Matt Slick Live

It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at CARM.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live! Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. I'd love to hear from you. Give me a call and we can talk about all kinds of questions you might have. What is the Bible Bible verses there and a quote from their sources.

Another question is, if Hebrews 9.25-27 says that Christ is not offered repeatedly, how can the Orthodox Divine Liturgy describe the Eucharist as a re-presentation or offering of the same sacrifice of Christ. Now I know how they'll respond to those, but I want responses because then what I can do is I can take their responses and I can put them up and respond to those. And this causes examination. And one of the benefits of doing this, at least for me, so I can distill information down and present it to you and write articles, one of the benefits is just that. As I learn different kinds of answers different people will give, it then trains my mind to be able to go, oh, I see this, I see that, and then I get ahead of the curve, so to speak, and then people call me up or have questions in emails or whatever I can just say here.

And it really is very helpful. It's one of the ways I've been learning for years. I like to do what I call field testing. So what I'll do is I'll study their doctrines a lot, then develop questions based on that, and then statements usually, and then test them out. And I've been doing this with the Eastern Orthodox now for quite a while, and I've gotten their, you know, the same basic answers.

And so I know what kind of questions stump them, give them problems, and these are the kinds of questions that do that. Here's another question. Do you agree or disagree that the Eucharist ought to have the same honor rendered to it as to Christ himself?

Why or why not? And I quoted the Confession of Mogilla from 1642. It's one of the main confessions present in the Eastern Orthodox Church, though not everyone will follow it, okay? But nevertheless, the honor which is due to these awful mysteries, when they say awful, they don't mean bad.

They mean awe as in full of awe. The Eucharist ought to be the same and equal to that which is rendered to Christ himself. Now this is interesting because to me it reminds me of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church where they have what's called a monstrance, and I'm going to say they have an equivalent thing for the Eastern Orthodox, but a monstrance is a star, well, it's a circle. They put the wafer in after it's been changed into the body of Jesus, and then they can bow before it and worship it.

It's for real, and they lift it up, and they parade it, and they follow it. That's really Jesus right there inside in this circle of the bread which is now the body of Christ. And I'll ask the Catholics, I'll say, so do you bow before the circle of bread that's Jesus? Ask it like that. Do you bow before the circle of bread that you say is Jesus?

Do you bow before it? And they don't like it when I ask the question that way, and that's because I'm trying to expose their heresies, okay? All right, let's see, here's number five. I got, how many do I have in here?

I have nine in this list. Let's see, here's another question I have for them. If you were to bow down before the Eucharist and worship it, how are you not bowing down to an image of the Lord presented in the bread? Now, I'm not saying all of them do this. This is just a question to see what they're going to say, because logic entails that. Now, if they don't agree with that particular view in the confession, I like it when they say, well, we don't agree with that confession. And I say, well, it was an official blah, blah, blah, by this and that. I said, who are you to disagree? And, you know, who are you? You who's on here on the internet hiding behind a nickname, you know, cliffhanger.

We don't agree with it. Okay, really? Well, who are you? And what gives you the right to say what is and isn't Orthodox doctrine?

And this is some of the stuff I'd like to do with them. But I'm going to tell you something else also that's very interesting. I stumbled on Friday night, was it Friday night?

I think it was Saturday night. Anyway, about the simplicity of Reformed theology, what I did. It was really interesting. Maybe I even talked about it. Charlie, did I talk about it last week?

Do you remember that? The simplicity of Reformed theology and how a guy was going, hmm, when I was saying that. Okay, I'll do that afterwards. It was really interesting.

I tried this approach, and it really, I'll tell you about it. Anyway, here's another question. Where in the New Testament does it say that only ordained priests and bishops can offer the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist? Where is that in the Bible? See, where is it? It's not there.

But they say it. And I could put in there, you know, the Bible says don't exceed what's written, 1 Corinthians 4, 6. Maybe I'll add that in there. I don't know.

And here's number seven. Where does the New Testament call ordained ministers priests? The Greek word is hieris, who have the authority to offer Christ's body and blood as a sacrifice or an altar.

