Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Um 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, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick, and you're listening to Matt Slick Live. If you want to give me a call, as usual, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. You can also, if you are interested, send me an email, info at carm.org. Info at C-A-R-M.org.

And you can put the subject line radio comments or radio question or hey doofus boy, whatever you want, and that's fine. I'll answer that. Whew. Oh man.

So uh I was telling before the show, I pray and stuff like that. And I was telling people about the detours I had, an appointment today. And man, the detours I had to go through to get there. I was just whining. No big deal.

But man, uh whew it doubled the time. Uh Did that and uh been working now. I've been out of the house a lot today because I just had appointments and couldn't get some of the articles written and taken care of what I want. I get a lot of stuff. working on behind the scenes.

So there's some uh ideas. I got some other stuff working too, but uh at any rate. If you want um You can give me a call. We have three open lines: 877-2072. 2276.

Let's get to Germain. Welcome, Germaine, brother. You're on the air. Hey, Matt, um Today I want to ask you about Acts chapter sixteen, verse thirty one.

Okay. Yeah.

So a lot of I've heard people interpret that as far as you and your household being saved, verse meaning literal, like if you you know, come to Jesus, everybody's saved. But Is that a case where the verse is speaking to one specific person, or is that a general? a general like applicable verse for everybody. It does not mean that the jailer's faith is what saved the household. It doesn't mean that.

Later on, Paul gets into the issue of preaching to people in different areas and groups.

So, what he's doing is saying, Look, believe in the Lord Jesus and you'll be saved, you and your household. You know, he's saying, Whoever believes, you know, and your household will believe. A lot of things that we a lot of times what we miss in this culture. is the idea of Uh okay. Of the patriarchal system that was really heavily in effect.

back then The man of the house really was the ruler-leader of his home a lot. And he had the authority. And so, if he were to become a Christian, everybody in the household has to follow suit. It doesn't mean they're converted, but they had to go through the procedures and follow suit. That was just how it was done.

And So, this whole idea carries that with it. Believe in Jesus and you'll be saved, you and your household. The idea is his leadership. Is understood as a backdrop in that culture. As the father goes, the household goes.

And you'll be saved, you and your household. And so, the assumption here is that as he preaches and teaches and guides his household into that, they often would just follow suit, and that's what's going on there. It's not that the faith that he has will automatically mean that they'll be saved.

Okay?

Okay. Yeah, that um that makes a lot of sense. I was just I think I've seen that verse misused a couple of times, but your explanation makes a whole lot. A whole lot more sense, a lot more clarity. Yeah, and we who affirm infant baptism not for salvation, but as a covenant sign, will sometimes appeal to this verse, you and your household.

And the question we'll ask is, does that household have infants in it? And it really opens up a good theological can of worms to just discuss it. Not that there's a solution here because the text doesn't say. But it isn't one of the verses that I'll introduce and say, well, let's just talk about it. What does it mean by household?

All these households in Israel, you know, what does it mean, the whole household? Because, as I said, the fathers to go that way. That means even the children are to follow suit.

So there's it's really an interesting Perspective that's not shared in modern culture and stuff. Anyway, just to Just to stop midway.

Okay, they're they're good, they help. Yeah, sounds good. Thanks a lot, man. Have a good weekend. All right, man.

Alright. You too, man. God bless. All right, now let's see, we'll get to Papo. From Puerto Rico, Papo.

Welcome, man. We're all here. I'm okay, man. Slavyana. How are you, man?

I'm all right. Hanging in. I'm sorry, say that again? No, I'm just turning down the volume on the TV so I can hear you.

Okay. Well, good.

So what do you got?

Okay, I I made an argument from contingency that I think is it's new and original. But I'm not sure if it's faulty or invalid or it has a fallacy of regularity or begging the question. I would like you to uh So see it. and tell me what you think.

Okay, sure. Go ahead.

Okay. If any contingent being exists or dependent being exists, A necessary being Must be required for that dependent being to exist. Yeah, that's it. A dependent being exists Namely, you. Therefore a necessary being or the or non-contingent being exists what we call God.

