Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. 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 for answers. Taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slicker. Listen to Matt Slick Live. If.

If you want to give me a call, it's easy. All I have to do is dial 8772072276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. And um Yeah, I got the email thing.

We're still working on them. I've got a couple plans. What I'm trying to do is, I was going to say you could email me, but what I'm trying to do is move our emails. our system to something that is more secure. And it's taking a little bit more time than we thought and a little bit more difficult than I was hoping.

But when you have extra security, that's good. That means that anything that you were to email us about would Let's just say the email system is not in this country and it is exceedingly secure.

So that's what we're trying to do. And we're having a little bit of problems getting things going because it's getting a little more complicated than I thought. It's not like it's super rocket science. It's just, oh man, now I got to do this. That means I've got to contact them and see about that and this and see if I get a non-profit status with this company.

Then I need to be able to give access to individuals. And in order to do that, I've been in a certain plan. It's just stuff like that. And so we're just trying to work it out and make it more gooder. For everybody, security.

One of the things you've really been trying to do recently is really venture into the issue of security for the site. and uh for emails, for e-commerce. We are very concerned about that. It's not that we've had any problems, we never have, but it's just that with the rise of AI and the unscrupulous people who are out there, Uh we have uh moved ahead. trying to stay ahead of the wave.

So that when uh things arise, we're already taken care of. That is the case with the security of the CARM website. And a gentleman named Rod helped fund that, if he's listening. Thanks a lot, buddy. Really appreciate it.

I really do. And um we are also moving into the email uh adjustment thing. Ah. You know, I got so much to do. I got so much to do.

And uh I got We've got thank you letters to write. We got the new newsletter system going. That's a whole nother thing, a newsletter system, and we're going to be moving from one thing over to another as far as donations go. We're just moving. You know, that's just the nature of business.

Not that karma is simply a business, it's a ministry, but hey, you have things you've got to take care of, emails, finances. Getting information back to people, and that's a whole nother thing: our accountant needs information, I got to get it to him, and we can't do that till the email thing's right. You know how it goes. One thing leads to another.

So there you go. I'd wind a little bit and if you hadn't prayed about all those things so that it would run smoothie, that would be very nice. And speaking of all that, we do need your support. It's easy. All you have to do is go to carm.org.

And at the top of the page, depending on what you're on, if you're on your phone, it'd be on the menu, but it has a donate option. You go there. It's very secure and very fast and very simple. And you can help us out. We ask $5, $10, $15 a month.

Because that helps us out. We're trying to get a thousand people to do that. And we can. And if people would do that. That would be helpful.

Okay, we're trying to get enough to cover all the bills and pay the missionaries and. And let's see if I'm gonna say this or not. Um Stefan and somebody's right. I'm gonna say Stephen and Laurie. Uh Wow, thank you.

And I'll be writing a a thank you letter there. Andor calling up. But people have, you know, they've really. Um has shown lately appreciation for the ministry. You know, Carm is something I started thirty years ago, and the reason I started it was because I got tired of answering the same question on pre-Internet things.

Uh is that called bulletin boards, and I would uh go on these and you'd dial up and and uh r download or read a few things and then print them up. And then you on your really archaic word processor on your really old. 13-inch CRT computer screen. You'd write an answer, then you'd dial up later, tell the wife, I'm gonna be online, I'm gonna go online. She goes, Okay, that means don't make any phone calls, you know, you know, and then you get online.

and then put stuff up. And uh then you get offline and you go check it out a few hours later. And this is uh this is before the internet so. before the it really exploded I should say. And so I got tired of just answering the same thing.

I just invented this website called Carm. I didn't know what to call it. I just made Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. It sounds good enough. Didn't think it would be anything.

And well, now 30 years later, I'm full-time with it. We have millions and millions of visitors and three schools, 5,000 articles. and uh and stuff.

So You know, it just has really developed. And if you are interested, in fact, I got a recommendation. If you are interested in learning theology, we have three schools. The schools there are at learn.carm.org. You can go to the Carm page, the homepage there.

