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 carn.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.

Alright and welcome back. A Today's date, let's see. Today's date's June 17th, 2026 for the podcasters. If you want to give me a call, you can. All you have to do is dial 87720722.

Seven, six. I want every friend to give me a call, and you can also, if you are interested and so inclined, you can send me an email at info at carm.org. Info at CARM.org. Put in a subject line, radio comment or radio question, and then we can get to it if you want to do that. And let's see, we've got nobody waiting right now.

So, um last night I was in a discussion. And uh It was, what was it? Let's see about that. What was the show? An atheist who used to say he used to be a Christian.

And his name was Tribulae. Tribulae? Tribule? Uh and um We had a really great conversation, he and I, for about an hour and a half. He was polite.

He was pleasant to talk to. He listened. I listened. We disagreed on things, but he wasn't rude. He wasn't antagonistic.

It was really good. I'm going to go through some of the stuff that we talked about. And um then uh this guy named uh facade came in. And let's just say that facade Was rude, argumentative, demanding, more of a bully. Interrupted, was really bad.

And he was a co-host, I guess, in the past shows on this thing. And it was Pretty bad right away. Right away, I didn't want to talk to him. Not because I can't answer him, but because I can. One of the things I did was refuted him on something he said, and he just ignored it and went on to something else.

I ended up just telling him to go away, I'm not going to talk to him, because he was just so difficult. I don't know if any of you heard that exchange last night. You know, if you did, you want to call up, make some comments, what you heard, what you thought, anybody, you know, you can do that. If not, no big deal. And so I thought the conversation went really well, great conversation.

And um I'm not saying it was any Victor, Victory, and all this kind of stuff. Like, I beat him or he beat me. But I do want to go over some of the things. I took a lot of notes. as I I often do, take a lot of notes.

And just go over some of the things we talked about last night. This guy was saying that. Uh he tried to represent uh presuppositionalism. And he did a pretty good job.

Okay, he did a pretty good job of what it is. Presuppositionalism claims that God, not merely a belief in God, is required for reasoning.

So even an atheist implicitly accepts God. When he uses logic, I said, Yeah, I think I remember. Yeah, basically, that's it, it'll work for now, you know. And um We got talked about different things, and he said that there were four basic axioms: reality exists, plus the three laws of logic.

So I would just say r he too I would have s h think he would have summed him up in reality and and the laws of logic. But anyway, he said the three laws: law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle. as his terminus. And I told him what a terminus was because he wasn't familiar with it. And um He wasn't all also he wasn't familiar with the problem of the one and the many, and I'd explain it to him.

But nevertheless, I responded that axioms still need grounding for their universality and necessity. simply labeling l labeling them axiomatic doesn't explain why they uh why they are uh axiomatic. And I said to him, if you can just say that something is what it is, then I can just say that God exists. I said, just saying it. Doesn't make it so, right?

And just because he says, well, they're just axiomatic. What atheists will often do is they will claim something is axiomatic. What it means is it's just true because it's true. basically what it comes down to. And they don't need any grounding.

But then I can ask him, why does your statement have validity that they don't need any grounding. Because you have to use logic to ground that. What are you grounding your logic in? And just stuff like this. Um But axioms still need a grounding in that if they say that the axioms are just true.

Then, what are the characteristics of axiomatic propositions? What are they? Do they have characteristics? And things we can get into all, I'm not going to get all that right now, but there we go. We also got into the issue of, and he said, and rightfully so, both sides presuppose their terminus without really grounding it further.

So, presuppositionalism, he says, has no advantage over his position. And I responded, well, we can ground logic in God's Trinitarian nature. From merely asserting logic is true. But these are not equivalent circularities. You see, everybody.

Will presuppose certain values consistent with their worldview. You can't prove everything that you believe, you can't prove everything. You just can't. You have to work from certain assumptions that are consistent with your worldview. And I said, the issue isn't that.

Everybody has circularity. I said the issue is which worldview can ground the validity of the arguments that you use about circularity. That's the issue. Yeah. And um It got kind of interesting later in the discussion, which I don't, which I'll admit, I had a little bit of difficulty understanding what he was trying to say.