Yeah, that follows. That's in part the cosmological argument on contingency.

So, what it says is that all things that came into existence were caused to come into existence. We can't have an infinite regression of causes. Because there's logical problems with that. And so there must be a single uncaused cause.

So when you say any contingent being exists, a necessary being must be the source of the contingent being. What we have to say then is what do you mean by necessary being? Even though I think you understand what it means, a necessary being is, by definition, existent, because without such a necessary being, nothing could exist. No rationality, no transcendentals, no nothing would be able to exist. And we exist, so therefore, ultimately, there would have to be a necessary being that's the ultimate source.

This is a variation of what's called the cosmological argument, or the Kalam cosmological argument. Yeah, it's a good argument. But the move I make is that I ask how many contingent beings are necessary for a necessary being. to be required or to exhibit. That's wrong question.

That's the wrong question because you're reversing contingency there. If you say how many contingent beings are necessary for the unnecessary being to exist, you're mixing the contingency dependence, the dependency factor.

So it's irrelevant in how many contingent beings there are. There's just one necessary being, they are therefore contingent based on his. Essence not on their own. Exactly, exactly.

Sorry, all right. But the answer is that only one contingent being is necessary. That's correct. If they say, however, that there could be one, there can't be two contingent beings, then you have a logical problem of category and entos. If there's two non-contingent beings, then do they share the same essence?

And if they do, how can they have differentiation between the same essence? If they're eternally non-contingent, that would mean that each is oste. Then you have to get into the issue of: are they different or are they identical in their nature? If they're identical in their nature, what distinguishes between them? If they are separate in nature, then what distinguishes between them in that?

And that gets into category errors and problems, categorization issues with dependency, and the idea of. of what what's called a one and the many. Uh there's some other stuff. Are you familiar with the problem of the one and the many? Yes are universals?

No kinda, but no. One in m the one in the many issue is that what's the ultimate nature of the of the universe or reality? If it's one thing, then you can't have differentiation between objects or and concepts because they're all of One substance. Without differentiation, you can't have truth values. If everything is multi-natured, like there's a nature of a tree, a nature of a fish, a nature of a bird, and that these are all eternal.

things, so that the universe itself is not birds and stuff, but the universe is it one thing, one substance, or multiple substances. If it's multiple substances, then how are they united so that we can then make related truth statements about these These separate entities or these separate abstract entities, substances, and called primary substances, which reflect what's called secondary substance. But anyway, I won't get into all that stuff. And so then, if you can't unify them, then you can't have unification between concepts, and meaning becomes meaningless, becomes unfounded. The Trinity is the answer to this because God is one and many.

So this is really a necessary thing for you to understand the problem of the one of the many because it lays the foundation for primary and secondary substances or universals in particulars.

So, a primary substance is you're in a church and you see a hundred chairs. The primary substance is the chair in front of you. It's all identical, but you're looking at one. That's a primary substance. The secondary substance is what is that behind that particular chair and the one next to it and the one next to that.

It's called the concept of chair-ness. The chairness is what's called a secondary substance.

So the chairness, the secondary substance, is a transcendental. It does not depend on location. Affords truth, and transcendentals are abstract entities, and so we have particular manifestations of the transcendentals. And then this relates to the problem of the one of the many primary, secondary substances. You should know these things if you're going to.

Argue like that, but you're on the right track.

Okay. Hope it is. But are you saying that if only one contingent thing is necessary to for a necessary meeting to be required that two or more necessary being sallow from that. No. There's only one ultimate necessary being.

Another issue here is: what is the ultimate? The ultimate beginning or source of all things. The ultimate is that by definition of which there is nothing greater or nothing equal.

So if something is ultimate, it cannot have any parallels next to it, otherwise it's not the ultimate.

So what is the ultimate foundational principle by which all things exist?

So our existence proves God's existence because where did we come from? Our parents, where they come from, Adam and Eve, where they come from, God, where you know, it goes back to the single originator. And so we can logically only need one necessary being. If the necessary being is one and many as a Trinity, There's logical advantages to that, which I haven't even discussed yet. But it then solves a problem of the one and the many.

