Matt Slick Live

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

If you want to give me a call, dial 877-207-2276 or email info at karm.org and put in the subject line radio comment, radio question, something like that. We can get to you. All right, all right, all right.

And let's see, I've been studying a lot today about atonement. So anyway, we can get to that after we get some callers and things like that. So anyway, if you want to give me a call, like I said, 877-207-2276. All right, why don't we just jump on the line here and get to Michael from Texas. Michael, welcome.

You are on the air. Hello. Hello. Nice to meet you.

I think I met you a long time ago. Okay. You're friends with my father-in-law, Bill McKeever.

Oh, okay. Well, Kendra's nice. I like Kendra. She's great. Bill, I don't know. Bill's okay though, you know how it is.

But Kendra's nice. Yes, that's true. Well, good. Where you call her from?

Texas, huh? Well, how about that? Yes, sir.

We're on Lockhart, Barbecue Capital. Well, good. So I've been wrestling with some interesting doctrinal things, particularly related to time, which I just heard you talking about a couple days ago. But the thought process that I had resulted in asking the question, is time the measure of before and after, or is it the actual existence of before and after?

Wow. Okay, so no one really knows. And it's rather predictable. So in other words, we could ask questions like when did God start time? Well, let's define time first.

We have to define it first, okay? So this is one of the problems that people have had regarding the very notion of what time is. And so if we were to say, and defining it's a little bit difficult, if we're to define time as a measurement of sequences of events, and we measure it and it could be arbitrary, one second or one minute, you know, we have those. Well, if we define time as the reality of a sequence of events, then all we're saying is that it's just time is an abstraction that doesn't have any ontos in itself.

Ontos means the nature and essence of something, like the nature and essence of a bowling ball, has bowling ball myths and certain properties that relate to it. And we can measure the properties. But can you measure time as a property? And this is the question that physicists, astrophysicists are working on, and even philosophers. So how do we define time? If we were to say it's a sequence of events, let's just, very, very loose if that's the case, then does time apply to God?

And if so, in what way? And so this becomes a very difficult question. So I'm just saying that there are all the firsts to define time. So I'll tell you where I'm coming from, is at least what I've concluded so far, is that Genesis 1 tells us, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. There's a beginning point there.

You have the first day. So I believe that's the creation of time. And I believe that the creation of time is the creation of creation itself. And I believe that the Bible says that before creation itself, God took actions. So where I have arrived is that God, the great I Am, is the definition of the present. He is not creating the present and then entering and exiting the present. He is simply the I Am. And he brought us through creating creation, which would be like strapping on a giant wristwatch.

He created the heavens and the earth, and then he had the first day, and then everything else came into existence with him. And therefore, he is not outside of that sequence of moments, because he defines the sequence of moments. Does that make sense? Yes, kind of. So part of the issue here is definition of terms. And when you have definitions of terms, then you can define them in more detail, and then you can relate them logically. So now let's talk about the definition of time. All right, so some say it's a sequence of events that can be measured. That seems to be a pretty common idea of what time is.

And I have a wristwatch on, and I can measure it in seconds. All right, so now here's a question. Does God have a sequence of events natural to his essence? That's a question. Because before the creation of the universe, the physical aspect of time is some say the fourth dimension, there's A theory, B theory, is time all extant, or is it we passing through it, or is it sequential? You know, various things.

There's measurements, issues, there's block theories, there's all kinds of stuff. So anyway, if God is a Trinitarian being, which he is, and there's interaction and communion within the Trinity, then if we say that there's an interaction, we would assume such an interaction would require a sequence of events. If that's the case, then time is part and parcel to the nature of God.

You see? So then time, if we look at it that way, time is not something that is invented, it's part of God's nature. If we were to say that time is a sequence of events, because then God has a sequence of events, but then can we say that? Because on the other hand, God knows all things eternally. So if he knows all things eternally, can he contemplate? Because to contemplate means to think of what you already know, and then draw conclusions.

A conclusion is an event after a contemplation. That would necessitate time in the sense of measurement, or a sequence of events. But since God knows all things eternally, can he contemplate? It wouldn't seem that he could.