You can check them out. There's a lot of good stuff there. And we'd like, you know, you can check it out if you want to learn, okay, because they're there. The schools are there at the top, and it'll take you to that place. Sign up for them.

But uh What we've done at the site is over the years we've developed a lot of good information and. the statement of faith. If you were to go to Carm. for example, and type in statement of faith. Enter.

There it is, Statement of Faith of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. And you can read through it.

Now, And the reason I'm kind of focusing on it is uh is twofold. One, that's what people have to agree to to write for us. But number two or second I should say. is that it is a good, succinct, doctrinal statement. And you can go through there and you can learn a lot.

I've had people tell me that they have just read the Statement of Faith and studied it. And it's really helped them. They've really learned a lot of stuff. It's rather extensive. I don't know how many pages it would be if I were to I'm curious.

How many pages would it be before I print it up? I'm going to do that experiment while I'm talking. But you could go there and you could check it out. You could read through it and you could learn. theology just from that.

You don't have to read 5,000 articles that I've written. You could just go through that and learn the basics.

Now, there's more stuff attached. And things like that.

Alright, so when I put the uh I put the the whole thing. Wow.

Now that's with the left column, which takes up a lot of get rid of that so that's just a document part. I wonder if I could do that. Let's see. Doing that and then Cut. And so then it's ten pages long.

Yeah. It is ten pages of information that uh that's there.

So if uh you don't mind reading ten pages of condensed theology in different topics.

Well you can go there and study it. Statement of Faith in Karn Benwick. You see? Easy peasy. Let's get to Anthony from Kansas.

Anthony, welcome. You're on the air. How you doing, Matt? Oh, hanging in there, man. Hanging in there.

No, yeah. Thank you. It's been rough. Hang on in there, buddy. Um Um It seems that in progressive Christianity there's a teaching or ranches God is in fact not almighty.

And that the word used translated in our Bible is almighty, I think it's usually El Sheddai or whatever, has been mistranslated. Um So God is not almighty. How would you counter that?

Well, first of all, we have to go th uh uh and see if there is a phrase Almighty.

Now There's different ways of looking for it. And we can find that, for example, in 2 Corinthians 7. It says uh says the Lord Almighty.

So if I were to do a search for that and just to see How many times that occurs? Yeah, let's do a search this way. I'm gonna do it. No, not like that in the Bible. Here we go.

I'm going to do a search for just the word Almighty. to see how many times, 58 times it occurs in the Bible.

So When we look at that phrase, and you're right, SL should die. All right.

So okay, so it's there, okay, and it occurs many times.

Now, what was your question related to it again?

Sorry.

Well, they say it's been mistranslated. They shouldn't have translated it almighty. They should have translated it like all sufficient or something.

Some of the c some of them. private thing. All sufficient. Um Where do they get that?

So, when someone says something like this, I'm going to say, okay, what's your information? What's your source information for that? because it's uh Shaddai, and I'm looking in the Strong's Concordance. And it says Almighty, Mighty, Most Powerful, the Almighty of God.

So uh You know, I'm I'm like, okay. Where where are you getting that from? That's what I'm curious about. You know? Yeah, they seemed to It seems in a problem Width.

The problem of evil. If God is really Almighty, He could stop evil, but he hadn't stopped it.

So they try to say, God is. This new turn there that he is AMI Potent. He's all his love, his love, like his love never fails. In other words. Evil in the world, God hasn't stopped it, so he can't be all-powerful.

So you have to make God all love. Yeah, it's it's it can be this is this is uh when uh amateurs who can't tie their shoelaces properly try and do theology with logic. This is what you get, okay, flat out.

So, uh What they're doing is saying Almighty means that it requires that God behave in a certain way. That's what they're implying with the word.

Now they don't look at the word to see what it means in its context and its occurrences. They should do that. They should see how it's defined in Scripture. What they're doing is what's called an external critique. They're going outside the Bible and saying, well, Almighty means he needs to be able to stop evil.

And he should. But if he doesn't, he's not almighty.