On the nature of Substances categories, and then you can uh sidestep into universals. and particulars.

Okay. But can I ask you to Sure. Can I ask you uh Have you ever heard this argument before where only one contingent being is necessary? for a necessary being to follow and that the person itself is the contingent being, the person I'm making the argument to.

So is it they don't Then you're going to have contingency. But if you're talking to an atheist about this, and they say you are a contingent being, then the contingency is where did that particular individual come from, his parent, where did that parent come from? And it goes back and back and back and back. And then you have to come to a terminus.

Well there is no regression any further. Otherwise you have an infinite regression of causes which is logically basically logically impossible.

Okay. Come on, brother. We gotta break. We gotta break. You w can you wait?

Okay?

Hold on, man, okay. We uh we write back after These messages, I know, folks. This is real heady stuff, but believe it or not, I actually discuss these things with people. Not on the radio very much. Hey, be right back.

Please stay tuned. 877-207-2276. It's Matt Slick Live, taking a call at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Alright buddy, welcome back to the show.

Let's get back on with Poppo. Are you there?

Okay. Okay, Matt, so have you heard this argument before where Where you don't have to show the whole universe is contingent, but just one contingent being. Should we have got six? Um I think Okay, so I did some research. I did some research under the break.

And um You know what modus ponens and modus tollens are?

Alright, I'm not I'm not Where we Okay, so modus ponens Modisponens is if P then Q, P therefore Q.

So if you say If there is a transcendental being, Therefore, a non-contingent being Then there are contingent beings. There is a transcendental being, so therefore there are contingent beings. This is the kind of logic it is. Modus tollens. It says if there's a contingent being, there must be also, or there can be, or there will be, non-contingent beings.

Not necessarily true, but I'll get into this. I'm just giving author.

Okay, so therefore that are contingent beings, so therefore there's a a non-contingent being. But this might be what's called a confirming the conse affirming the consequent, which is an invalid. It's an invalid form of inference.

So I'm not sure how you're wording it. But um If you were to say Let's see, let's get back to my notes. any contingent being exists A necessary being must be the source of the contingent being. That's true. You must, therefore, there must you exist, therefore, necessary being exists.

Yeah, that's a valid motive. Yeah, that's about a motor point. Yeah.

Yeah, it's a valid logical inference, okay? Modus ponens, all right? A contingent being exists, then a necessary being exists as its source. That's true. You're a contingent being and you exist, therefore, a necessary being exists.

That's valid. It was called modus ponens in logic, logic structure.

Okay?

'Cause I I made the argument to Maddillo Hunty and he hanged up on me. Yeah, Matt, yeah, I know it. I know Matt De Lahanti. Um Yeah, he's smart and he's philosophically astute. But let me suggest this.

I don't know how you presented it to him. And it could be that you presented it to him, and he was stumped, and he just hung up on you. He's an atheist. It could be that you presented it improperly. and that he recognized the improper, tried to explain it, you wouldn't see it, and he just moved on.

So I'm not saying which one occurred, I'm just saying those are the possibilities. What I would do if I were you is I would write this out as P1, P2. And see, because what you're doing is you're talking about just a true basic syllogism. And then I would take the syllogism and run it through some AIs to say, is this a valid inference? and see what they say.

Okay?

Okay, AI told me it's a valid argument and and he also told I don't know how much to trust AI, but he told me he told me that he was the best. the best uh continuing argument you guys ever heard of any one of the best Yeah. It's really nice. It's a nice argument, okay, in that it's logically valid, modus ponens. If uh if P then Q P, or was it if P, then Q, P, therefore Q.

So the thing is that. If he said it was a good argument, then that's very good. That's good. He admitted that. Um But and he says it's really simple.

It's the most simple argument that he had ever heard AI Yeah. I don't know how much you trust that.