How then is he active? Well, he's active in the inter-Trinitarian communion. So the inter-Trinitarian communion fellowship requires, it would seem to logically require a sequence of events, where there's an exchange of love and it gets into the Father and Son's relationship is mediated through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit and the Father is mediated through the Son. The Son and the Holy Spirit are mediated by the Father.

Where the issue and act of mediation within the Trinity necessitates a sequence of events. It would seem as though time then would be a necessary property of God's nature. And that time has then been extended into the physical world as it reflects the character of God when he created the world. And so time is simply reflection like logic, like truth values, and ideas and categories are reflective of God's essence and nature.

You see how this is, this gets complicated. You see what I'm saying? It does, but, so, and I would, I would say that time was created and it's going to go away in the sense of, we're going to, this Heaven and the Earth is going to be removed and there's going to be new heavens and earth, which is a new measure. That doesn't mean that time is going to stop progressing through moments or when God stops time for a day.

You contradict yourself. If time's going to go away and it doesn't mean that time is not moments then it is moments, then you can't have time go away with also being moments. So what I'm arguing is that time, the existence of time is the existence of a measure. I'm arguing that the, the present and the past and the future existed as a stream before time existed. And it will exist after this time stops and when the next time starts. And then when God stops time over the, you know, during a battle, you know, it's not the stop of succession of moments, but it is the stop of the sun in the sky.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Now you're, you are messing up on what time definition is and you're equivocating. So what I recommend, and people discuss this kind of issue, is that they have to define their terms very precisely.

They have to understand the definition that they're using and then they have to apply that definition. Now look, look at this. Jesus is, you know, on the earth was subject to a time. He had to sleep, awake, walk next day, fulfill prophecies, took time. Would you agree? Uh-huh. And Jesus is still a man, right? Mm-hmm.

Yep. Therefore, it would seem certainly logical to say Jesus is still subject or involved with or interacting in a time fashion. And since he's going to forever be in that form, it can never be that time ceases.

Okay? So I'm not, I'm not, when I say time ceases, I'm saying that the major ceases. I'm not saying that the sequence of events ever stops. You can't have that either because God's mind measures all things. He knows all possibilities as actualities is what's called intentionality. I don't think you're understanding my premise here. I don't think you're understanding your premise.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you are. Because if you can say measurement, you have to understand that God is ubiquitous. He's everywhere. He measures things. He knows distances.

He knows durations. So then there can be no... What I'm saying is that there is... Hold on, hold on.

There is only one present. No, no, no, hold on. There can be no instance where no measurement occurs then. Any place, any time, in any situation. Okay?

Because God's measuring it. All right? Okay?

This is a logic issue. Okay? Keep going. Keep going. Okay. So basically, this all started from pondering in my reading, the concept of what's the purpose of creation and all existence is to know God and to have a relationship with him. No, that's not it.

Nope. Okay. Isaiah 43 verse 7, we're created for God's glory. And inside of that purpose that God has for us, we obtain fellowship through the redemptive work of Christ. We're created for his glory, Isaiah 43 7, specifically is what it says. Okay?

Okay. So we are created for his glory. Are we supposed to have a relationship with God? Yes.

Or not? Yes, we are. And is that relationship one-sided where he doesn't experience anything? No, he experiences, it's called the immutability of God, impassibility of God, that he does experience things with us.

And he does. We interact with him. But we're created for his glory. But in that, we have that fellowship and intimacy with him. That's 2 Corinthians 13, 14.

We have that too. Got it. Okay. So anyway, so that's what started down this path. And I started asking the questions, where do we get this concept that God is in the future or outside of time? And it's a logical argument coming from God created time, so he has to be outside of time. But ultimately it comes from Greek philosophy is where that idea comes from. No, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. Just thinking. And so when people say God's outside of time, I say, what does it mean to be outside of time?

No one knows. Because we can only relate to being in time, whatever that is, by our experience and our knowledge. But we can't say what God's relationship to time is.

We can't say he's outside of time because we can't define what outside of time is. So when people say this, they don't know what they're saying because they haven't thought it through. I used to say this until I thought about it one day.

Wait a minute, what does that mean? And so I stopped saying that. I just say he relates to time differently than we do.