Uh because um I thought the concept was incoherent. But then I I noticed that we're having problems with definitions. And this is often the case when someone's bringing something up, and I'll ask what a definition is. Like I ask, what's reality? And reality is what is.

I said, but that doesn't describe me. It doesn't help you. He says, like, saying reality is what is.

Well, what is?

Well, that's what reality is.

Well, what? What? You know, what's a circle? It's a round thing. What's a round thing?

What's a circle? It doesn't tell you anything. It just tautologists just repeats on itself.

So uh anyway uh He said, if I try to remember this one, for God to be real, reality must already exist. Therefore, reality grounds God, not the reverse. And uh So I told him he committed a a category error. God is not a member of an inside subset. of reality, but the necessary precondition that uh brings reality into existence.

Well, then we see this is why we had this problem with what reality is. And I tried to to uh have that discussion with them. And it wasn't easy. Uh and so It's not like he was dumb, he wasn't, he was a good guy, but I just think that. That um This is my opinion.

This is my opinion. Not just him, but others, other atheists that I have. had encounters with like this. I've noticed a similarity in that A lot of them They can only go so far. down the logic road, and then they're stumped.

And they can't take a step further wi without just restating what they already affirm, but they're not grounding or justifying why what they're just affirming is true. And I've seen this a lot and um Now the atheist may say the same thing with me, and I say not necessarily, because we we we when we presuppose a Christian Trinitarian God, then everything makes sense. And we get into these sub-arguments, but anyway, He said emergent properties Have to do with differentiation.

Now, the reason I brought this up is because of the problem of the one and the many. Yeah. I believe this is uh this was it.

So that He didn't know what that was, and I'm not knocking him for that. I'm not saying, oh, see, he should have known and he's dumb. No, no, no, not at all. But a lot of people are not familiar with it.

So I explained in a basic view, a basic summation. The problem of the one and the many is a 2,500-year-old problem, a philosophical problem. What's the ultimate nature of reality? Is the ultimate nature of reality one thing or many things? if it's one thing, then everything is of one substance.

But if everything is of one substance, then ill then what is differentiated between chairs and trees is simply an illusion because everything's of one substance, and this undermines truth values. On the other hand, if everything is many, In other words, many different kinds of substances, then what unites them together that we can then draw relationships between them. Does the substances are are they eternal? And then how do you have eternal independent osse categories like this? And it undermines truth values because you don't have coherence between substances that are unrelated.

And so I hope that wasn't too confusing. And I suggested he study this, because I need to study it too, but this is a serious problem. And he said, well, emergent properties, that's what allows distinction. Because the reason he said this was because I said your view leads to and necessitates the one, that everything of reality is just simply one thing. Because you're a materialist, he's a naturalist, he's a methodological naturalist.

And uh, but surprisingly later on, he said he's open to the possibility. Of the supernatural existing, you just haven't seen any evidence for it. And then, at the end of the time, about an hour and a half, you want to discuss evidence at another time. I said, sure, let's do that. which I thought would be very interesting.

what constitutes evidence. And we went through that a little bit. But at any rate, back to this emergence properties doesn't produce distinctions, I said. It produces variations of one substance. It really doesn't show anything.

Yeah. And um So he was a methodological naturalist. and what looked appeared to be for a little while a nominalist. What this means is that naturalism is assumed as a A Uh something. When you use the method of scientific approach, You presuppose That the universe works under natural laws, and then you try and figure out what things are because of natural laws.

That's a method, methodological naturalism. And we got into other discussions about categories like chairs and trees. And he didn't agree that there were these universals of chair-ness and treenness or number two-ness. And I said, well, that's nominalism, that you don't believe in the in uh these things. And he wasn't sure what that was, but anyway.

So uh uh but even you know, my my response, I believe, if I remember correctly is methodological naturalism can't ground uh the immaterial universal laws of logic. And that's it. How do they ground them? because if everything is methodologically naturalistic, just materiality and energy, basically, is what we're I'm just reducing these things to the simple versions so you guys can follow along. Then how do you have universals like the number two?