Well, where do you get that definition out of scripture? We don't want to get it out of the cracker jack box or fortune cookie because this is the theology and the logic that are using, it doesn't make any sense.

So, first of all, I get to say, define it. It's like people saying God is all-loving.

Well, the Bible never says He's all-loving. All as an A-L-L. But Almighty just means that He is the most powerful one. And he can do whatever he desires. There's no reason in a definition of Almighty that it necessitates that evil doesn't have its place.

Now think about this. Jesus says in John 15:13, the greatest act of love is to lay your life down for your friend. That's the greatest act of love.

Now, God's a trinity from eternity past. How does he express the greatest act of love?

Well By dying. But he can't. You can't unless there's a fall. and sin in the world, and the effect of sin upon people who would then unrighteously I'll kill him. You know, in the incarnation.

So, in a broad sense, an example like this means that the fulfillment of the very nature of God is manifested. in real time in us, but only in the case of the fall. in which that the greatest act of love can be expressed.

Well If we're to say that evil must stop, And he needs to prevent it, then he needs to prevent the fall as well, the fall of Satan as well.

Now we have other problems because associated with this says, well, then that means God would not be enabled to express the greatest act of love if all of evil was done with.

Now, here's another question I like to ask them.

So, he's supposed to stop evil. I say, okay, what kind of evil? Give me a list. And they'll say things like murder and theft, extortion, you know, things like that. I said, okay, how about.

Oh, we got a break.

So, I'm going to get to this a little bit more and show you another problem they have, okay?

So, hold on, okay, buddy. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. and hope it'll get interesting be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with, there we go, with Anthony from Kansas. You still there, buddy? Yeah, I'm still here.

Alright, so when people tell me that God needs to stop evil. And that he's almighty, he should. You know, one of the questions I'll ask is: okay.

So what should he stop? And I'll give some examples. Like I said before the break, you know. Murder, extortion, theft. embezzlement, whatever.

And I said he should stop that.

Okay, yeah, he should stop those.

Okay. And some other things I don't want to mention on the radio.

Okay. So should he stop you thinking about those things because those are evil? What if you desire to do something evil? Should he stop you from thinking that too?

Now if they say, well no. I'm going to say, then why are you drawing the line between those? Because you want God to stop evil according to what you want Him to do. And yet, you'll give this line, which you can't defend, as why this needs to be permitted and that doesn't need to be permitted. Who are you?

to say what God ought to do. What is your universal standard of moral correctness that says this is what God ought to do, this is what God ought not to do? I said, I'm waiting. Tell me what your universal grounding is. I want to hear it.

Of course they don't they can't. I said so why is it you require God of something? And yet, you yourself, you can't even decide what level he ought to behave. to satisfy you. I said, Who are you?

You have no idea what's going on.

So this is the kind of problem that they have when they do this kind of a thing. Does that make sense? Yeah, um So It's like a Oh, the other question I had was there's a commentary out there that starts It starts with a Z. The author starts with a Z. I can't remember it right now, but It gives you the words in the Bible, it also tells you what each word means in its context.

Oh, yeah, that's spiras zontiates. Yes, uh-huh. Could you spell that? Yeah, it's Spiros is his first name. He's Greek.

S-P-I-R-O-S. and Zotiades. I think it's Let's see, I don't know how to spell it. Um Let's see if I can just r run it into Into Google maybe, you know, let's put the name in it. Let's see if it'll give me the right spelling.

Spiros Zahadiates. Let's see. And uh yeah, Z O D Oh, I actually spelled it right. How about that? Z-O-D-H-I-A-T-E-S.

Z-O-D-H-I-A-T-E-S. It's called a Word Study Bible, and I've got it, and he does very interesting work.

Okay, all right.

Okay. Okay. Um Okay. I have one other question. These same people, you know, progressive Christians have a lot of problems with the violence, you know, chestnut, particularly.

Wiping out of the Canaanites, and that irritates. It irritates me to no end to keep calling it genocide. And okay. Look, just do this.

Okay, this is what I do with them when I say that. I say, is it wrong? Yeah. Okay. Is it wrong?

