actually, that I've offered to teach atheists biblical theology?

And I'm not kidding. Many, many, many, many times I'll be in a discussion room with someone, an atheist, and they'll say something like this. You know, he never claimed to be God.

Yes, he did. I can show it to you. And, well, I'll say, look, if you have a study, I can show you where he says this. Well, I'm not interested.

And this happens a lot. I have offered, this is no joke, I have offered so many times to teach biblical theology to the atheists so they know what they're criticizing. And in many years of me offering that, not a single time has any one of them taken me up on it.

Not a single instance. Now, I talk to them, and I'll say, look, you know, if I'm talking to you about atheism, and you say it's not an atheist position, I'm going to say, okay, well, what is the position? Teach it to me. I have my finger on my keyboard, and I have my notes open, and I take notes. And I say, I want to be corrected if I'm not saying something correct. I want to understand your position.

And I ask them, do you guys do the same thing? And the answer somehow is, no. Oh, well, there you go. Hey, 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, and welcome back to the show.

Bottom of the hour. Hope you're having a good time. Let's get to none other than Patrick from North Carolina. Patrick, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, hi, Matt.

Thanks for taking my call. Mm-hmm. So what do you got? My question today is John 167. Can you read that and then tell me what the contents is?

The context? Well, it's about John, John the Baptist. He came as a witness to testify about the light so that all may believe through him.

Okay? All might believe, yeah? Right.

And when and how and when did that happen? When Jesus was there, John was there before him preparing the way. That's who he was. Yeah, but wasn't that the baptism of Jesus is where John testifies?

I'm sorry. He's a witness to testify about the light. It wasn't just one event, but he was testifying constantly, not just one time.

Okay. Because after John baptized Jesus, John said, I have seen and testified this is the Son of God. So that had to be what John 167 was talking about. There was a man sent from God.

His name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light. So wouldn't you believe that it was the baptism that John made his testimony? At the baptism of Jesus, John baptized him to fulfill the Levitical law, or law for Jesus entering into the priesthood. And he was testifying that he was the Son of God and things like that. That's what he was there to do. Isaiah 40 verse 3 says that the messenger would prepare the way for Yahweh, for Jehovah, Yahweh. And that's who he was, Jesus.

Okay? Well, not according to scripture, because God told John the Baptist before he baptized Jesus, the one you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. So wouldn't it be fair to say that the baptism of Jesus was so John the Baptist could complete his testimony? And that was all righteousness.

There's probably something in that. So what's your ultimate point, though? My point is, what did Jesus say about John the Baptist? He said there's no one born of a woman greater than John the Baptist. And for that reason, that makes John the Baptist's testimony is what the righteousness is. And that's why in John 1, 6, 7, there was a man sent from God.

His name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light, and through him all might believe. So you have to understand this about the scriptures to believe. It doesn't say you have to in order to believe.

It doesn't say that doesn't put that requirement on there. Right, in order to believe. In other words, John's testimony is what the truth is. And the truth is he was sent to baptize Jesus, not to become the high priest, but to make recognition that Jesus was the Son of God. Look, he said to fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3.15, Fulfill, deals with the Old Testament.

I've written an article on this, all the documentations there. But you're wrong. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Okay, we're going to move along. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe we shouldn't have Pat on anymore.

He doesn't know how to discuss or produce something. Let's get to Lawrence from Michigan. Lawrence, welcome. You're on the air.

Hi, Matt. How's it going? Oh, it's going, man. It's going. Hang in there. What do you got, buddy? I have a question about two verses, Matthew 7.1 and John 7.24.

I just have a question, like, how – oh, sorry, go ahead. Matthew 7.1, okay. Yes. Do not judge that cannot be judged. Yeah.

And then John 7.24, okay? Yeah. Do not judge it for an appearance but righteous judgment. Yes. So, you know, if I'm talking to, like, if I'm talking to someone and, you know, like, I guess, is it wrong to judge?

No. It depends on what you're judging, though. We can judge sin to be sin. We can judge murder to be wrong. We can judge, you know, adultery to be wrong. We can make those judgments. 1 Corinthians 2.15 says we can make spiritual judgments.