Or roundness, or treeness. These are universal concepts. and that they're independent of our minds because they're not dependent on what we see. Yeah. Anyway, that's not, and then we got into another thing.

We got into: if God did not exist and nothing existed, then that was true. He said then it would be true that nothing existed. He says if nothing exists, then it's true that nothing exists. And I said no, no, no, that doesn't make sense. Truth requires a mind, and it's a proposition.

If nothing exists, no minds exist, and no truth statements would be made.

So, making his hypothetical situation incoherent. Atheists have done this before.

Well, they try to say, Well, if nothing exists, it's true that nothing exists. I say, No, you don't understand. If nothing exists, then truth doesn't exist because nothing exists. It's nothing. Nothing is what rocks think of.

Nothing. And I've had to work with atheists on this before. They can't seem, a lot of them can't seem to understand that if they posit that nothing exists, then you can't make statements. About the truth of those things because there's nothing. What they have to do is say if nothing exists, I'm not in that worldview, I'm outside that worldview to talk about that worldview, which means you're refuting that worldview.

And then we got into infinity is not a. quantity or specific Time reference, and then we've got the break coming up.

So, hey. I don't know if this is interesting to you or not. Or if you're like, I'm tuning out, I can follow. But hey, if you want to give me a call, talked about last night or what I'm talking about or something else. The number is 877-2072276.

We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your call at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Robini, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, it is so easy to do. Just dial 877-207-2276. You can also email me at info at carmbattorginfo at c-arm.org. I'm going to continue with analyzing the discussion I had last night.

Now, I know that a lot of you may just say, you know, Matt, I'm sorry, I just can't follow this. And that's okay. What I could do, I just had a thought. What I could do is put up an article about this. our our g engagement.

I could. I mean, I don't know if you would like that. If you'd like that, I could put some more details in it, analyze the video. If you want, you know, and if not, no big deal.

So I might start doing this more with more interactions that I'm having with people, analyze videos, and put up those analysis and also some other stuff that we'll be doing. But at any rate, Oh man, it was just a lot going.

So, I asked in the chat room if anybody saw the interaction we had last night. uh and Loris's that she did with her hub hubby. And that's good. And that's about all I've got.

Okay.

So anyway.

So let me make a kind of comment about what apologetics is.

So Apologetics is in a kind of a word, a short sentence. Uh highfalutin, heady in your brain stuff you're going to talk a lot about. All right, and uh most people They just don't they don't want that. Most people are like, uh So what did he what did Jesus say right there? And that's it.

And they don't have The wherewithal, the desire uh to know these these more upper y kind of things. I like this stuff. To me, it's entertainment. Like my wife always said that I had issues. you know, 'cause my idea of a good time is is uh doing apologetics, writing theology, listening to debates, things like that.

Her idea of a good time is going out to dinner, seeing a movie. Like, w why? Because you all that right home and you could cook. And the death round would get a stare at it from her. I'd you know, she had all these stares all the time.

I didn't know what was going on. You know, and then she'd rub her forehead and make a sound like this.

So anyway.

So uh you know, she had issues. I tried to help her with them, you know. I said, Look, I got if you listen to me, things will work fine Then she'd make that sound again.

So uh at any rate, so you know, I like this stuff, but uh a lot of people don't.

So Let me ask you, let me ask you, uh if you guys would like me to to um Attach the vi the To write an article where I do the analysis of it. And um And stuff like that. I wonder. Just thinking about that. Cool.

You could let me know. All right, so I'm going to go back into it.

So let's see.

Now, one of the things you brought up was about infinity. The reason is because I brought up this argument that if the universe. Came into existence.

Now, this is where we got into the problem of defining what reality was. And we never really settled it. But The universe came into existence, what caused it, and then we were talking about the cause. And I was going through the Kalam cosmological argument with him, but he. And I'm going to admit that I wasn't exactly understanding how he was relating things.

And um But when we're talking, I remember thinking, you know, he's confusing actual and potential infinite. And that is where I thought the problem was. But at any rate, I did distinguish between actual and potential infinites and maintaining that an eternally existing impersonal cause. With sufficient conditions, it would produce its effect eternally, conretting his position.