Well, AI is good at just finding logic problems, so you could use two or three. And you say, just do P1, P2, P3, it's a syllogism, and just ask, is it valid? And you could go into Google and you can do the same thing. Is it valid? And you run it by two or three AIs.

They're good at research, they're good at analytics. And so you can trust a lot of what they had to say. I've tested a lot of AI. But a lot of times the documentation is incorrect, you can't trust everything. But it's pretty good at just simple logic because the logic systems need to be employed in the algorithms of their development.

Okay. So, you think it's a good argument? Yeah, yeah, I do. Yeah, I do. Uh-huh.

Good stuff. Keep it up.

Well, thank you very much for your help. I appreciate that. All right, brother. God bless. Keep up the good work, man.

Keep up the good work. Thank you. All right. Good stuff. I like talking like that.

For me, it's actually enjoyable, believe it or not. Yeah, I know. I got issues. Let's get to Tiffany from South Carolina. Tiffany, welcome.

You're on the air. Hi, how are you? We're doing all right, hanging in there and uh, you know, get a due radio.

Well, awesome. I'm a fairly new listener of yours, and I've really enjoyed it. Anyway, my question, and I think I'm looking more for just help and understanding and maybe a little direction. My family, I have four brothers and we were all raised as born-again Christians. When people ask me when did I get saved, I don't ever remember.

Not being a believer.

So, and it's the same for my brothers as well. Um however, my youngest brother He is born again as well, and we fully believe in the Word of God. But him and his wife had become Catholic. And our family was really caught off guard. We were like, where did this come from?

How did this start? Got you interested in, you know, exploring the Catholic Church and We had a really great conversation, and I was really trying hard to just listen, you know, to understand and obviously want to support him. No, you don't not, McCathy. It is a little. What's that?

Not with Catholicism. It's a non-Christian religion. Not with the Catholicism. Yes. And so I'm just curious as to why a born-again Christian would even have any interest in going to the Catholic Church.

And they had to go through a whole year of what is it, catechisma?

Okay. So they did all of that, and then they became officially Catholic.

So I'm just going to know what to feel. I would say he's not a Christian.

Okay. He's not a true Christian. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a false gospel, has a false priesthood, and promotes idolatry. It's called catechesis. They have to go through and become a catechumen and then affirm the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

And part of their necessary affirmations are that the Roman Catholic Church is the right, true church, and that you have to be baptized for remission of your sins in order to obtain forgiveness of sins. Paragraph 268 of the Catechism says you attain salvation through faith, baptism, and the observance of the commandments. It teaches the false gospel. It promotes idolatry, has a priesthood where they participate in the Mass, which is unbiblical. And if any Catholic wants to debate me on it, bring it on.

And where they have a priest. In special garments with special authority, that goes in and offers a sacrifice at an altar in a church. And none of that is a church practice. given in the New Testament. None of it.

The Catholic Church is simply a non-Christian church that appears to be Christian, but is not. It is full of dead men's bones. It is full of rotting corpses. of theological filth. And it will lead people to damnation, and they need to repent.

So if he's joined that. The Spirit of God within him, if he's truly born again, would recognize this is not of God. This is not of God, and he should have anything to do with it. And if he did join, the Bible says 1 John 2:19, they went out from us because they never were of us. If they had been of us, they would have remained.

Now, hold on, Tiffany. I know I spoke quickly because there's a break, and we'll get back after the break, okay? Hold on, hey, folks, be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick Live, taking a call at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Alright, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do. There's battle 877-207-2276, but we have no open lines right yet, so you gotta wait. All right, Tiffany, you're back on.

Okay. Oh, yeah.

So thank you for that. It has been hard for our family to understand. You know, we love him. We obviously don't want to. Come across as judging him.

So just trying to find that balance where we're not. you know, pushing him away. We have a close relationship, but just wasn't really sure how to handle it or even what to say say on it because I just don't know a lot about it.

So But tell you what. If you were to go to Carm. And uh my website, carm.org. Have you ever been there by any chance? I haven't, no.

Well, if you go to CARM, the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, CARM. org forward slash outmines.