Well, yes, it's wrong.

Well ask them, why is it wrong? You gotta understand something here. They have no right to say what's right and wrong. What is their universal standard of of righteousness? This is the first principle.

When someone says this is wrong, they shouldn't do that, the underlying assumption is. That they are decreeing and deciding what is right and wrong. Where do they get this? Are they making it up?

Now, this may not sound real satisfying, but I'll tell you something. The more you argue with them about it, the more they back up.

Now, there's different ways of answering the question. It's just one of them. Because usually, contextually, God gives a lot of warning to the people, and then he destroys them when they don't listen to him, and he has the right to execute people according to his righteous judgment. And if he executes the youth before they get to any mature age, theoretically, they would all go to heaven, and so he'd be saving a lot more people than damning them.

So, there's all kinds of explanations that we can give. There's covenantal faithfulness and the requirements under the Adamic Covenant that the people of Israel, excuse me, the non-Israelites, are breaking in the Adamic covenant, and so they deserve judgment. I can get into theology from different ways. But they're assuming. They're assuming that they have the right to judge.

What is universally true? I want to know. Where do you get your universal truth standard? When you tell me, well, they would say.

Well, they would say, Well, Jesus is God, it violates the love ethic of Jesus. Apparently not, since he overturned temple tables and drove people out with a court of whips, and when he returns, he's going to uh judge people and send them to hell.

So I say to them, this is what I do sometimes when I'm talking to people, I go, next. And what that is, is I answered that.

Next person, but you know, it's just a way of kind of playing with them because. They don't tell them I also tell them this, I say, why do I have to do all your homework? He said, I do all your homeworking for you guys. I said, You don't research these things, you come up with these answers or these questions, you think that they're really good, gotcha questions. Obviously, you haven't researched any potential answers from Christians.

I said, there's this website you can go to called carm.org, and you can get some answers there, among other places. And I say, why do you not study? Why do you do that? You make up morality, and then you don't study potential answers. And you come in, and I said, I can't help it.

I'm wondering: is that an issue of your pride? Because you don't want to humble yourself before God. and I give them the gospel. No.

Well, one of them would say basically that Um They read, I challenged someone with that on Facebook. That's not really a good place to challenge people, you know. But they said, I check out commentaries on books. that um do not have a Do not have a theological bias. And I will back saying, Um everybody has a bottle.

They're checking theological books that don't have a bias? What did they say?

Okay, then you say, okay, give me one of those book titles. Which one is it? I I it's a real one. You ask them. Yeah.

And then, if they do give you one, you just take a quick say, excuse me, I'm going to take a do a just a quick look. Go and Google whatever it is, this book title, the author, and summarize this and say, Okay, now is that person right, or is the person wrong, or partially right, or partially wrong, or what? How do you judge? Or is it just someone you like because it it just fits your preferences? We're back to the next one.

Yeah, back to the same problem. What is your standard of righteousness? Who are you to answer to God or to say to God, why have you done this? What standard of righteousness have you got? And you read some book by some guy?

How do you know that that guy is correct? And I say, furthermore, you have another problem. When you critique something, you can do what's called an internal or an external critique. An external critique is, well, The uh the atheist wrote this article. That there's no God, and the Bible says there's no God, it says there is a God, so therefore that article is wrong.

I'm using an external source, an external means by which different than what that article is and that author. to judge that author and judge that article. It's called an external critique. An internal critique would be to go into the article and only use information revealed in that article.

Now, if I do that and I find internal inconsistencies, I've shown that he has problems. And then I have you know, we can get it there's some techniques and all this stuff.

Now When someone says, well, this other book now tells us how the Bible is supposed to be, that's an external critique. What validates the external standard as being the right one? These are the questions you have to ask them. And when you do this, you're going to find out that they're going to start whining and complaining and calling you names.

Okay, hold on one more time. We gotta break it. We'll be right back, folks, after these messages. And please stay tuned. We don't have any open lines, so you gotta wait.

Be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your call at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, bottom of the hour. If you want to give me a call, you got to wait.