So he asked this question, and he said, and I thought it was a fair question, too. And I even told him that. I said, look, it's a fair question. He says, if this issue of eternality is a problem for the thing that had the necessary conditions, what about God? You're saying that God is eternal.

And I said, you know, I think it's a fair question to ask about that. It's one of the things I've worked through or tried to work through for years and never really got to where I wanted it to be. And um Uh I said, I don't know how it works with God. I don't know if time. is a property of God's nature or if it's something He created, and then we have to define what time is and then apply it to God or not God.

And I said, it just gets really complicated. There's a lot of rabbit holes to go down and and explore in this conversation. And I've thought about it a lot. And I said, I just don't want to have a good answer. And um And so he was, you know, he's a good guy, and I even made a joke at this point.

I said, once I thought I understood it, I heard in my brain a sound. And then they couldn't understand anything. He kind of smiled at that.

So he got the joke.

So he had a good temperament, he was a good guy. And uh we discussed that and um Let me get into a couple more things, then we'll get to Patrick. This will be interesting.

So he made a statement, and I thought he was logically valid. He said, granting that if Jesus was born of a virgin, if he rose from the dead, and if he ascended into heaven, then none of these necessarily means that he is God. And I said, I grant that. Because within the logical realm of possibility, it could be that a God or a being is giving these abilities to him. It doesn't mean he's God.

And he said, that's correct. And we'd ran out of time basically, but I said um Uh I said I agree that, but We need to understand what Jesus said about himself. That's the critical issue. What was he saying about himself? Because if he's claiming to be God, then we can believe what he says, and what he's doing is backing up what he says.

And that's how he would know. Then you got into this issue of what is evidence. And it was really interesting. But one, I'll end with this. One of the things I thought was worth discussing is.

If God uh revealed truth uh How would it okay? He said, We talked about the issue of suppressing truth, and I told him he is suppressing the truth of God in his sinfulness. And that God must grant belief. And I quoted in the verses, you know, John. Philippians 1:29, God grants that you have faith.

In John 6:65, God grants that you come to Christ. I said, God hasn't granted that to you. And I said Boom. but he wants to say, well, he's not responsible for his not believing if the evidence is insufficient. It's a general revelation through creation and conscience of the law written in your heart is there.

And so you are without excuse, and you have suppressed the truth of God in your sin and your unrighteousness. Anyway, this was the conversation we had. And I thought it was interesting, and it was a good convo. Let's get to Patrick from North Carolina. Patrick, welcome.

You're on the air. Hello, Matt. How are you doing? I'm doing all right. How are you doing?

I'm doing good. Um What do you think of AI is going to replace apologetics? It's not going to.

Well, AI, I think, knows more than Mostly any human When it comes to the Bible and everything, wouldn't you say that true? That AI knows more about the Bible than most humans? Um It doesn't know. Knowledge is something that has to do with cognition and mental acuity. it can have the ability to recall what we call facts and produce them in sentences.

It doesn't have knowledge. It just has the capacity to output information. Yeah, but AI wouldn't have a personal interpretation. That's why I think that AI is a better option when it comes to apologetics.

Well, hold on. That's a good question, though. But hold on, we'll get back and we'll talk about it some more, okay? Hey, folks, you'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned.

It's Matt Slick Live, taking your call at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

All Robin, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. Patrick, are you still there? Yes, I'm still here. All right.

So you wanted to know if uh apologetics is better done by AI, right?

Well, I believe AI could do apologetics. And like I said, it doesn't have a personal interpretation. which is that's the problem when it comes to some apologetics is They're using their own personal interpretation. Yes. And And uh Well, the the point is is um Your your kind of an example is because You know, you always say you're working too hard, you got too much to do.

You wouldn't have to do any of that anymore because. When people call in and ask a question, you just go to AI and let the AI answer the question. Yeah, that's true. But sometimes those answers are. It's saving a lot of work.

And uh That's another question I have is What's the difference between a Catholic that works for his salvation and you personally that work so hard all the time? You're always working hard for God? Damn. I'm not working for salvation. They are.

They are damned because they believe in a false gospel. There we go.