Okay. The site is 30 years old. I've written thousands and thousands of articles. And if you go to the Outlines page, you're going to see the Catholicism outline. And you can click on that and it'll open up.

These are the longest articles I've ever produced because they're over 200 pages long. And because it's my notes I use in Word. In fact, the full page the full thing is 260 pages in Word. What I did was I took about 200 pages and I converted it into HTML. And at the top of the page, you'll see topics.

And you can click on a topic. And then it'll take you down in there, like salvation. It'll take you right down instantly to the page. I'm about to take a minute to load because it's so big, and it'll tell you stuff in there. And it's a work in progress, but it'll give you documentation from their sources.

Oh, I just found an error. And uh Like grace is infused into the soul, paragraph 1999. I have 199.

So these are my notes. My notes aren't perfect, but I just converted them in because so many people want them and use them. Yeah.

So you can go, and it's free.

Okay, great. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. I will definitely do that.

So I appreciate your time. No problem at all. All right. Bye-bye.

Okay. Bye. All right. You know, folks, when I say as bluntly as I do that Catholicism is not Christian, what I actually mean is. It's not Christian.

that its official doctrines will lead you to eternal damnation. That's what I teach. All right, let's get to Colin from North Carolina. Colin, welcome. You're on the air.

Thank you, Matt. I appreciate you taking my call. I'll give you just a little background. I am the eldest in our family, and. Um we have a individual, and it just happens to be my daughter.

who is immersed in uh Very bad sin. She is committed emotional emotional. Adultery? and we suspect that it might be physical as well. And so we as a family are trying to come alongside our son in law.

uh my wife and I and then There is my son, her her brother.

Okay and just find very, very hard to work through all of this. And my ultimate question is My son in law. had read John eight, one through eleven, And he sent out and I've been messaging him as well as my son is involved in that as well. Um about Yeah, yeah. And the question that he raised is Does God see all sin?

The same. No, he doesn't. I, again, I'm the patriarch of the family. uh former lay pastor elder And so I have given my input But I I just totally respect um your opinion and your experience on this. And that's why I'm calling.

I just wanted to find out if you could weigh in on that, please.

Okay, the first concern I have is that you're respecting a guy on the radio name Slick. But that's uh we can get to that another time.

So Mm-hmm. God's, yeah. I mean, you know, if you said to your friends, yeah, I talked to a guy on a radio named Slick. This is what he said. It's just not a you know, listening to you for a very long time.

Okay, well, all right, at least somebody does. That's good, I appreciate it.

So no, s all sin is seen by God, but not all sin is the same. There are greater sins. For example, in John 19, 11, Jesus said to Pi uh tells Pilate that he has a greater sin. And uh In Luke 12, 47 through 48, some people are beat with many stripes and some with few.

So there's 1 John 5:16, 17: there's a sin that leads to death. But it doesn't say what it is, where other sins don't lead to death, you know, immediate death.

So, yeah, there are differentiations between levels of sin.

So, stealing a paperclip is sin. Murdering people is a greater sin.

Okay. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Yeah.

Um So in that context. the judgment and the consequences of that then depending upon how egregious it it is in God's eyes. can be more severe. Absolutely. Absolutely.

In fact, there are sins that if Christians are getting involved with them, God will kill you. I tell people that and they're like, What? Oh, yeah, go to 1 Corinthians 5. Where a man was having relations with his father's wife, and Paul says, Deliver him over to the devil for the destruction of his flesh. Shall his soul be saved?

Yeah, and I've told people, you don't repent, you're lucky you're still breathing. I'll take you out. And so, you know, people think, oh, you know, Jesus is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed occasion server dude, and he understands. I'm struggling. No.

God hates people. He hates the sinner who's abiding in sin.

Now, the redeemed are different, and if you are His and you're saved and you start walking in sin, He'll let the leash out a little bit, hoping He'll convict you. And then, when He gets too far, He's going to yank it. And how hard that yank is. depends on what God's going to do with you and to you.