When Jesus is talking in Matthew 7, he's talking in what's called the Beatitudes. You've got to remember, he's talking to the Jews, the covenant people of God. And he's giving them a general wisdom set of statements.

He says don't worry about tomorrow. Trust God. Be careful how you judge people. By the way you judge, you can be judged back.

That's what he's doing. Okay. Okay.

No big deal? Okay. Oh, okay. That's no big deal. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, because I was just talking to my mom today, and she just, you know, always, she's saying that not to judge. And she's a Roman Catholic, so I don't know if that's reason why, but it's just like she just tells me not to judge, but then I bring up, you know, like John 7.24, and I'm not judging off of appearance. Go ahead.

Sorry. She's telling you not to judge. Is she judging what you're doing by telling you not to judge? Is that a judgment on her part? Well, yes.

That's a good point. I should bring that up. Yeah. Are you judging me for not doing that? Are you making a judgment that I should not judge people?

That I should not judge people. Yeah. All right.

Thank you so much. And then I just, like a follow up, just a quick one. What are your thoughts about, like, what do you consider gossiping? To repeat things that may or may not be true in order to tickle your ears and the ears of others. And it can be negative. It could even be positive. But to be negative, and generally, gossip is a negative thing. And it's detrimental. It's deleterious. It has hidden, harmful effects.

And God says don't do that, because what we're doing is bearing false witness by conveying to others things we don't know are true or not. Okay. Okay. All right. I think that's it.

Wait. Yeah, I think that's it, sir. Thank you so much, Matt.

I appreciate your assistance. That's all. Hey, man. No problem, buddy. God bless. All right.

Yeah, God bless you, too. Bye-bye. All right.

All right. Now let's get to John from Salt Lake City. John, welcome.

You are on the air. Hi. How are you doing? Doing all right. Hang on.

What have you got, buddy? I am Eastern Orthodox, and I've heard you say two things that I perceive to be inaccurate. Number one, you said that Eastern Orthodox are told not to read the Bible. No. Which just is absolutely, you know, I grew up in the Orthodox Church.

My own parish sends out to everybody in the parish a Bible-reading pamphlet what to read every single day. Well, I don't say that, though. It's wrong to say. What did you say? Oh, I don't know. Oh, what did you say?

I don't know, because I don't know. I heard you say it. Hold on. Hold on. Let me answer. I don't know what day. I don't know what context. I don't know what you're talking about. So I don't teach that the Eastern Orthodox say don't read the Bible.

I never teach that, because I don't know of any quote or anybody in the eel who said that. Okay. Okay. Then I was mistaken of what you said.

It was probably last week. I don't listen to you every day. But you said Catholics and Orthodox are discouraged from reading the Bible, and that just isn't true. See, hold on. Hold on. You just changed it, and you've got to be understanding here.

You said discouraged, all right? And that's different than told not to. Those are different things altogether.

Okay. So just so you know, you've got to be careful. But no, it used to be taught in the RC for sure that you were not to read the Bible. And I have found a quote in Eastern Orthodoxy which I can read to you where one of the councils said not to read the Bible in the vulgar language, the vernacular of the time.

You can find that if you want. I know that having grown up in the Church, I've always been encouraged to read the Scriptures. I read the Scriptures every day. The National Church has a daily Bible reading that they send out. My local parish does the same thing. So we are encouraged to read the Scripture. Number two, and I've done some events.

Let me respond. Are you familiar with the Confession of Dostoethius? Somewhat. I know who Dostoethius is.

I've heard of him. Okay, you know it's an official document. It was formulated by the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. And it's official. All right, so what does it say?

Just so you know, this is question one, Scripture should not be read in the vulgar tongue, the common language of the day. Hold on, I'll get back after the break. Okay, buddy, hold on, man. Folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned and hopefully we'll have a good conversation with an Eastern Orthodox guy. Be right back. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on the air with John from Salt Lake City.

Are you still there? Yes, John, thank you. And I don't know how authoritative the statement of Dostoethius is. It's not like an ecumenical council. It's the statement of a patriarchy you said of Jerusalem, correct? But the practice of the Church, if you read Chrysostom, Basil the Great, they encourage you to read Scripture every single day.