Well then why are you writing all these articles when we have the Bible? Because a lot of people don't understand what the Bible teaches. They don't have the privilege, like I do, of being able to study it full-time. for years. Yeah, but I think you're wrong in a lot of positions.

I think uh your Catholic thing is all total totally wrong. And uh I I think uh some of your beliefs are are not true, like Jesus being sprinkled. I don't believe that.

Well, I believe Jesus was sprinkled at his baptism because he had to fulfill the law, and the requirement of the law for a man entering the priesthood, according to Numbers 8:7, was he had to be sprinkled with water. Nothing in the requirements for entering into the priesthood remotely even suggests immersion.

So that's why I hold to that.

So, if you could refute that, yeah, but that's totally wrong because Jesus was baptized so John the Baptist could complete his testimony. Because God told John the Baptist: the one you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. And when John baptized Jesus, God said, You are my son, I'm well pleased. That's the reason Jesus got baptized. It had nothing to do with him being the high priest.

No, it had everything to do with the high priest.

Okay.

Well, if he if he's if if Jesus is God, then is the high priest a higher position than God?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh Patrick, you're not thinking very critically. And you're not.

Okay, Patrick, hold on, please.

So Jesus was made under the law, Galatians 4:4, for a little while lower than the angels, Hebrews 2.9. He had to fulfill righteousness, Matthew 3:15. That's why he was getting baptized, to fulfill righteousness. What was he fulfilling according to the law that required him to get baptized? When Jesus said, Let's do this now to fulfill all righteousness, he was talking to John the Baptist.

It was John the Baptist's testimony that was all righteousness, because John the Baptist was the only human who could testify Jesus is the Son of God because he's seen the dove and told John, You are my son, I'm well pleased.

Okay, the word is fulfill. What was he fulfilling? What was Jesus fulfilling? Jesus hadn't, it wasn't about Jesus, it was about John the Baptist completing his testimony in John 1:6:7. There was a man sent from God.

His name was John. He came as a witness. Hold, hold on, hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on. Look, there's this really bad thing you need to learn about.

It's called context, okay? Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan, coming to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent him, saying, I have need to be baptized but by you, and do you come to me? Jesus answered to him, permitted at this time, for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him and John both.

They had to fulfill John's testimony.

Okay, but what was it Jesus was fulfilling? Nothing. It was about John's testimony because Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, Patrick. Look, you caught on to the word us. Fitting to us to fulfill, and you said us means includes John, then us must also include Jesus.

What was Jesus fulfilling? Jesus was the one that God said, You are my son. I'm well pleased.

Okay, what was he fulfilling? He was fulfilling uh John's testimony because John was sent to testify about the Patrick. Patrick, that's not the same.

Okay, Patrick. AI says the same thing I Okay. His voice is, I hung up on him. His voice is a little irritating at times, and he doesn't really listen. We've had many discussions like this.

And let's just say he does not have all his paws in the litter box, which reminds me. Those things are called idioms. He doesn't have all his pod in a litterbox. I came up with a few more. Let me see if I can find him.

I have a list. Let's see. Uh He fell off his balance beam. That's one I like that. The wheels came off his cart.

His recipe has no ingredients. I like this one. His Schrödinger's cat just died.

Now, that's a clever one, if you guys know what that is. Um and uh that that monkey's swinging from the wrong tree.

So, anyway, uh I I like those things, but he does does not have all those paws in a letter box. He really doesn't understand the basics of logic. And the issues that I raise. And you know, it's what it is. He's certainly privileged for his opinion, but this is why Jesus was baptized to fulfill righteousness.

Because John the Baptist was there to fulfill the law as well. Because John the Baptist was sent. If you go to, I believe it's Isaiah 40 verse 3. Let me do this. 40.

Verse 3, let's see. A voice is calling, clear the way of the Lord in the wilderness, make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. And this is applied to John the Baptist, okay?

So he was the one who's preparing the way for Actually, it says for Yahweh in the wilderness, our God.

So, by Jesus going to John, and John had to fulfill the law. It was out of Isaiah 40, verse 3 that he was doing that. And Jesus, his aspect, what he needed to do was to. Oh. ful fulfill the law of righteousness.