And then what I did, I put some notes in there. A priest is not an elder in the New Testament. I've had them say, say to me, an elder is a priest, which is not true. The word priest is hieris. It occurs 28 times in the New Testament. And elders, prybuteros, it occurs 66 times.

And I actually listed each and every instance of both of those so they can go check them out. Where in the New Testament is there an example of the Eucharist being offered for the dead? They actually do that. Just like the Catholics. They offer the Eucharist sacrifice for the dead. Okay.

A common practice. But yet Hebrews 9, 27 says it's appointed for men to die once after this comes judgment. And why does Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, 26 describe the Eucharist as a proclamation?

You proclaim the Lord's death until it comes rather than a literal continuation of his sacrifice. So there's I guess some other questions I could add in there, but I want to get these out and see what people would say about them. Okay. Now if you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. All right. Now I'm going to talk about something that I did on I think it was Saturday night.

It doesn't matter. I was on the internet. I do this a lot. I'm on the internet in various chat rooms, various venues. I can go Facebook. I can do X. You know, I can do PalTalk. I can do Discord.

I can do, what's the other one? I don't go on there very much as often now. Clubhouse. And so I'm going to try and get into TikTok. So I need some help for anybody who knows how to work all that. So I can TikTok. So I can get in there and have discussions. I want to open up rooms and do this because I love to have these constant discussions because what they do is they keep me sharp and they help me explore ideas and then stuff like that. Okay. Well anyway, so I think it was Saturday night. Anyway, so like I said, I was talking to some guys.

One of the guys was in Eastern Orthodoxy, and we're having a polite conversation. Some of the EO are obstreperous. That means boisterously recalcitrant. In other words, they were difficult to work with. Not because they were difficult in asking intelligent, smart questions.

No, they're difficult because they're name-calling, interrupting, you know, like what you're saying, you know, all this kind of childish stuff. And some of them I call diaperinians. I go, would you diaperinians stop it?

One at a time. Oh, you're insulting us. Well, stop acting like diaperinians, which it's a made-up word.

And then they get upset because it's an insult, but they don't even know what it means. Oh man. Oh, you know, I have too much fun.

It's called a diaperinian. Yeah, you can't say that. What does it mean? I don't know.

What are you getting upset for? So anyway, I think the word diaper in there is kind of a giveaway. However, I have used a phrase occasionally my daughters came up with, man babies. She calls some guys man babies.

My daughters does it a lot. And so I called them one guy called a man baby. You should have heard what he said.

Do you think he was the king of diaperinians at that point? He just came on. I got issues. I know. I know. I have fun with this kind of stuff.

Hope you guys are having fun. Listen to me be stupid, but, uh, I enjoy it. Big stupid. That is my wife in another room. For some reason, she spontaneously said, that's true.

She doesn't even know why she said it. All right. So, uh, here's the thing.

Okay. So I was talking to, I was talking to, uh, some, these EO guys a while back and, uh, and Catholics in the room. And they said something really interesting to me. They really did.

They said, they said that, Hey Haps, how you doing buddy? They said that, um, that Calvinism, reformed theology was complicated. Got to make all this complicated stuff.

I started thinking about that, but it's not true. And I did this on a Saturday night, you know, three days ago or two days, two nights ago, I said to this one guy and he actually is an Eastern Orthodox guy, if I remember correctly. And he kept saying, huh, that's interesting.

And I said, well, I said, people have told me that we make it complicated, but it's not, for example, total depravity. The Bible says, you know, I gave the references, you know, man is slave of sin. He cannot receive spiritual things. Um, and, uh, he's at, he could do no good. I give the references and I say, so what we believe is he's, he's not able to receive spiritual things and doesn't do any good as we believe.

And he goes, Hmm. And I said an unconditional election, you know, I says, God doesn't look into the future to see who's going to pick him because that would be favoritism. God chooses us based on what's in him, not what's in us.

And, uh, I made this interesting point I never made before. I said, Ephesians one, four, it says, he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. And he predestined us.