We've got no open lines right now, none.

So let's get back to Anthony from Kansas. Are you still there, buddy? Yeah, I'm still here.

Yeah, I'm I'm still I'm still here. Yeah. So uh Basically You say the answer is When they started the second case of stuff, they do have the second thing. You mumbled. I can't understand you.

I can't understand you. And all of a sudden it's just. Yeah. Yeah. So, um It's kind of gone off anyway.

Thanks a lot for your answers.

So here's the last question. Here's the thing. Always have them justify the basis. of their assumptions. They can't just say it is right or it is wrong.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. They need something that's applicable. That's where you gotta hit them. And if you continually do that, you'll find out. that they won't have any.

any uh argument. It's worth the salt, okay? All right, man.

So you ask on what's the basis of your assumption. Yes. What justifies their basic assumptions? Like when God has people wiped out, they'll say it's wrong. Why is it wrong?

Well, because it's wrong. Why is it wrong?

What's your reason? Are you appealing to the universal being who is God, the author and revealer of all that is morally true? Are you appealing to some ethereal essence out there and picking and choosing of moral pr um statements out of some um Ether? Where? Where are you getting it from?

Otherwise, if you don't have anything, you have no right to sit there and say, This is what God ought to do or not to do. Who are you to judge Him? You've got nothing. All right.

Okay. All right, buddy. We're going to move along on the right, God bless.

Okay. All right, now next longest waiting is Nathan from South Dakota. Welcome. You are on air. Ah, hi, Matt.

How's it going? Oh, it's going, buddy. What do you got, man? What's up?

So, I have been talking with some of my Catholic friends and seeing a lot of Catholic. I guess exorcists on social media recently talking about, you know. their experiences with demons and all this stuff. And my question is, how do I, A, respond to that And B, how much I'm not saying I trust him. I'm saying how much can I non-Catholic trust their spiritual experiences and understanding of the spiritual world.

Well They can only trust Any experience in so far as it is consistent with scripture. All right.

My general rule of thumb when dealing with this. That that should be the that that's it.

Now in the Acts 9.13. And also, some of the Jewish exorcists who went from place to place attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus. In the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you, by Jesus whom Paul preaches. And then in verse fifth, uh, it goes on, it says, The evil spirit answered, said, I recognize Jesus, I know about Paul. But who are you?

And the man in whom the evil spirit leapt on them and it subdued them and they went away.

So There There are cases of unbelievers right there. Being able To affect the spiritual world through the name of Jesus Christ. The point here is just because the Catholics can cast out a de demonic force doesn't mean they're true. Because the name of Jesus is where the power is. And even a false priest, as in the EO and the RC, both are false priesthoods, they use the name of Christ and a demonic force comes out.

Then I would just, and I have said this to them: I said, if it occurs in your church. Two, I mean, first of all, it can happen with the sons of Skiva in Acts 19. And second, it could be a demonic force imitating being cast out so that they can believe your false church. That was one of my concerns actually when I was trying. Close.

Figure out how to respond to this. I'm like, hey. Uh-huh.

Okay, thank you. Yep. And you can also cross-reference it with um Matthew 7, 22 and 23. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, do we not Uh perform any miracles, cast out demons, In your name, and he goes, get away from me, I never knew you.

So, the idea of being able to cast out demonic forces is certainly. a scriptural one and it can be done even though the people who are doing it aren't of God. All right.

Thank you. Thank you. I've forgotten a couple of those. Yeah, it does not mean their church is true.

Okay. So how do I know that? Go ahead. I'm not concerned about whether the truth is true. There's so many other things about them that are.

off base. I'm just more trying to How do I put this? I didn't really have a good response for some of their more supernatural claims. I'm like, how do I counter this? Because I can counter some of the other stuff fairly well.

Just based off. other scriptures, but supernatural bed, I was like, I need a to talk to someone. more experienced than I am. Yeah. Okay.

Well, did that help though? Yeah. Oh, yeah, that helped immensely. Thank you. Like I answered my question.

Perfectly. Good.