Sometimes that yank will kill you, and sometimes that yank will just discipline the crud out of you.

Okay. Do not. Yep.

Now does this du does your son's wife claim to be Christian? That's a great question. Thank you for asking. Um, I we my wife and I raised our family in a Christian home. Um and again, I I've we were very involved in church.

But does she claim to be a Christian? That's Just it. Yeah.

She claims to be. But all the actions and all the fruit of her life right now indicate to me. And and where where I end up going is divine election and was she ever saved? You know, and and it's so disheartening. It hurts.

to even think that my daughter might even not know the Lord. Yeah.

So, yes.

Well, I I relate. I've got three daughters. I've got three daughters. We raise them in the ways of the Lord, and one of them is an atheist. who um made her living in p the porn industry.

So, this is well known. I know what it does to break the heart. And, you know, I've heard story after story after story of. uh PKs, preachers' kids, um, and they they abandoned the faith. And it's on the rise.

But at any rate, I get it. And the only thing you can do is continue to pray. And you know, you did your part, you did what you're supposed to do, but pray. All right, pray and be loving and patient, but you know. You know what I mean?

Yeah.

Okay. Well, my wife and I uh we're uh uh A follower of CCEF, and we have a Christian counselor just to kind of help walk us through. This most difficult time.

So it it weighs very, very heavy on my wife. As you might expect. And so, of course, I appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. That's right.

Okay, brother.

Well, God bless. Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, thank you.

Okay. Alright. Appreciate your thought.

Alright, thank you. All right, now let's jump on really fast with Ken from Ohio. We've got a break coming up, but we'll see how far we can get into it. Ken, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Leon. Uh my my question is about the phrase God the Son. Yes. And I'm not asking you about verses that point to the Son being God. No, is there a nine six and group one eight?

My question for you is do you know when the phrase God the Son that specific phrase Was first used by the church in church literature and the creeds, etc. I don't know. Hold on, I'll do a little bit research during the break. But see who answered that. But we got a break, so hold on.

And we have two open lines. If people want to give me a call, the number's 877. 207-2276. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Oh, Robert, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, you can. It's easy: 877-207-2276. Ken, are you still there? Yeah.

So I did a little bit of research during the break, and there's no exact first citation that you know about, but Ignatius used it, apparently used it. Uh or calling Jesus as our God. Jesus Christ our God, and I don't know about the phrase God the Son.

So I don't know. Or when when it occurred And I don't know. A historian who studies history, church history could tell us better.

Okay. Yeah, that's interesting because I mean, the Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

So actually try to deal with it. It seems like. That phrase is not in the Bible. But it's very commonly taught And I can't find when it was first taught. It's so strange.

Yeah, I don't know. I couldn't tell you when. But it's it's true because he is God and he is the Son, so he's God the Son. He's called God in Hebrews 1:6, but of the Son he says, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. That's the Father speaking of the Son.

So, you know, God the Son, right there is a verse that substantiates it. The phraseology doesn't appear exactly like that, but the meaning of what that is, is right there.

Okay. Okay, so I guess okay to Um Okay. The the the the Catholic Church gets some things right. In their faith? Yeah, yeah.

The Catholic Church has gotten a lot of stuff right, but it's just gone into apostasy. It teaches the true doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, his death, burial, resurrection. It gets all these things right, but it goes off the rails with its false doctrines of salvation, the priesthood, and its promotion of idolatry.

Okay?

It's not Christian, but it gets some things right.

Okay, all right. Yeah, yeah. Even Mormonism gets some things right, and it's not Christian.

Okay. He does. What does Romanism get right?

Well, you know, that family and sacrifice and things like that, that's good stuff. And being good and being productive, it gets those things right. But they teach, you know, Oh, they don't get anything about God and Jesus right. Not at all. Right.

I didn't think so either.

So, yeah. Oh, no. But back to the Catholic Church, they do get some things right about God Jesus. Yes, yes, I true. The Son is Jesus.

Yes. And it's okay to use that phrase, even though it's a Catholic phrase. Right. Right. Okay.