He just went four and five. And this one guy went to Romans eight 29, which says those of me for knew he protested. And he said, the foreknown ones, those are the ones God knows who will pick him.

I said, no, wait a minute. The foreknown ones are all. So the predestined ones, cause it says those who before knew he also predestined and the ones who were predestined are the foreknown ones that Ephesians one, four, the predestined ones are the chosen ones.

So the chosen ones are the foreknown ones. And he went, huh? And then I said, limited atonement, you know, Jesus only died for the sheep.

And I said, check this out. John 10, 11, Jesus says, I lay my life down for the sheep. And John 10, 26, he says, you're not my sheep. I said, so we believe what Jesus said. So he lays his life down for the sheep and you're not my sheep. So he's in lay your life down.

He goes, huh? And, uh, said irresistible grace. And I quoted the verses, you know, like, uh, first Peter one, three causes us to be born again.

And the second one is five 21. He makes us new creatures. Is this the work of God?

Not us. And he goes, yes. Yeah.

Uh-huh. And I said, perseverance of the saints. And within John 10, 26, you know, he gives eternal life to them and they shall never perish. And John 10, six 37, which says he, the will of the fathers, he lose none.

It's 37 through 40. And I said, you see, we're just believing what, what is said. That's it. Just believing it. And he says, that's interesting.

I said, who makes it complicated? Is it us or is it you guys? Hey, that's a good pause right there at the break music. We'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt slick live taking your calls at 8 7 7 2 0 7 2 2 7 6. Here's Matt slick. Hey everybody. How you doing? I hope you're having a good time listening. And if you want to give me a call, it's easy.

8 7 7 2 0 7 2 2 7 6. Let's get to Joel from Colorado. Joel. Welcome. You're on the air. Hi. How's it going?

It's going man. Can you hear me okay? I hear you fine. Okay. Um, yeah, my name is Joel from Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Okay. Uh, and, uh, I was talking with my friend, Chris, uh, the photographer, I think wedding photographer. Uh, he said he was a friend of yours.

Um, he said, I should give you, give you a call. I'm a, I'm a Catholic Christian and being him, we're in the middle of a discussion on the tree of life and what exactly it is and revelation. Um, and, uh, in Genesis. Well, the tree of life in Genesis and revelations appears to be the symbol, uh, of the eternal life and fellowship with God in Genesis, it was there in the garden and then it's recapitulated.

So to speak in the book of revelation in the final and the consummation of all things are relation two and 22. Okay. Yeah, absolutely.

I agree. Um, I would say more specifically, my belief is that the tree of life the tree of life is Christ on the cross and being, I mean, you can kind of in a way see melded with, with the, with the wood, you know, kind of becoming part of it, you know, kind of really fusing himself. Um, and really, I mean, I always like to ponder this, like how, how more could have, could a human being attach themselves to a tree, you know? And I think that is the power of that symbol of the cross as the new tree of life. Um, and I believe that that is the tree of life that we see in revelation. Um, it's not explicitly said it's Christ on the cross, but, you know, I believe that that's what it's fulfilling account, you know, and Christ's work on the cross was the fulfillment of, uh, uh, that is symbolic of the reaching back to, I guess the, the technical term would be the anti-type, right, to the tree of life in the garden.

Let's look at what your, your theory is here and let's take a look at Genesis 2.9 and see how it fits. Okay. Out of the ground, the Lord God caused to grow every tree. Well, this is trees out of the ground. Okay.

It is pleasing to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So it seems that the tree of life is an actual tree that grows out of the ground. Okay.

Okay. So one of the things you could say is that in Genesis, it certainly seems to be a literal tree. And in Revelation, in Revelation 2.7, to him overcomes, I grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise. Now in the garden, uh, out of the ground, it grew. And, uh, it says also in Genesis 3.22, after the, the fall, then the Lord God said, behold, a man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, uh, he may stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever. Therefore they guarded it.

They couldn't do that. So it wouldn't quite fit that it's Jesus on the cross there, at least in Genesis. That makes sense.