Well good. I'm I'm I'm glad. All right, brother. Good stuff. Looks like we do.

Thank you so much.

Alright man, God bless.

Okay. How about you? Bye. All right.

Okay, good.

Now, next longest waiting is Jermaine from the People's Republic of California. Jermaine, how are you doing? Oh, hello, Farmer Contract. I think I uh Doing okay today. You are?

Good.

So yeah, I want to ask about First Kings chapter twelve, verse ten. a statement that that Rayo Baum makes after he's dismissed all the um the elder Israelites advisors and he's going with youngsters who sound like his friends. and getting really bad advice. He makes a statement about his rule being basically thicker than his father's loins. And since I was a kid, I've always wondered, is that a reference to His waist, or is he speaking of below the waist, like genitalia, like trying to be a macho type of man?

Because that's kind of. What it comes off as. Yeah. Um It seems to be that uh Yeah. Uh So I've heard comment I read some stuff on it and it's a reference to That thing.

Yes. Mm-hmm. That's what uh I've heard about.

Okay, well, which would make more sense. I've actually seen some other translations, and it seems like. There was an attempt to go with a softer meaning, but I was like, well, that makes no sense. Niversity. sense of the word where where I agree with you, it that that seems like a boastful claim that someone would make if they're really was kind of lost their minds.

They were thinking fleshly, carnally, so Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yep. Yeah. I'm trying to be polite here.

But yeah, it's an arrogant boast. And if you want to say, and even today, we men can kind of relate to that kind of an insult. And if they meant it as an insult, we take it that way.

Sometimes our friends, we joke with each other. But that's generally understood what it means. It's, yeah, my fingers, blah, blah, blah. Then at the end, yeah, blah, blah, blah. We've got children out there listening potentially.

I don't want to, you know.

Okay?

So that's what I would say it is. Yeah, absolutely.

Okay. Well, thank you, Radbad. Let's be no, I'm not crazy.

Okay. Well, it doesn't mean you're not crazy, but at least in this, you're pretty good.

So, right, right. But it lets me know I'm not crazy.

So, in that respect, I might be crazy, but for me, I'm good. You're good, that's right. Yeah. Yeah, and some people call it waste, the father's waste, but maybe I'll do some more research into it.

Okay?

All right.

Okay, yeah, I think it's pretty clear what he's saying, but yeah, yeah, I appreciate it, man. As usual, thanks for the answer. All right, brother. God bless, man. Our goblins.

Alright. All right, all right, all right.

Now, if you want to give me a call, we have three open lines, 8772. 072276. We've got a break coming up here, but let's get to Rebecca from Salt Lake City. Rebecca, welcome. You're on the air.

Yeah. Hello. Hello, Rebecca. Hello?

Okay. Thank you. Hello?

Well, if I can't hear you. Hello?

Oh, there you go. All right, you're on the air. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, yes, yes.

Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Oh, okay. I'm so sorry. I had a question. About the resurrection and Jesus every stuff. Rolls me good.

Okay. When he was, uh When he was uh into Earth, he He was Peter King and he was uh was born of a woman, so he was Half man. No, it wasn't half man. It was not half man. No, no, we gotta say it right.

We gotta wait a little bit. Wait till the break. We're gonna wait till the break and then we'll get back. Hold on. We'll get back to you after the break, okay?

And we'll continue with this.

So please hold up. Thank you. Okay, hold on, Rebecca. Hey folks, we have three open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back.

It's Matt Slick Live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the last segment of The Hour. Let's get back on with Rebecca from Salt Lake City. Rebecca, are you still there?

Yes, are you still there?

Okay, Mac. Um Um and the resurrection. No.

Let's start when when when Jesus when Jesus uh came down from heaven. and he became man and he was full GHT two. He was what?

Okay, yeah, we don't say he was half-man. We say he, the one person, had two distinct natures: a divine nature and a human nature.

Okay, so go ahead. See, that's confusing to me. Because, okay, he was full man and full deity, right? Yeah, two natures. Yes.

You're still God?