He needed to Uh Indeed, I gotta open this. He needed to um Fulfill the law, which is in Leviticus 8, Numbers 4, Exodus 29. In those chapters, you find that in order to enter the priesthood, a man had to be 30 years of age. Jesus was 30, a verbal blessing given on him. God says, My beloved Son, whom I'm well pleased.

Uh had to be anointed with oil. which oil represents the Holy Spirit out of 1 John 2.27. and he had to be sprinkled with water. Yeah. This is numbers 87.

Now, here's the thing: I've talked to people about this before, and They absolutely initially just reject this idea of Jesus being sprinkled at his baptism. And they'll say, No, baptism means immersion and I say not necessarily. And they said, no, it's what it means. And they think, I haven't studied it. And I said, well, it means what it means in its context.

And so we've gone through, I've had these discussions before about this baptism stuff. In fact, maybe I'll just go into it a little bit because you brought it up, and there's nobody calling right now. But uh So, what's going on?

Okay, baptism has different meanings in the Bible. Baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. We wouldn't say that that's immersion.

Okay.

or it can mean washing of hands in Mark seven four and when they came to the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves. And there are many things which they have done. such as washing the cups of pitchers and copper pots.

Well, some people say, well, that means they were immersed.

Well, maybe that they were immersed. Maybe, I don't know. You can have the places where it can mean immersion. You can have the places where it means the Holy Spirit came upon them because the Holy Spirit was prophesied as being poured. And we get into that.

And then we have uh It means ceremonially washing. When the Pharisees saw it, he was surprised that he had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. That's the words baptism in the Greek, ceremonial washed. Let's see, they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. This is Moses when they led the Jews out of Egypt.

They went through the parted Red Sea And it says they were baptized into Moses.

Well, they didn't get wet, they weren't immersed in water. Let's see. And here's some other things I think are really interesting. I did this study. I like doing it, getting these ideas going, what does that mean?

And I started doing a study. of uh baptized with water. And then I that led me to studying the idea of an action with something, a verb with something.

So you are anointed with oil. means the oil is applied to you.

Okay.

You're cleansed with blood. That means the blood's applied to you. People are sprinkled with blood. That means the blood was applied to them. Jesus was anointed with perfume.

a means of perfume was put upon him. and with ointment. That means was put upon him. We are anointed with the Holy Spirit, which means Holy Spirit comes upon us. Old Testament priests were sprinkled with water, which means it was applied to them.

The unclean sprinkled with water, evil were sprinkled with water, and you're baptized with water. What does it mean? These are the interesting things and uh I think Whole stuff. Anyway, we'll be right back after these messages. Please give me a call.

877-207-2276. Be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking a call at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Rodwood, welcome back to the show. Boy, look at that, it's the last part of the hour. Wow, I thought it was the bottom of the hour. Man. Time's flying.

Hey, just want to let you know we stay on the air by your support. Please consider supporting us. That would be wonderful and helpful. All you got to do is go to carm.org, and on the top of the page, you'll see the word donate. And that's all you got to do is go there and check it out.

And we ask $5, $10, $15 a month. If you do that, it really helps us with budgets and things like that.

So just carm.org, top of the page, is the word donate. We really would appreciate that. Let's get to Busquen from Ohio. Busquen, welcome, brother. You're on the air.

Hey, always great hearing your voice, Matt. Thank you for so much of your help and your ministry. I can't say enough. And I agree. Support Matt Slick and Colon.

It's a great resource for providing out truth and learning the word of God. Matt, I got to run by you the Iran America-Israel war.

So First off, what is your take? And then, second, Matt, I've been. What is my take? And then you didn't you didn't complete that was my take what? Yeah, give me your take on them.

Oh, on that.

Well, I'm glad that Oh okay. Go ahead, sir. I'm glad that uh Iran's getting its comeuppance.

Okay, they have uh over many decades they have taunted, they've killed, they've attacked, they've done so many different things over the decades against America. It's time that they were dealt with and also in the process free the people of Iran Iran. uh i in that as well, that that oppressive Muslim uh lie that they're they're hiding under.

Okay.