Yeah. I think I'm seeing, I would see Christ when he says whoever, you know, eats by flesh and drinks by blood has eternal life as referring to himself as the tree of life. And in the same way that the tree of life in Genesis, what, what their source for immortality. There's another problem because when Jesus in Matthew 27, uh, instituted the supper and verse 29, he calls the wine wine afterwards. He says, I'll not eat again from the fruit of the vine, but also, uh, Leviticus 17, 14 says, you're not to eat the blood of any flesh, of any flesh. Don't eat the blood of any flesh and the Jerusalem council of X 15 and verse 20 and 29, the council said, don't have any blood. So you have to examine the idea that the Catholic view of the Eucharist is actually the body and the literal blood, because if it's not, which it seems to violate scripture at that point, then your interpretation of him being the tree of life that you eat and consume of, uh, wouldn't work.

You see? Well, so I, I wasn't necessarily making the case for, for like the, like kind of substantiation or anything like that, or, or even referencing necessarily Eucharist. I was specifically talking in terms of the, of the, the, like I'm trying to substantiate my, my, I believe that Jesus is the tree of life. And so him saying that you need to like eat of meat is an illusion. And it's sort of like a fulfillment of how Adam and Eve had, had, would have had to eat of the tree of life in the garden in order to have life, you know, in the same way that Christ said, you know, you have to eat of meat out of eternal life, the referring to himself, essentially as a tree of life. Yeah. Except we don't eat human flesh to, to have eternal life.

And we don't drink human blood. Well, yeah, I agree with that. I was just, I'm making the case that Christ is the new tree of life.

That's sort of where I'm... Well, you could. Yeah. But I think that here's one of the things I do as a Christian apologist is let's say, you know, we're going to discuss this issue. What is the tree of life?

What I would then do is find every single instance in the new, in the Bible where the phrase tree of life occurs. And then I would just look at each one in its context and see, what is God saying about it? Now, what do we say now?

What are commentaries now? What your church, my church, Bob next door says, what is, what does God, how does he use it? And then I would let that guide me and then say, now I have questions. Would it, could it be that it's a literal tree? It seems to be in Genesis. Is it in revelation? It's just another question. Or is it the cross of Christ?

It doesn't seem to be in Genesis, but it might be in revelation symbolically. So you see, you ask those kinds of questions and then you examine stuff. Yeah.

I think that's the exact question that I was talking about. I think it makes the most sense with how Christ referred to himself and how he, I mean, I see, I use the word melded, kind of welded himself to the cross, kind of unifying himself with it in a way. You know, how his blood soaked into the wood. And he really like became very fused with that wood.

Well, I would not say that. When you said he, now I get particular about things. He is personhood. His personhood did not get infused in the, in the wood of the cross. Okay. His blood certainly was absorbed by some areas of the, of the cross and the dirt as well, because we can say it's on the, the blood was, you know, or he was infused, so to speak, in the cross.

It has to be also in the dirt where the blood fell. You see? Oh yeah. I was just saying it like in, in a same sort of a metaphorical, symbolic manner, you had this, you had this, our Lord being, you know, kind of, you know, nailed onto it and kind of really being attached to it. Yeah.

Like a tree was. Yeah. Here's the, here's, I would advise you this way, is to not look at an idea and say, well, that's a nice idea. Let's see if I can make it fit into the scriptures. We don't want to do that.

That's why the first thing I say to people is, is simply, well, how does God use it? Then, then ask the question. We've got a break. Do you want to hang on or do you want to take off? You'll hang on? Okay.

Yeah. 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.

Welcome back to the show. Do you want to give me a call? The number is 877-207-2276. You can also email me at info at CARM.org.

C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. Info at CARM.org. Put in the subject line, radio comment or radio question. Let's get back to Joel from Colorado. All right, Joel. I'm still here. Okay.