Okay. So what confuses me in the resurrection Um then Ah. Part, I mean, his full human body, he died.

So that's weird to me that both of them Why didn't they both get resurrected at the same time? I don't understand that.

So think of it this way.

Okay. You have a be very simplistic here. You have a bag, paper bag, and you put an apple and an orange in there. In the one bag are two separate distinct fruit. An apple and orange.

So they've remained distinct in the one bag. You can take that bag and walk with it and do things with it, move it, and what is in there stays in there.

Now that's just an analogy. In the case of the person of Jesus, he's alive. And so we have a divine nature and a human nature. let's just say within the person. The person of Jesus has those two natures.

So he's divine and human, and he accesses both of those natures. In that, he says, I am thirsty, that's a human nature, I'll be with you always, even to the end of the earth. That's divine.

So he claims the attributes of both of those natures. In the one person.

So when Jesus died on the cross. The physical body is what experienced the death.

Okay. the person of Christ continued after the death. The person was still the in the union of the divine and the human nature. Still, And this, let's just say, rejoined, let's just say, the physical resurrected body.

Now some might say without the physical body there's no Human nature. That's not true. the physical body houses the human nature. Because we can be apart from the body, and we know that from 20 uh 2 Corinthians 12, 2 through 4. Or a person was.

Now that's what I'm trying to explain. Is there was two of them, you know, but they were combined in one. Two natures. He was right, two natures. I'm sorry, yes, two natures.

Right.

Okay. So didn't the the human nature didn't it? Die too? I mean, can you still have that humanism? The human physical body experienced a death.

The person has both natures.

So the person experiences death. By definition, the divine nature can't die. It can't die because it's not. Right.

So how then is the sacrifice of divine value? it's because of a doctrine called the communication of the properties. The Latin term in theology is communicatio idiomatum. And what it means is that the one person of Jesus has the attributes of both natures, divine and human. It would be like, and this is really stretching the analogy, it'd be like saying the bag with the apple and the orange has the attributes of both the apples and the orange in the thing called the bag now.

It's not a great analogy at this point, but the idea is that there's a transference. a communication of Those attributes of the divine and the human to the one person. The one person died on the cross, therefore, the sacrifice is of divine value.

Okay. Well Well, so then um it just seems like uh Half of him was no. Yeah, we'll see.

So that The other attribute of him die. No, no. No, the attributes did not die. the human nature experienced death in the physical way.

So when someone dies, that the spirit continues existing and goes on to be, if you're a Christian, goes to be with the Lord. That person is still human. even though the physical manifestation is not there. But the spiritual nature of being human continues even without the physical body. Humanity is not equal to the physical body.

A person's human essence is not equal to the physical body. Because if that were the case, when the physical body died, then the human person dies. And there's logical problems with that, and I won't get into them right now.

So, okay. Oh, well, I would I'd like to hear it all, but okay, some idea. You saw him? What's that? That gives me a little bit of an idea.

Yeah, but I would like to listen more if you have the time. Sure, no problem. Do you want me to explain more things? Do you have more questions or what? What would you like?

No, no, just continue on if you make me figure it out better. All right.

So if the human soul or slash spirit is equal to the physical body. then it would mean, then, that when the physical body dies, the human spirit slash soul ceases to exist. But that brings up the problem what's called continuity. and also of what's called property dualism. And so continuity is I illustrate it this way.

if I were to go out into a my garage and build a chair With exact dimensions from exact plans. And I showed you that chair. you'd say that's a really nice chair. Then I go out into the garage and I destroy that chair chair and I put it out in a fire and destroy it. And then I make another chair exactly like it and show it to you.

Is it the same chair? No it's not. It's a different chair. Because the continuity or the continuation of the first and second chair has stopped. The first chair's existence has ceased.

Now you have what's called the continuity issue. If the human soul ceases to exist and God creates another one exactly like it, it's not the original. This is a very serious spiritual logical problem with the idea that the human soul ceases to exist upon death.