That's good. You know, Christian said you shouldn't start any day without. Second thing is, you've said that the Orthodox Church believes in transubstantiation. I took a little bit of a dive into that and read a book by a well-known Orthodox theologian, The Perishable Theology of the Church, and he specifically said we do not believe in transubstantiation. We use the word that the body, the wine, and the bread changes, that it's a mystery. We do not use the term transubstantiation. And I know you have said, specifically to me, that we use the term transubstantiation. And again, this was addressed in the book, Liturgical Theology of the Church, that we do not, specifically, we do not use that term. We use the term that it changes. It's a mystery.

Christ is really present, but we don't use the word transubstantiation. Okay, well, first of all, let's get back to before the break, and then we'll address that afterwards, if that's okay. Okay. I just asked a question. Thank you.

Docitius was an authoritative counselor within the Eastern Orthodox Church, particularly for his role in the Senate of Jerusalem. So you can say he's wrong, but I'm just going to tell you what he said. You can do what you want with it. Scripture should not be read in the vulgar tongue.

Okay, that means the tongue of the... Okay, he made a mistake. He made a mistake. Can I finish reading it? Go ahead. Okay.

Because you're awfully... Yeah, he's going to be a little bit more patient here. He said, should the divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians? No, because all Scriptures are divinely inspired and profitable. We know unnecessarily so that without it, it's impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless, they should not be read by all, but only by those who, with fitting research, have inquired in the deep things of the Spirit. Okay, so that's what he said, and you disagree with him, right?

Right. I agree with Chrysostom and Basil the Great and a whole other testimony within the Orthodox Church, and the common practice in the Orthodox Church today, which is encouragement to read Scripture. Okay, so now about the bread and wine. Do they become the body and blood of Christ? Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine.

Just the way as you as a Christian or I as a Christian... I didn't ask that. I said, do they become the bread and the wine? Do they become the body and blood of our Lord?

Christ is present in the Eucharist. I didn't ask that. I didn't ask that.

Is he present? I said, do they become? It's a different question.

Mystically, yes. Okay, quote, the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very body of the Lord, and the wine, the very blood of the Lord. Longer catechism of the East Orthodox Church, question 340.

From where? The longer catechism of the East Orthodox Church. That's what it is, question 340.

Okay. Does it use the term transubstantiation? Well, transubstantiation is the view, and I can get my computer restarted so I had to close some files, but it is the view that the bread and the wine become the body and the blood of Christ. That's what transubstantiation is, and that's what your... Change of substance.

Change of substance, exactly. But that's not what we believe. We believe that Christ is... You know, I'm just telling you, that's what your catechism says. Who are you to disagree with it?

Who am I to disagree with? I'm quoting a book that I read that specifically deals with that issue of transubstantiation, very noted Orthodox theologian, and he specifically says that just as Jesus said, take, eat, this is my body. And I say this is kind of like my body. This is my drink from it all. This is my blood of the new covenant. Yeah, and then he also says in the very next verse of Matthew 27, he says it, and I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine.

He calls it wine. And also Leviticus 17, 14, God has specifically said you're not to drink the blood of any flesh. Or eat the blood of any flesh.

Not to do it. And then Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, 20, and 29 says don't have any blood. And yet your church says in ortho-christian.com, the bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord. Exactly, just as Jesus said.

Just as Jesus said. But Jesus did not say that he becomes his actual body and his actual blood. That's transubstantiation. Oh.

You just denied it. This is my body. This is my blood. Okay, let's do some thinking. Let's do some thinking. You're going to say that the bread was literally his body and the wine was literally his blood.

That's what you're taking it as. Leviticus 17, 14 forbids the Jews to consume blood. Forbids it. They'll be cut off. That's asking the Jews to violate the law.

Good question. Okay. He sure did in many places. He sure did in many places. He violated the law many times himself. Oh, so Jesus sinned.

Wow. That's what it means. To sin is to violate the law. 1 John 3, 4. He healed on the Sabbath. He violated the law.

He healed on the Sabbath. That's not a violation of the law. Because in the law it talks about being able to heal and to help on the Sabbath. So maybe you should study the law.

I don't think you've really studied these things. Here's another quote. This is from the Orthodox Catechism of Filarete. The bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true body of the Lord and the wine, the very blood of the Lord. So that's what it says.