All right. So in the last, in the last segment, you talked about how Christ called the wind of the, you know, the fruit of the vine, which is true. That does say that in Matthew's account. I think, of course, as I would hope we all agree, you know, we have to kind of look at scripture holistically so we can cross reference Matthew's account, the Lord's Supper, with Luke's account, the Lord's Supper. And Luke actually differentiates between two different cups that the first one he calls the fruit of the vine, then he does the bread, and then he took a cup after supper, which we would know if you know, and it's like how the Pascha meal was celebrated, there was four cups. So that would have been the third cup of the, of the Passover meal. And he referred, that's the cup that he refers to as the cup of the new covenant. So even though Matthew's account kind of puts that all together into one, a couple verses, Luke's account actually gives us the better chronology of that they're two separate cups. Okay.

And would you then say that your supper is actually the body or the blood of Christ? Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. So I'm, I'm going to introduce a concept to you. Okay. And to what you think of it, because the, the issue of the transubstantiation is that the essence of, let's just use the blood here.

The essence of blood is transferred to the wine, but the properties of wine are still wine, right? I wouldn't say transferred. I would say it sort of becomes present there where it wasn't present before.

That's fine. Because it has to be. Just for the sake of listeners, there's like, there's two types of ways that something can be present.

There's like a difference in locality, right? From changing from one spot to the other spot. And then there's like an ex nihilo kind of becoming present, like a fire where there was a fire now where there wasn't one before type deal.

So it would have been more like the second one. Yeah, I get you, but it becomes the body and blood. There's a transference because it has to be the one true sacrifice. And so it can't be a separate sacrifice with its separate ontological essence that becomes it.

It has to be a transference of the one true sacrifice into that. So here's the issue. I'm going to give you an example of something. A circle has a necessary property to it called roundness. Roundness cannot be separated from circle. It can't be done. And you cannot transfer the essence of a circle to say a square and not retain roundness. It's impossible. So we would say that roundness is a necessary property of the essence. You cannot separate them.

It cannot be done. So if you have the blood being the essential nature that now the wine becomes, that means the essential nature of the wine is now blood, but it does not retain any of the essential properties of blood. How then is that possible? Well, of course, so the roundness of a circle would be like an accident of a circle. That's its appearance to us. Like an example, like maybe it's an essential, not an accidental. Okay. Well, then in that sense, I might say that the taste of wine and the appearance of wine isn't necessarily an essential property of the wine. That would be an accidental property of the wine. Well, the problem is that an essential property of a circle is roundness.

All right. And that's just, it's essential. You can't have one without the other, or you can't have circleness without the property of roundness.

You can't. So if a circle, the nature of essence of circle, you seem to be well informed on this well enough. The ontological nature of a circle exists. A necessary property of its roundness must also concomitantly exist.

It has to be. So if you're going to have a property or, excuse me, an essence that's necessary, a basic essence, then certain necessary properties must exist concomitantly with it. Otherwise the essence isn't there. So if the essence of the wine becomes the blood, then it must have necessary properties, otherwise it's not blood. And yet there's no necessary properties detectable in the blood. So how then is it truly blood? Well, it's truly blood substantially. So the substance is what's changing, but the accidents are remaining the same. So the properties are remaining the same. The wineness of the wine is an accident of the wine. Or even if you were to say that the wineness of the wine is...

I kind of want to zoom out a little bit though, because I kind of wanted to present the bigger picture, right? Because we have Jesus as the new Adam, right? Which is undoing. He's not the new Adam. He's not the new Adam. He's the last Adam, just so you know, but go ahead. Well, the second Adam. Yes, the second Adam. No, he's the last Adam.

First Corinthians 15, 45. He's the last Adam. That's what it says, but go ahead.

Okay. Well, if you have a first one and a last one, then we could still say that the last one is the second one, second iteration of the first. No, what we're doing is using what God says. He calls him the last Adam.

I'm just saying that's what God says, so I'm just referring to him. The new Adam? New Adam, appropriate? Now, if you say new Adam, then you're not using the biblical mandate, the biblical revelation. You're using man-made, and then it becomes interpretive. And then when you do that kind of a thing, you can stretch the meaning of the last or the new to something else, as if the new one is like a replacement of the first Adam, because he's new, but that's not what the text says, because he's the last one, like a termination of the first. So how you change one word could change your interpretations of it.