But I believe that time is part of God's nature because of the necessity of fellowship in the intertrinitarian communion which requires an interaction, which by definition is a sequence of events. Hey, we've got a break. Hold on. I think we're kind of saying the same thing with different words.

Kind of. But hold on, we've got a break. Okay, Michael? Hold on, buddy. Okay. We've got a break.

Yep. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned if you want.

This is interesting stuff. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Michael real fast before we get any other callers.

All right, Michael, let's give them a couple three minutes and then we've got other callers. All right. Cool. So, yeah, so I think we're kind of saying the same thing a little bit because you're basically saying that God existed in a logical sequence of moments before creation. No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that it appears to be that within the Trinity there has to be a communion.

Well, there isn't one and that implies an interaction which implies sequence which implies time which then would suggest that time is a property of God's nature if we define it. Okay. I think you're making it more complicated than I am. I think like this.

No, I think like this because I've been doing this for so long, 45 years, that I've learned that you have to define your words very specifically your concepts because how you use them then is important after you define them well. And if we're going to use it, God is a standard of what time is, like what is truth? Truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God. What is goodness?

Goodness is what corresponds to the character of God. So we have to know what time is. Time, is it created by God or is it related to God's nature? That's the question we're getting to.

Sure. So the main reason for asking that question is to address the conclusion that is made that is if God created time, he must be outside of it. But that doesn't make any sense because we don't know what outside of time means and we don't know if it's created time is proper. I agree that that doesn't make sense. I'm just saying that that is the argument, not the one I'm making but the one that is made by many people. But it's not a good argument because you have premise one, God created time. Well then the implication is he was existing without reference to time beforehand.

That doesn't seem to make any sense. And premise two, he's outside of time doesn't seem to make sense either because we don't know what that means so we can't define it to say that God's related to it. I go through this a lot. I talk with atheists a lot. We go through these things. I've gone through this kind of conversation hundreds of times, okay? So yeah, okay? So where I'm going with this, I'll give you a brief direction.

I can point you to a website but I don't want to plug myself unless you don't mind. But basically where I'm going with it has to do with God's ongoing sovereignty and the fact that God is sovereign today and he was sovereign yesterday and he was sovereign when the Bible was happening. Christ was given all authority when he ascended and he will give back that authority at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ. If there's a thousand year reign of Christ. Sure. And we don't need to argue about that one way or another but the point is that God clearly acts in such a way where he's interacting and choosing things as far as what I read throughout scripture.

Yes, because it's an anthropomorphic thing. So I've had these kinds of discussions, I can't even tell you how many hundreds of times over the years and I'm not saying I get all the answers but I'm quite familiar with these things and the rabbit trails to go down them. But I can tell you this, I've said this several times and I'll say it again, always define your terms very specifically and relate the term to different situations and then try and find problems with your terms before you begin to apply the term in premises and then conclusions. This is critical and the only reason I know this is because I've been doing this for 45 years. 45 years, okay? And so I'm just telling you that's what you gotta do otherwise you stub your toe later on, okay? You do. Sure. Alright man?

Alright, well if you have a minute go look at the rest of the argument I guess. Just at ongoingsovereignty.org and see what you think. You can email me. You can email me, you know, info at karm.org and if you're ever in, you know, seeing Bill again let me know. I'm thinking about going down there anyway to see him. I haven't seen him for a while since November. Well he's out here quite a bit too. Yeah, yeah, he is. That's right.

That's right. I've known him for, I don't know how many years, decades, like 35 years I've known him too. Alright man, we got callers waiting. Alright. Alright Michael. Okay, God bless.

Alright, good. Now let's get to next longest is Cole from Georgia then Steve from Utah. Let's get to Cole from Georgia. Cole, welcome, you're on the air. Mr. Matt Slake, welcome, thank you.

Welcome, man. So what do you got buddy? I got a Deuteronomy 14.26. If you can read that for me. Okay, Deuteronomy 14.26. Yes sir. Okay, come on, get in there. Here we go. Which says, you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires for oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, whatever your heart desires and there you shall eat in the presence of your Lord, your God, rejoice and you and your household. Okay.

Okay, now what stands out for you, what stands out for you right there? I'm confused on, it says wine and then he also says strong drink. I'm confused there. He's actually okay. He's okay to drink the strong drink. I thought strong drink was forbidden.