Well, yeah, it's okay. You know, just because a cat a false religion uses a phrase doesn't mean the phrase isn't. can be used, you know, but but gotcha.

Okay. Okay. All right. Alright. All right, well, God bless.

Okay. Thanks. God bless. All right, hey, now let's get to Alberto from Georgia. Alberto, welcome.

You're on the air. Yeah, good evening, Master. It's hot in Savannah. Anyway, my question is this: John 3:16, right?

So how do you vers vers uh versus well the reforms say, well, you're a false convert. I mean, uh, you're jumping all over too fast without connecting concepts.

So John 3.16, what about John 3.16?

Okay, the Bible says you have eternal life, like John 1:12. Also, you believe in his name, you have eternal life.

So, how come the reformers say, well, sometimes people, well, even though they're separate credit, they still might be a false convert. How can that be? They appear to receive Christ. Let their false converse because they never truly did. We can see that in scripture.

I think it's Second Corinthians. Seven ten? For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation. But the sorrow of the world produces death. This verse talks about true and false repentance.

And there are different areas of faith, different levels of faith that people can have. An intellectual faith is something that the demonic forces have. But true faith is what God grants to us, Philippians 1:26, or 1.29, excuse me. That's true in living faith, but And that's what belongs to the believer. And we will never lose that because it comes from God, it's perfect, and He's the one who granted it to us.

Okay?

So it's like the same way, like the parable of the four soils, that kind of way. Yes, that's exactly correct. Uh-huh. Yep.

So how do we know who how how do so how do we know who So if a person really people say, well, those who call the name of the Lord shall be saved.

So how do you apply that in that sense also?

Well, if you go to Carm and you look up the soul judgment glasses, we can send you a pair of glasses. You can help them see the soul, if they're saved or not. That's a joke. They are or not, but we can judge their fruit. If someone denies the Lord Jesus Christ as God in flesh and just believes this and then denies it and denies his physical resurrection, you can say, I'm sorry you're not a Christian.

You're not looking into the souls, you're passing judgment on what they profess. People behave based on what they believe, not what they don't believe.

So, if they believe something, that's how they're going to profess, that's how they're going to behave. And they believe these things are false, so they're not saved.

Okay. Okay. So how about your witness that they believe in Asian two? But yet they They believe that verse, but they they don't believe in the Jesus came in the flesh.

So, how the contradiction there teams? There's lots of people who have contradictions. They'll say one thing and b and not understand stuff. There's a lot of faulty. theology and faulty preaching.

because people aren't believing the Word of God. It happens a lot.

Okay. Mm-hmm. among all denominations. Yeah, of course. Even among the Calvinist reform, Baptists, less so, less so under the Calvinists.

And the reason is, we're not better than anybody else, it's just that, generally speaking, Those who are Calvinists have examined the five points of Calvinism, TULIP, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints. And they have studied those and affirmed them.

So, because of that level of study, it's less likely you'll have a false convert there. That's not to say they can't. but I'm just saying it's less likely in that perspective, okay? Yeah, but yeah, okay, but I've been watching some videos about the Calvinists. They believe in regeneration before belief and logic.

The scriptures believe before regeneration. Yeah, but but no, no, no, no, no, no. A lot of Calvinists aren't understanding the difference between temporal priority and logical priority. Regeneration precedes faith. causatively or logically, but not temporally.

You see, the problem people don't understand is if you say that faith precedes regeneration, let's say five seconds, difference of time, let's just say that, just pick a number. If that's the case, then you have a believer who's not regenerate for five seconds. That's logically problematic. If you reverse it and say regeneration occurs and five seconds later they become a believer, then you have a regenerate person who's not a believer. For a period of time, and that's logically problematic.

That's called temporal priority, and the temporal priority issue has problems.

So, what we want to say is the logical priority. And the illustration I give is when light is in a light bulb, it's because electricity is there. Whenever the electricity is there, light is also there. But electricity and and light are simultaneous, it's just that the electricity is the cause of the light, therefore it's logically prior, even though they happen at the same time, because electricity is the cause of the light, not light the cause of electricity.