Yeah. That, okay, I appreciate your Matt Slick take, because that is what I wanted to know. Um I just I'm I'm an investigative reporter, if you will, and I don't really trust mainstream media news anymore.

So I've been looking for alternatives, and I found a really good Iranian. Um a journalist on Rumble. And anyway, he has been having some amazing discussions with previous people that served in our. governmental agencies and such. And they're telling a different story.

about what's happened. And It's basically saying that Iran has more firepower and has destroyed a lot more infrastructure uh around the gulf region Taking down Israel's defense systems, even taking down some of our own American defense systems and such, which isn't getting reported. On places like Fox and mainstream media, even on the left side. And I've been searching this, and sure enough, Matt, it's slipped. And I'm going to email you my sources.

I will send them to info at Carn. touch you with you. But what went through my head, Matt, was this. And so I was like, oh my gosh, you know. Israel just had a four-day LGBTQ Sodom fest at Sodom.

they held this big LGBTQ event I want to say it was June the fourth and it went for like four days, Matt. But they even invited children. To this day. And I learnt this from the Blaze. News, you know, mainstream media, Glenn Beck's platform.

And sure enough, It was held right at the Dead Sea, Matt, where Sodom was the original. Landing side points.

So I thought, wow, is God using another pagan nation to discipline Israel like he did throughout the Old Testament. And I wanted your take on that. I don't have your take on that, Matt, because of the scholarship that you've done on the Old Testament. Absolutely. God used the pagan nations to discipline Israel a lot.

And he's not done with Israel. I d I wouldn't see any theological problem with God using uh Pagan. groups like the Iran nation to discipline Uh d just on I I I wouldn't have any problem with it theologically. It occurs. Yeah, I'm getting that way.

I mean, I'm reading, I'm in Deuteronomy right now, Deuteronomy 28, especially. Oh my gosh, man. I mean starting around I want to say it's the fifteenth burst maybe maybe more. But Deuteronomy twenty eight, opens with all the blessings God will give Israel If they're obedient. And then the last half, and I think the chapter goes to 60 verses or so.

The last half is all these horrible curses he will bring down. if they don't obey and they're disobeying. Yeah, right. Dialogue. I am yeah, and you know, I'm aware also that our present news media is compromised.

I don't trust our media. I watch Fox a little bit, but I don't even trust them. And you know what? One of the things, this is a personal gripe. I wish they would actually cover something and draw conclusions quickly and say something instead of going around.

circumambulating around the actual topic. I it it it drives me crazy. It's like reporters just they don't do anything. If I was if they I wish they would just give me a show. And I would have my researchers and stuff and say, what's the let's start with this?

This is what happened on this date, blah, blah, blah. This is what happened. And we think, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Now let's talk about this. They would know right away. That's what I think. Yeah. So yeah, just good old-fashioned reporting like they used to do back in the 60s and 70s, where they just basically told you the news.

the facts that they had and they were reported to the general public. And then we made up our own conclusions or had the discussions at the coffee table or in the water cooler at work or whatever. The I kind of missed just straightforward news as well. Yeah. It really drives me crazy.

In fact, you know, this is just whining now. I'll watch videos. 10-minute videos. I didn't even watch them because they'll have a question or they'll have an issue. It could be on any topic.

And they don't answer the question. That's what is wrong with them. They call it word salads now, Matt. Word salads. Yes, I agree.

Yeah, it's like clickbait and then you go in and I I find myself clicking out of eighty, ninety percent of what I watch because no one knows how to s actually get a point across. Anyway, it's just it's me whining. That's me whining. Anyway. Uh Well, I appreciate your time, Matt.

I know we're coming to the end of the show. I just wanted to get your take on that. And once again, thank you so much for your scholarship, and I appreciate your radio program. I listened to you on one hundred six point five FM, the Truth Network, here in Dayton, Ohio, and I'm very grateful that they're still carrying the search.

Well, appreciate it, brother. Appreciate it, man.

Well, God bless.

Okay.

God bless you, man.

Alright.

Okay, now let's get to Larry from Ohio. Larry, welcome. You're on the air. Hey Matt, I appreciate you. And I appreciate that last guy, too, because I listened to him too on the station 1065.