No it's not. You go to Proverbs 31.6, give strong drink to him who's perishing and wine to him who's life is bitter. So it's a common misnamer from teetotalers that the Bible forbids us having strong drink and wine and it does not because the first created work of Christ was to create wine and it was good wine and it was a mature wine.

I know wine is good. I'm confused about the strong drink. Well that's just what it is, it's a car and he drinks strong drink. There's a difference, isn't that a difference between the wine and the strong drink? Yes, the strong drink is a drink that's stronger than wine, hence strong drink.

We would say that the alcoholic level is greater. Okay. So what was, was that wine or it wasn't wine was it? No, no, no it says strong drink, it was perishing and wine to him who's life is bitter. So they're different.

Okay. So maybe they had moonshine, maybe they had moonshine, moonshine back there. Maybe or Sabbath shine, I don't know, but that's a joke there. But yeah, maybe they had something, I'm sure they had people who fermented various things and experimented and made their living producing alcoholic beverages and it wasn't, you know, bad, it was just something that they did. That's all because wine was one of the ways you could put, wine was one of the ways to preserve drinking water. They put slow, low amounts of water, a wine into water. You'd carry it, you'd hardly even taste it, but it would, alcohol would keep it sanitary because they would carry these things, not in plastic and glass, but in the stomachs of animals.

A lot of times that had been removed from animals and then the ends tied off, they were prepared and sanitized, but they were still biological structures. So they would do this. Okay.

And they would have refrigeration. So anyway, okay. Well, look, let me give a quick little logic on it.

Okay. Now, Noah got drunk, right? From wine. He got drunk from wine.

Anybody, any of these saints, they got David drinking wine, got, you know, tipsy or whatever. Now this strong drink, it's a different one for me. You know what I'm saying? It's not, it's not, it's not, hold on, we got a break. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

We got a break. Okay. We'll be right back. Okay, buddy. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Cole from Georgia. Cole, are you still here, buddy?

Yeah, I'm still here. I haven't had any of that moonshine, so I'm still sober. Well, look, the word strong drink, I did a little search during the break. It occurs, it's a single Hebrew word, shakir, and it occurs 23 times in the Bible, in the Old Testament. And a lot of times it's this warning, don't do it. Don't take it. But it's in the context of a drunkard or it mastering you or being bad. And then the priests were not to be drinking it as they go into the temple, clear minded, clear headed.

But there are references where it says it recommends to take it. So Proverbs 31.4 and Deuteronomy 29.6 or 14.26. Okay. All right.

Yeah, it sounds about right. So there is a difference. It was probably some type of liquor that they brewed up, huh? Something.

It could have been beer, could have been something else. Who knows? I don't know. It's a good question. But maybe someone knows of a book or something where they've gone through and researched it from back then. But strong drink and wine are mentioned in the Bible.

Okay. Yeah, I guess. They probably had all kinds of stuff, you know, because the Bible does say there's nothing new under the sun. So I'm pretty sure some of the same drugs or pharmaceuticals that we think are new, they had all that stuff back then. Probably. They probably had a lot of stuff. Including moonshine, including moonshine. Maybe, no, I even probably was, he probably got a little tipsy on the moonshine. Maybe it really wasn't all wine.

But it does say wine though, doesn't it? Yes. Okay.

Yeah, wine and strong drink. Okay. All right, buddy. All right, man. All right. God bless. Okay. Woo. I enjoyed that conversation.

That was interesting. Steve from Utah, then we'll get to Georgina. Steve, welcome here on here. Hello, Matt. How are you? I'm doing all right. Hanging in there, man. Hanging in there.

What do you got, buddy? So I got a question. I can't remember the actual chapter and verse, but there is a statement in the Bible in Philippians, I know it's in Philippians, about through Jesus' stripes we are healed. Okay, that's 1 Peter 2.24. Okay. Oh, maybe I, why do I think that was Philippians?

I thought there was one in Philippians. Anyway, so through his stripes we are healed. Are the stripes referring to the flogging with the cat of nine tails? Yes.

Okay. Now, Jesus also maintained the wounds of the wrists and the side. And feet. Correct? Yes. And beard being plugged out.

And feet. Yes. Yeah. Does he maintain the wounds from the flogging?