You have to be careful. Okay. Well, the last Adam would have undone and renewed what the first Adam failed and fallen into. And I believe that he did that with becoming a new tree of life.

So in the same way that Adam and Eve were meant to partake of the tree of life in the garden to maintain immortality and have everlasting life, we as a church and the body of Christ partake of Christ from the cross through the Eucharist as the new fruit of the new tree of life, because Jesus is the last Adam. Yeah. I get it. I get it, but it's not warranted from scripture because I think, you know, no offense, man, but I think you're stretching the meaning a little bit too far and trying to make it fit in the doctrine. What's that?

I'm sorry. I was clarifying. What was that stretching the meaning of?

The idea that at the tree of life and we participate in the tree, you can eat the tree, you're eating Jesus. So therefore that's that kind of relationship stretch that you're doing. Okay.

I'm not sure how, how is that a stretch? Because the tree of life in Genesis is an actual physical tree. Okay.

And so that doesn't fit there. And then when you go to Revelation, and you talk about what Revelation says, it says in Revelation 2, 7, to him who overcomes, I'll grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. Okay. And Revelation 22, 1 through 2 and verse 14 on either side of the river is the tree of life bearing 12 kinds of fruit.

And the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations. It doesn't seem to say that it's the crucifixion of Christ. That's what I'm saying. Okay. Yeah.

I mean, you're, you're, you are correct that it's not, that doesn't explicitly say that. I just, I do think there's a lot of explanatory power and continuity in viewing Christ on the cross as the, as the tree of life that undid, that essentially was, was guarded since the garden. It was the undoing of that.

It was the reconciliation of that. You know, and, and if we see Jesus as the last Adam, you know, it kind of, it kind of ties it together. You know, I think that's what scripture is doing when it calls him the last Adam. It's referring him back as high priest, as Adam was the first priest. Jesus is the high priest. Where does it say he was a priest? Where does it say he was a priest? A priest is an interesting scripture. Well, a priestly type figure of God on earth.

No, no, no, no, no. It doesn't say that a priest stands between God and man and offers sacrifices from man up to God. That wasn't Adam's calling. Well, I, I would, I would, I would say that the, the nature of offering sacrifices as a priest is a result of the fall. But in, prior to the fall, the priestly role would have been to be fruitful, multiply, to have dominion over the earth and to be in relationship, perfect union with God. No, no, no. Now you're taking the meaning of priest and you're changing it.

You would agree where royal priests are, correct? Yeah, but that's a first Peter two, five and seven or five and nine. Hold on now. We've got a break. Okay. Hold on.

We'll get back to this a little bit. We've got callers waiting to hold on. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages, please. It's Matt slick live taking your calls at eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six.

Here's Matt slick. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Joel. Hello. Okay. Yeah, I hear you. All right.

So where were we? Yeah. So I, I, I, my position is that in Genesis two 17, um, we, humanity was commanded not to eat. There was a command not to eat and I understand it was of a different tree.

They're not the tree of knowledge, good and evil, but this is kind of like the picture that I see in my head. Uh, you have the command not to eat, um, from a tree, but Adam fails and he brought death into the world. That's Romans five 12. Um, then we have Christ who commanded us to eat from himself or, and from the tree as, as we, as it's described in acts five 30. Um, this Adam or the last Adam succeeds, um, first Corinthians 15 45, and he brought life into the world.

Uh, John six 54. So we're seeing this, this parallel of Christ and Adam, the tree and the tree, um, and then Christ succeeding, Adam failing, Christ bringing life, Adam bringing death. And I don't see how that's making a stretch of anything. No, that's not the issue. The issue is you're calling Adam a priest. He's not a priest.

Okay. A priest is an intercessor between God and man. When someone has sinned, then a priest stands between them and offers sacrifices called by God to do that as a priestly context.

That's what that is. And, and, uh, Adam didn't do that. What about the point that I made about seeing those parallels? So even, even Adam wasn't a priest, but there are parallels. Absolutely.

But he was not a priest. That's, that's my point. Are you familiar? Okay.