I just had a comment. You know, I'm not a specialist in anything. I just want to comment on what. The Jesus baptism Jesus as God didn't need to be baptized, but Jesus as the man who came down as a man It was his job to fulfill that righteousness so that we could have the. uh unspotted lamb of God.

the perfect sacrifice, our mediator between God the Father and us. And I believe that's what Jesus was fulfilling on that baptism because Jesus was God. But he also has Z. As man, and yes, he still is, but as man, he still needed God's. Uh Mm-hmm.

Yeah. feeling at at certain times in his life. Where God ministered to him, and but the baptism was also fulfilling the righteousness that had to be done. for us so that we could come to God's Uh Not that you have to be baptized to make it to heaven, but Jesus had to be fulfilled all righteousness. And God has set God has set that up before Jesus God the sun came down to earth.

And so for us. men, he had to do that, to be that perfect lamb, that perfect sacrifice. And um And to fulfill all righteousness and make his Father happy to do the will of the Father. That was God's purpose for Jesus' purpose for doing the baptism, I believe. It was to enter into the priesthood, and he had to do that, to be a high priest sacrifice.

I've written an article on this on my website. And I actually went through and did a great deal of study on the issue of whether or not the word water there in regarding to the priests and their priestly work, if it referred to immersion, and it did not.

So it talks about going to the tent door and being washed with water. The water is applied to them. They just strip down and get immersed in water. And so the And again, I don't think that really matters. whether he was sprinkled, whether he was immersed.

He was just baptized. It does. It does. Wait, hold on. It does matter because he was fulfilling the requirements of the law according to what God had typified.

So it does matter if Jesus was fulfilling that law or not.

So in that sense, it's a very good thing.

Well, he did fulfill the law, but how it was done, whether it was sprinkled or emerged, I'm not sure if that matters. But the law said that the uh man who was entering into the priesthood had to be sprinkled with water. That's Numbers 8:7. I could not find any place where it says that he had to be immersed with water for the priesthood to work. He had to be sprinkled.

And I was shocked. And that's what it says.

So it's what I teach. I'm not ashamed of what the Word of God says. That's what it says. If somebody wants to say Jesus was immersed, then they need to demonstrate it from Scripture. But since he came to fulfill that law, the law requires a sprinkling, that I just say that he was sprinkled.

That's all. And maybe someone knows something I don't, and they can show me a correction. And I'll be saying, as they show me a correction, I go, oh, well, thank you. I really appreciate that. I'll change my view.

But for now, I can't, okay? Yeah. Thank you.

Okay, brother.

Well, God bless.

All right.

All right.

Yeah, I know this is a little bit controversial for a lot of people that they don't really want to believe that right away because they've been told over the years that baptism just automatically means immersion.

Well, it doesn't. And I'm not trying to be weird. I'm not trying to, you know, just stand on a hill and toot my own trumpet. And I know that you go to these dictionaries and you can see they'll say it means immersion.

Well, okay. The issue is that not always. And I did a study on it. In fact, the first time I ever heard about this was on a Book I got 25 or 30 years ago, analyzed by Tizo. And I went through the first few.

A ch I think chapter or something, and it said it doesn't always do that. It means that. And I remember going, I don't like that. It of course it means immersion. Because I've been told everything else, look at everybody else.

And then when I started studying, I go, Oh my goodness it It yeah, what do we do with that?

So, um That's my position now. And if I'm wrong, okay. And if you disagree, that's okay. But I would say if you disagree Than disagree with scripture.

Now, one of the things that people will say is that, well, yeah, but you see, Matt, they came up out of the water, that means they were immersed. No, it doesn't mean that they were immersed. It can mean that they were immersed. It doesn't necess- Necessarily mean that it was immersed because the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip both went down into the water and came up out of the water. They both weren't immersed.

I know, I mean people scratch their heads. And uh make me listen. Hey! I hope you enjoyed this and if you want to support us please do. Carm.org, top of the page.

The donate option. Please help us out. May the Lord bless you by His grace. We'll be back on here tomorrow. And we'll talk to you then.

Have a great one, everyone. God bless. Bye. Another program powered by the Truth Network.