Yes, I would say so. So he's got his back all ripped apart and preheated. Yeah, and that's a question.

Is he right now in that state? And that I don't know for sure. However, in 1 Corinthians 15, 35-45, it says that which is sown in the ground, the body, is the same thing raised. And Jesus said in 1 John 2, 19-21, he would raise his own physical body.

And then in Acts 25-28, Jesus told Thomas, put your hand into my side and your finger into my hand. So he retained the crucifixion wounds. So it seems logical to say he retained the other wounds as well. I wouldn't die in that hell, but it seems logical. Yeah, so when he rose and visited the apostles, when he did that with Thomas, would he have still maintained the wounds from the back flogging?

Yes, as I said, yeah. It looks like he would. I would think he would. I would lean towards that he did.

He still has them now. I would lean that way, but I wouldn't die in that hell, as I said. Okay, okay. Yeah, and that's just my own logical way of putting it to me. Well, I really enjoyed that first conversation about time. Yeah, it's a good conversation, and it can get even deeper.

Yeah, I know it can get deeper, because that sounds like a question I would come up with. Yeah, I like talking like that. So then I also wanted to thank you also for your recognition of the book, Evidence Demands a Verdict, because that, when I was doing a lot of traveling, I listened to the audio book of it, and that book is what actually made me believe 100% in the Bible, because it was so well put together, and there was no denying anything that was in there. It's a good book. So I would recommend anybody that has any kind of questions or doubts about the Bible to listen to that, or read the book. It's a long book. It was a long CD.

But it's broken up. Yeah, it's broken up into categories, so you can pick up a certain thing and just go through and see documentation. The book is called Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Yeah, it was the best thing I ever read, or listened to, so. Okay buddy, well hey, I appreciate the answer. I'll chat at you some other time. Okay, sounds good. All right, God bless.

All right, now let's go to Georgina from North Carolina. Sorry for the long wait, but there you go. You're on. All right, thank you for taking my call.

Sure. I am calling about the word is when it comes to specifically the sacraments, and most specifically the sacrament of communion. I know there's the word is in the original language, and then there's English, and then when I consider that I went to church mainly in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and now often attend a Baptist Church, and I know about being a guest at a Catholic Church, I'm finding huge differences between the understanding of the Lord's presence in the sacrament, and that this is the body and blood of Christ, the mystery of it, and I'm interested in what you have to say about that.

All right, well we can talk about it. I want to warn you that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian, flat out, first of all. It teaches a false gospel, it teaches a false priesthood, and it promotes idolatry. I've been studying it for, I don't know, 30 years.

So in LCMS, I went to an LCMS college, and so I studied there. I went to a Presbyterian Seminary, and I've studied the Catholic view of the Eucharist extensively. It is a, in their view, it's a propitiatory sacrifice that's re-offered, and so what they'll teach is that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and that's logically impossible, and I can explain why, and it's biblically impossible, and I can explain why, but I'll go to the Bible first. When Jesus was there on earth, he was under the law, Galatians 4.4 says so.

He was created, or he was made under the law. He had to fulfill the law, which is why he was baptized. The law of the Old Testament applied to him and the disciples, and in the book of Leviticus in 1714, it says God commands that no Israelite is to eat the blood of any flesh, very succinctly, and in the Council of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, the first council, said don't take blood. So the admonition before and after the Supper and the crucifixion of Christ is the same in the Old Covenant and in the New Covenant. So what the Catholic Church has done is taken it literally when Jesus said this is my body and my blood, but he also said I am the door, but also when he said this is my body and blood in Matthew 27, 20, oh, heck, 27, 20, oh, it says do not drink again from the fruit of the vine. And the reason this is significant is after he is due to the Supper, he said in Matthew 26, 29, I will not eat or drink again from the fruit of the vine. So even afterwards, Jesus called it wine.

So this is stuff I argue with Catholics all the time on this. Hold on, we've got more. I'll show you why logically it's not possible. Okay, you want to hold, Regina? Okay. 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. Oh, Ron, welcome back to the show. Hope you're having a good time listening, and let's get back on the air with Georgina from North Carolina. Georgina, are you still there?