Are you familiar with all these? Okay. Are you familiar with, um, federal headship? Yes, I am.

Okay. Adam was a federal head. Christ was a federal head. If you assume those values and you go in and analyze, then you'll see really what God's doing, what he's saying.

And you'll also find that your theological perspective will be altered slightly. Is there, is there a scripture that calls Adam a federal head? No, no, there's no scripture that says the word's a federal head any more than the word Trinity occurs in the Bible or hypostatic union. But what we do find are the aspects that we call the federal headship in Adam, all die in Christ, all should be made alive. First Corinthians 15, 22.

I can go on. The idea of federal headship with the male represents a descendants. One of my favorite things to talk about in that respect is Adam and Eve were in the garden. She sinned first. And as you rightly quoted, Romans 5, 12 sin entered the world through Adam, not through her, even though she sent first because he was the representative.

He was the head. Romans 5, 18 says through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all mankind, all men. And so also through one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life to all men.

Each first Adam, the last Adam are playing the roles of federal heads. And when you understand the theology that way, your theology will change. Okay. So even under that, I don't see why calling Christ on work on the cross, you know, is it not Christ's work on the cross that reconciled and, you know, atoned for mankind's sins? Is that not the moment that that happened?

Right. He's a propitiatory sacrifice. A propitiatory sacrifice is a sacrifice that removes wrath. It doesn't make it potential. It does not make it possible.

As in, it's possible if you do something. It means it's done by the doing. It's finished. It's propitiated. That's what it actually means, propitiatory sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the moment that that was completed, correct?

Yes. And that's where he canceled the sin debt at the cross, not when you get baptized, not when you believe. Why can we not call that the new tree of life? Because it's not called the tree of life in the Bible. It doesn't fit the model of the tree of life, which is a physical tree in Genesis.

Well, they're not called a federal flagship either. Like, you know, the concept of him being a tree of life in a metaphorical sense is there. Okay. So I'm just going to amp it up a little bit more here and just flat out and tell you you're wrong.

I've tried to be polite, but what you've done is you've committed eisegesis. You've read into the text what is not warranted by the text. You have to go to the Bible and see how God uses the term tree of life. You have to go through the Bible and you have to look at the term tree of life and see how God uses it. What you're trying to do is stretch it into a priesthood idea and then say Adam was a priest when he was not.

He was absolutely not a priest. Federal headship. Hold on. Federal headship is a biblical teaching of representation, which is clearly taught in scripture, and we assign a name to it called federal headship. The same we assign the name Trinity to what is taught in scripture. To say that federal headship is not in the scripture is simply incorrect. It is there. Okay.

It's there. So what I'm saying to you is this. Find out what it actually says and do a study on what God's word actually says. I have studied the word.

I know what it says. Then let me ask a question. Is Jesus Christ the new Moses? No, there's nothing in the Bible that says he's a new Moses. So you don't believe that we can see Christ as bringing his people out of slavery and into freedom. Do you mean Moses?

Is he a type of Christ? Of course. Yeah. So you can say Christ is a new Moses. No. You're making a mistake again. How is that a mistake?

I'll explain. In John 539, Jesus says, you search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life, but it is these that bear witness of me. The scriptures are about him. In Genesis 22, when Abraham and Isaac went up to the mount, it took three days to get there. Jesus in the grave, three days, right? The father and the son went up. Only the father came back. The son did not come back.

It's not recorded as that. Isaac said, where's the sacrifice? He says, God will provide for himself the sacrifice.

The ram was caught in a thicket of thorns. Jesus bore the thorns. The representation of that is clear because Jesus says the Bible's about him. So Moses is a type of Christ. Christ is not a type of Moses, okay? No. Christ is an anti-type of Moses. Okay. Is that not correct? No. No. Moses is a type of Christ, just as Josh was a type of Christ.

Adam was a type of Christ because Christ is the true model, and you say the earlier ones were a type of him. That's the best way to go. As soon as you start reversing it, then what happens is a lot of times, I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. When you reverse it, what happens is you then start interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old and sort of the Old in light of the New. It's a common exegetical problem. I was trying to help you out to get that.