So electricity is logically prior, even though they are At the occurrence at the same time.

So, in Reformed theology, regeneration is logically prior. to faith, that it's the thing that enables us to believe. And we believe at the same time we're regenerate.

So that's why we say regeneration precedes faith, but they should say logically, not temporally, okay?

Okay. Okay. Because I was watching a YouTube video, but they were talking about um this You know, you know, watch I was watching uh Lake Ton Flower and another guy talking about it. But there's Charles and Eden and all this stuff. Yeah, and there's people y well, anyway, um It's just that uh A lot of times Calvinists Don't know how to articulate the faith in some particular areas very well.

So that could be the case. I don't know what you saw. All right?

Okay. Thank you. Alright, Label. God bless. Okay.

Bye bye. All right. Hey, folks, just want to let you know that we stay on the air by your support. Please consider supporting us. We do need that.

And if uh you like what You hear? And you want to see the radio stage, you want to hear the radio show continue, Matchlick Live, just please consider supporting us. Just go to carm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, and go to the top of the page, says donate. And you can help out. $5, $10, $15 a month is what we ask.

We do need that. And I'm just saying it just as a casual thing. We actually depend. This ministry depends on its continuance basically. on your support.

If all the support went away from Carm, I would be able to continue it because I get Social Security.

Well, maybe I wouldn't. I'd have to get a second job or get another job because my Social Security wouldn't be enough to keep me going.

So if all support from Karm was gone, I'd have to get another job and hopefully and I can still have Social Security. I'd be able to probably make it. But you know, it I'm just saying, this is what what it's like any ministry.

So we need that support, and that's all. Not not a threat, not a worry, and just hey, God puts it in your heart. Praise God. All right, now I got a question. Let's see.

Man knows both good at Man knows both good, God, and evil. Satan, good and evil, okay. That's how. Man became like us and knows both. In that sense, okay.

Yes, because it says in Genesis 1. For man has become like us, knowing good and evil. Let's see, Genesis. Let's see. Space US.

Um Let's see, where is that? It become Knowing good and evil.

So I think what a verse is for that. Knowing, let's see, Genesis. I'm going to tell you a little research. Genesis, knowing good and evil. Let's see if you can find a verse.

So, um We are already made in the image of God. That's called the communicable attributes of God. He loves, we love. He hates, we hate. He thinks, we can think.

And so he's self-aware, we're self-aware. We have these things that are in the nature of God, and he can communicate them to us. And so that's what he does. They're called the communicable attributes. The incommunicable attributes are things that cannot be communicated to us.

He's everywhere we are not. He knows everything, we don't.

So we are already made in the image of God by the very fact of being made in the image of God. Genesis 1:26 and those communicable attributes. But when it says that he became, Genesis, behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. In Genesis 3:22, it's just talking about this knowledge that God had of what good and bad is. The implication here is that Satan had already fallen, the demonic realm already existed, because he knowing what good and evil is.

But that's not logically necessary, because it could also be that God knows conceptually anything that would exist in contrary to his holiness would be automatically evil. He would know that. Adam and Eve didn't have any experience of that because they don't have all knowledge of what is actual or what is potential. They only had that knowledge of experience then, and Satan came in and then they learned what evil was.

So then they became like God in that sense, Genesis 3:22, knowing what is good and bad, and what is evil. They have experienced that. And the implication, again, is that God has experienced it in the fact that Satan rebelled. It appears to be that he did that before the fall of Adam and Eve.

So that's what that basically kind of thing is. All right?

Hope that helps.

Now, by the way, I got to get going because, hey, the music's going to start. May the Lord bless you. Hope you have a great weekend. And please consider supporting us. We definitely do need that support.

We really do. And you can do that easily. Carm.org, and at the top of the page says, donate. I hope that all of you have a great weekend. May the Lord bless you greatly.

And by his grace, we'll be back on the air on Monday. We'll talk to you then. God bless. Another program powered by the Truth Network.