I've got lots of quotes like this. What it's saying is, from your sources, that it actually is the body of blood. But yet the Bible says not to eat blood of any flesh. So how do you reconcile these?

I don't think there's anything to reconcile. Well, there is because your church teaches that the wine, we'll stick with the wine, becomes the actual blood of Jesus. God says, do not consume the blood of any flesh.

Don't do it. Leviticus 17 and 14. Want me to read it to you? Okay.

I believe you. For the life of all flesh as its blood, whoever eats it shall be cut off. He says you're not to eat the blood of any flesh. So was Jesus telling the Jews, his disciples, to violate Levitical law, by your interpretation?

What do you think? Of course not. Because the covenant, the sign of the covenant is his body and his blood.

He said that. That's what it is. It's the blood of the covenant. The covenants have signs. For I believe, and I understand what you believe and I respect that, I believe that when I partake of the Eucharist, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. It's his, he's mystically, just the way as a Christian he's mystically present in your heart and in my heart he's also present in the Eucharist. Well, whatever that means, okay, but we're talking about what the documents of your church says.

It says in Go Arch, which is an Eastern Orthodox website, the fundamental teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church article, the bread and wine are changed into and are the very body and the very blood of Christ being a propitiatory sacrifice. But it doesn't use the word transubstantiation. It doesn't have to. That's what transubstantiation is.

That's what it is. We don't use the term transubstantiation. What you said is what the church believes, but we don't use the word transubstantiation. Okay, so you don't use the word, you are claiming you don't use the word, but that's what it is. Okay? Okay.

That's what it is. Well, I appreciate your time. I think we have a real difference there, but thank you for your time.

I appreciate it. Could I ask a question before we go? Yes, sir.

You may. What do you have to do to have your sins forgiven? What do you have to do in Eastern Orthodoxy? You repent of your sins, you acknowledge your sin, you repent of your sin. Okay.

That's it? And you ask Christ for forgiveness. Because the Confession of the Scythias says that you have to do good works.

It says that. Well, that's not about forgiveness. I mean, to have your sins forgiven, you have to do good works. I've never heard that. I've never been taught that. I've been taught that... Let me read it to you. We believe that no one can be saved without faith. By faith, we mean the right notion that is in us concerning God and divine things, which working by love, that is to say by keeping the divine commandments, justifies us with Christ. We're made right before God by keeping the commandments.

That's what it says. Yeah, Jesus said, if you love me, you'll keep my commandments. Yeah, but that's not how you get yourself saved or keep yourself saved.

Okay? So let me ask you, are we by faith alone in Christ, the sacrifice of Christ, true faith, okay? True faith, not fake stuff like a devil has. But true believing faith in Jesus and what he did in the cross, is that faith alone that you have in Jesus? Is that enough to save you so you can go to heaven?

Absolutely. And my good deeds, or my good deeds, if I have any, are a product of my faith in Christ, uh-huh. That's not what the Eastern Orthodox Church says. Okay, well maybe I'm not Eastern Orthodox according to your interpretation, but I know what I've been taught. So I come down to Salt Lake City every now and then and be glad to meet you or have a discussion at your church on these doctrines and or have a debate slash discussion on these things.

Just go politely. We only do that and show what the Eastern Orthodox Church actually teaches from its official documents. And the primary document you're looking at is the Confession of Dostoethius. Dostoethius, Mogilla, the Orthodox Catechism, the Longer Catechism, Go Arch, and other ones.

I go through a bunch and they say the same thing. I've never seen an Orthodox Catechism. Who is that produced by? Your church. Do you have a name? I don't have the...at the top of my head, we're almost out of time, I don't have the publishing house of where it came from. But if you go to my website... I've never seen... There's a lot you've not seen. I do heavy research.

There's a lot you've not seen. Hey, man, we've got to go because we're out of time, man. Okay. Take care. God bless. Bye bye.

That was a good conversation and this is often how it goes. I have to teach them what their church actually teaches. May the Lord bless you. Have a great Easter, a great Resurrection Day. May the Lord bless you and by His grace. We're back on the air on Monday and we'll talk to you next week. No show tomorrow. God bless you.