Furthermore, second problem was what's called a property uh property dualism and it's something called substance dualism. Substance dualism says that the human soul is a different substance than the body, so when the body dies, the human soul continues on in existence. Property dualism, that's the biblical one. That's the biblical one. Property dualism is a problem that's derived out of the idea that the soul and the body are equal to each other.

When the body dies, the soul dies, stops existing. This would imply what's called property dualism. The problem here is that property dualism means that the soul spirit is the product of the physical body, hence the physical brain. If that's the case, then... That would mean then that the human soul slash spirit is a product of of chemical reactions in the brain.

Because the brain is physical and must operate under the laws of physics and chemistry.

Well, then that would necessitate then that the human spirit soul is simply a product of chemical reactions.

Well then how do you justify free will? How do you justify volition? How do you justify truth statements? All kinds of things that get into those categories, too.

So, this is why this is problematic. And, you know, I teach this stuff sometimes.

Okay, can I just interrupt for a moment? Sure. If I may.

Okay, now I was talking about Jesus being one with. They're human.

Okay. Two and one, they're combined. The chairs are separate. They're not, they're not even so. You know, that was a different chair, they were never together.

The chairs was simply an illustration to demonstrate what continuity is. That's a different category than Jesus having two distinct natures in one person.

Okay. Yeah, his having two natures. His having two natures is not the same thing as one chair. destroyed another chairs there. That's a different category.

Different sortle in logic philosophy.

Okay. So, yeah. All right.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, that makes more sense. Yes, indeed it does. I'll have to think about it.

Okay, I can go on Carm and look for what? Do you have something on that, the resurrection? Yes, just type in the word resurrection, type in Jesus' resurrection, type in, did Jesus die spiritually? Uh You can type in what is dualism, you can type in. Property dualisms, you can type in.

Hypostatic union, you can type in how many natures did Jesus have. And these are articles I've written with all this theology and all this stuff in mind as I put these things down for the average person to understand.

Okay. I'm not average. No, you're just like anybody else. You're average. I've had to explain this so many times, hundreds and hundreds of times over the years.

And when I first heard it, I had to have it explained to me. I just do it a lot so I can explain it.

So you're just like anybody else. This is new stuff. And um And what you did was different than most, is you said, Tell me everything. You want to know even more. That's not the average person.

So you're you're let's say you're above average, okay?

Okay. You're just trying to give me a compliment. I'm sorry. That is the truth, Carl. You have a good answer.

I don't lie. I don't know. I don't practice lines.

Okay, well neither do I.

So I take that gracefully. Thank you so much.

That's very nice. You're welcome.

Okay. You have a good day and uh thank you for answering my question. You you too. God bless.

Alright. Well, that was nice. That was a nice conversation. She'd probably be interesting to sit down with and just say, tell me stories of. The old days, whatever, because you can tell she's up there.

So, folks, what I was telling you is stuff that I've had to work out and deal with and figure out in light of countless challenges that critics of the hypostatic union, the communication of the properties, the ontological and economic trinities as relate to the ontos, universals, and particulars. all of that stuff I've had to deal with it from different angles multiple times, which is why I understand it. And by God's grace, I'm able to understand it.

So then I write these articles down for you to read them. They're there. And I sneak into those articles on Carm. I sneak in advanced stuff without you knowing it's advanced stuff. I sneak stuff in there and they'll explain it.

Yeah, he has two natures. We call this, blah, blah, blah, a hypostatic union. And that means the one person has two natures and the attributes of them are ascribed to him, or he claims them both. I'm actually talking about the hypostatic union and the communicatio idiomatum. At that time, putting it right there in easy to understand words.

At least that's the attempt.

So, anyway, there you go. We've got about 15 seconds left in the show. May the Lord bless you. Please consider supporting us. We do need that support.

And you can do that by going to carm.org forward slash donate. And we have to pay the radio bill. We've got to pay the missionaries and other things. Multitudinous stuff. And uh Just let you know.

All right, by God's grace, we'll be back on here tomorrow. And Lord willing, we'll talk to you then.

So have a great evening, that Lord. God bless.

Yeah, yeah. Another program powered by the Truth Network.