I am. All right. So I pulled up my notes on Roman Catholicism, my Word document that's 254 pages long. And the Roman Catholic Church calls the Eucharist a divine sacrifice and a re-presentation of the sacrifice that is propitiatory, which means it, the mass, removes your sin each time it's done. And it's offered by the hands of a priest.

So the priest is re-offering the sacrifice over and over and over again. That's not the biblical model in the New Testament. But nevertheless, there's so much I could get into on this. So there's a logical problem with the idea of transubstantiation. Now, just so you know, logic is something that exists in the mind of God. I can get into the argument, I could say, about God's mind, which is everywhere. Logic is part of him, and we can think logically because of him.

And I can get into this. It's a whole interesting discussion. But nevertheless, if something is not logically true, it cannot be true. If it's not logically consistent, it cannot be. Because truth is what corresponds to the mind of God. Truth is what corresponds to his mind. And since God is perfect, the logic of his mind is also perfect. And so we can think his things.

And he even says to us in Isaiah, let us reason together. Now, I'm going to introduce a concept to you. Two concepts, essential and accidental properties. So an essential property of something is something necessary to it. An accidental property of something is something not necessary to it. Let me explain. A circle has a necessary property of roundness. It's necessary. You cannot have a circle without roundness.

It just doesn't work. The diameter of a circle is accidental in that you can have different diameters of a circle. So all circles have roundness, but not all circles have the same diameter.

So we can understand this concept. This means that the essence, this is just an illustration, the essence of a circle requires that also have roundness. Otherwise, it's not a circle. You cannot transfer the essence of a circle to a square. And a square still be square, and yet it has the essence of circle. It's logically impossible.

It can't happen. Now we can apply this to the Eucharist, because they say the bread and the wine become the body and blood in essence without the necessary properties associated with it. In other words, it's like saying the necessary property of the circle is transferred to the property of a square, but roundness is not there. So what I mean is the bread is still bread when examined under a microscope and tested.

The wine is still wine when examined and tested. But they say the necessary essence, or the essence of what it is, exists in there. But yet the necessary properties to each don't. Logically it's impossible. It cannot be done. So what they do to get around this problem is they just say it's a mystery, it's an essence that's there, but we don't understand how it works.

So they admit that there's a logical impossibility and then they dismiss it by saying it's a mystery. I can give you so much more about Catholicism. It has so many problems. So I think you're going to continue to move forward with the other term at this point, so I'll wait. It's okay.

I give you a lot and stuff. A lot of people are not trained in this to think like this, and that's okay. Neither was I. I had to learn it. What you said made sense to me. That was understandable.

You're very good at explaining that piece. Good. And so if you're attending a, let me say this, if you're attending, I don't know if you are attending a Catholic church, is that what you're doing now a little bit, checking it out?

No, no. I attend a Baptist church and actually also a global Methodist church. Is that global Methodist church United Methodist? It has broken from the United Methodist church.

Okay. So now I've never heard of a global Methodist church because the United Methodist churches is so bad that I wouldn't even call it Christian and it's official teachings, right? So this movement of the global global Methodist church is, um, broken apart because of that, that, um, I mean, there certainly is a statement of faith and so forth that you could find on a, on a website. Um, and I live in the Bible belt as you can see.

Um, so I think it started here actually. Okay. Do they know, do you know if they allow women pastors and elders in the global Methodist church?

Uh, don't believe so. Okay, good. Cause we're not against women or anything, but it's just not their position according to scripture. So, okay, well that's good.

Okay. So anyway, that's what the Eucharist is and the Catholics teach. It's a divine sacrifice.

I can give you all the documentation. I got them looking right at it and uh, it's a sacrifice that's propitiatory, which means it removes the wrath of God. And so the Catholic church is fully a non-Christian, uh, it's an apostate religion. It is. Okay. So, um, is this a good place for a question? Um, so I told you originally that I spent most of my life and years in the Lutheran church, specifically the Missouri Synod. And um, while I would have mistakenly, maybe mistakenly said that the Missouri Synod church was teaching the same as a Catholic church, and maybe it is, but, um, I believe, I believe that what they're saying is that he, that the Lord is, I mean, Jesus is the word and so he is present in the word as he is in baptism. Um, and so can you kind of speak, can you kind of speak to that? Um, well, you know, your explanation using, you know, a square and a circle, you know, made perfect sense to me. Now I'm trying to resolve either what I understood I was taught some time ago or, um, you know, like mistaken and what I was learning about, about the presence of God in the sacrament.