Go ahead, Joel. Okay. That's not what I was saying. I was trying to communicate that that's not what I said.

You were responding to something I didn't say. I did not say Christ was a type of Moses. Christ is an anti-type of Moses because Moses is a type of Christ.

That's how typology works. So Joshua is a type of Christ, so Christ is a anti-type of Joshua. That is what I said. I'm doing exactly what you said we should be doing. I'm interpreting the Old Testament according to the gospels and according to the person of Christ. Okay. So if you want to say that Jesus is an anti-type of Moses, what are you going to do with that? I think we can also say that Christ on the cross is an anti-type of the tree of the garden in Eden. Okay. We've already gone over that and I've shown you that God doesn't use the term tree of life in that way.

He doesn't do that. But you would agree that it's an anti-type to, that Christ on the cross is an anti-type to the serpent in the desert, correct? Okay, here we go. God does not use the term tree of life the same way you're using it. I understand that, but would you agree that it's still, the cross is an anti-type to the bronze serpent?

I'm cautious to agree with you because of what you continually do in that you fail to understand the problem. Now the term tree of life occurs 11 times in the Bible. Let me ask you, have you looked at every single instance of the term tree of life in the Bible?

I mean I'm sure I can do it if it's only that few times. So you have not done it. So then what you're telling me is you've not examined how God uses it and you're trying to tell us what is really saying even though you haven't examined it. That's a mistake. I believe it's a psychological application.

I'm not eisegeting anything. I just believe it's the whole picture. It's a tapestry. How do you know if you're eisegeting or not if you haven't looked at how God uses the term to see if what you're saying is correct and biblical? Well we know the nature of Christ's work on the cross and we know the nature of the tree of life in the garden. So I think it's just like a one step of logic to see the connection between the two.

Okay I think what you need to do is actually study every instance of the tree of life first. Then what I would do if I were you in that I'd say what does God say about it? How is God using it through the prophets and the apostles? And then you adapt your theology to what God has said. The reason I'm so stuck on this is because of having studied cults for you know 45 years and dealt with them. I'm not calling you a cultist okay but you understand something.

I've seen how one little variation can just lead to all kinds of problems later on. That's why I say stick with the word and don't go beyond what's written in the word of God. You agree that you're not supposed to go beyond what's written in the word of God. Federal headship is taught in the Bible. It's the doctrine that the male not the female represents the descendants.

When Adam and Eve are in the garden, she sinned. That Christ being on the cross is also taught in the Bible. Okay.

Or Christ on the cross as a move to life is also taught in the Bible. We need to move along okay because you're not getting it. You're refusing to uh to just agree that you need to study the phrase before you make decisions on it. You haven't done that and you're you're not getting the concept of federal headship which I've given you scriptures to show what it is and you you keep going back and you're making the same mistakes. Okay.

Well I understand the con the only reason I brought up federal I understand the concept of the federal headship. I was the only just converted uh the Catholic this last Easter. So I've been a Protestant my whole life. I understand the Protestant perspective. Why would you give up salvation in Jesus for works in Catholicism? I all of my salvation is in Jesus. Absolutely.

No it's not. Paragraph 2068 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church says you attain salvation through faith baptism and the observance of the commandments. You have to observe the commandments that means you're still under the law. Not that you date I'm aware we're under we're all under the law of God but no my salvation is through Christ is through Christ alone.

No no no it's not not in Catholicism it's not it's through baptism penance the Eucharist commandments keeping that you say and then what the Catholic Church says that's through God's grace. It covers that error with a phrase and look we're out of time man. Why don't you go back tomorrow because music is going to start. Why don't you come back tomorrow. We can talk. Okay. That's why we'll do Soteriology.

I'll show you what the Catholic Church teaches what it does. All right. I like talking to you. Call back tomorrow. Okay buddy. We gotta go. All right.

Thanks for calling. Hey folks hope you enjoyed the conversation and in the Lord bless you. My good grace. Great grace. We'll be back on here tomorrow and we'll talk to you.