All right. So a covenant sign represents the covenant. So my wife and I are married 38 years. I have a covenant sign called my ring finger. And so if I reject the, the ring, ring finger, the ring on the ring finger, I reject it. I'm rejecting the covenant that I made with her. So the covenant of, of, uh, the Lord's supper is a representation of the actuality. God works covenantally and covenants have signs. Now a covenant is a pattern agreement between two or more parties. And so Abraham had a covenant circumcision. Uh, Jesus established a covenant, the Lord's supper, the covenant signs represent the covenant to read, reject the covenant sign is to reject the covenant. So when Jesus was sitting there, he was present when he gave the supper. Now we have to look at what the elements are, bread and wine. If we say hypothetically that the bread becomes the body of Christ, the way the Catholics teach, then we have a problem because then it means that the body of Christ is in multiple places at a time. That can't be because he's by definition as a human, he can't do that.

All right. Then we have on the far end of the scale that is just a representation, nothing more than a representation. The way a wedding ring is nothing more than a representation of the, the wedding, uh, uh, uh, wedding vows. Now on the other hand, the wedding ring is a little bit more than just a representation.

It's actually a seal. And in Romans four 11, uh, circumcision is called a seal of the faith that's already there. So now what we're backing away from the justice symbol towards there's something more to it.

But how far do we go? Because my ring as an example is not just a symbol, it, it is the sign of that covenant. And so I carry it with me because it's public and there's a representation in it, but there's just a little bit more than just a representation. And so what the supper seems to be is a representation because he says, do it in remembrance of me. But he also said that he'll be with us always that different part of the scripture as Matthew 28, 18 through 20. So if that's the case, then how is he there with the Lord's supper? My answer, just my answer is I say, he's there the same way he was the first time. When people say, what is that? I say, I don't know. I just don't know.

He was there with them. And a covenant is what we call an abstraction and abstraction is something that occurs in the mind like a thought or the number two or roundness. These are abstractions. A covenant is an abstraction, but it's a commitment. And so a physical sign represents the abstraction. The covenant sign of bread and wine represents his body and blood, the sacrifice of everything he's done.

And so he's there somehow, some way. The Bible doesn't tell us. It's not literal in the sense of transubstantiation. The Lutherans, what they'll say, he's in with and under that there's a type of presence in the elements and the elements are a means of grace as the Catholics do. Then I ask, what does it mean to be a means of grace?

Is grace like a substance transferred through the act of the ceremony? Why? Personally, I reject that.

Or is God more attentive to you in a gracious way because you are remembering him like you said to do? Well, I don't have much of a problem with it. I get it.

Okay. And so I was taught when I asked that question about it, you know, like, what if somebody dies before they're baptized or, you know, a child, you know, and the pastor, the Lutheran pastor said, the Lord can save who he chooses. And if we had to be saved by the act of a person, then what do we need Jesus for?

Exactly. I call it sacerdotal salvation, where the sacraments are the means of grace by which you're then saved. And so that's correct. We're justified by faith alone in Christ alone. In fact, the faith we have is from God and it's in Christ. That's sufficient to justify us. But we participate in the sacraments and when we define sacrament as an ordinance that is established by Christ as something that needs to be done as a symbol and a standard that is Christian, uh, and it's corn essence that has been commanded.

We do that, but doing those doesn't save us. Okay. Okay. I appreciate that because, um, I know that one of the other things I was taught with regard to communion specifically was to be careful not to take union if you don't, if you're, if you're, you're, you're not a repentant. If you're not, in other words, mock God by publicly, you know, we're out of time.

It's not Georgina. We're out of time. I'd love to continue to talk about this because that's what you're now bringing up. All you should call back tomorrow. We should talk about that.

That's, that's an important thing. Okay. All right. You're getting to go. There's all right. God bless. Okay. And Thomas, sorry for waiting. You wait in a half hour, buddy. Hey everybody, we'll talk to you tomorrow about God's grace. Another program powered by the truth network.