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.

All right, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick, and your list of Matt Slick Live as usual. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 8772072276. And we can talk, we can blab. We got one caller coming in.

You can also send an email to info at carm.orginfo at C-A-R-M. Dot or g And put the subject line, radio comment, radio question, one of those kinds of things. And um So, this Friday, I'll not be live on the air. I'm going to go to Salt Lake City. It'd be down there.

If anybody wants to meet, you have to let me know. We can maybe arrange something like that. If not, no big deal. You just, if you're curious, at a restaurant, something like that, just email me at info at carm.org. Um let's see, we've got uh there's something else going on.

I've got a debate coming up in August. on the Trinity and Maybe another discussion coming in with another guy on Eastern Orthodoxy. And then another guy wanted to debate me on baptism, but I think it's kind of falling through, so I'm going to see if I can resurrect that. And uh and we'll see. But anyway, I'm trying.

And uh We're working on articles. I'll tell you about the articles after we get a lull from the calls. Let's get to Jamal from North Carolina. Jamal, brother. Hey, man.

Welcome, man. Hey, brother, how are you doing today? Doing all right, big man, hanging in there. Hanging in there. Always like it when you call.

Okay. A lot of people don't know. Yeah, Jamal and I hung out when I was in North Carolina. And uh nice guy, good godly guy, and so it's always nice hearing from Jamal. Yeah, um Matt came down here, and I can call him Matt.

He allowed me to do that. Those are calm-down guys. Yeah, we had to move from Great One to Matt. That's what it is, right? Yeah.

You allowed me to do that, though. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. That was good. We just sat and talked for a while.

It was really nice in that room. Nice break from everything. I enjoyed that. That was good. Well, anyway, man.

Yeah, that's what I was going to get to. I was like, you know, enamored by hearing him on the radio. And then we went to a little small break room and chatted. I was like, man, I'm chatting with the great one, Matt.

So that was a nice experience. But. I'm sorry. But I enjoy talking to you. That was my privilege.

So there you go. All right, another man of God. I hear you.

Well,. Yeah, praise God.

Well, to finally get to the question, we talked a little bit about Abraham's bosom. about uh the place where people went uh before Jesus is uh death on the cross. I wanted to get a little bit more in depth to what Abraham's bosom Yeah. Yeah, I really. That's a good question.

I don't know if I've ever written a specific article on. Abraham's bossop. I'm trying to remember if I have. I may have. but I don't recall the top of my head.

But it's out of Luke 16, 19 through 31, and um It seems to be This is what it seems to be. is before the crucifixion of Christ those who died in faith. could not go to heaven because the blood of Christ had not yet been shed, and the way hadn't, so to speak, been cleansed opened up. Yeah. And so They apparently went to a place called Abraham's Bosom, or uh it's also called Paradise.

And so They were hanging out there. They were in this place, and it was a good place. It wasn't bad because in Hades, in this account in Luke 16, the rich guy was in Hades, and he was in torment, being in flame.

So Abraham was being comforted, as it says, and um Let's see, where does it say that? Yeah, being comforted. I mean, not Abraham being comforted, but the rich man. Lazarus is good. I'm getting things mixed up.

The rich man, I'm thinking ahead. I remember reading someplace that tradition. Not that it's valid or invalid here, but tradition says his name was Dives. D-I-V-E-S T-Vs. And I forgot where I picked that up.

I pick up so many things over the years. It's like, where did I get that? I don't know. I don't recall. And so uh So that's that.

Anyway, and then Lazarus was there. And so in Hades, in verse in Luke 16, 23, being in torment, and he saw. Abraham far away.

So he, it's a place of consciousness, a place of torment. and uh that they'll never get out of this torment. They're going to face judgment and be cast into outer darkness and hell. And anyway, so it seems as though that the Lord Jesus apparently went there. And led captive a host of captives out of Ephesians 4.

I think it's 8 through 12. And um It took him into heaven because the crucifixion had occurred, the atonement had occurred. This is just. theories, but uh that's that excuse me what's going on going on.

Okay. Okay, all right, um a very good answer as usual. Um, do you have time for another kind of AF comp question?

Okay, no problem. All right, got it. We talked all talked about this one as well. But I wanted to dig a little further into this one also. Um The scribes in other accounts.

that were put into the Bible. And I know God's word is God breathed. This is just for an apologetic question. How can we say that what they wrote down and the first hand accounts. How can we say that those are accurate?

That's a good question, and it's a difficult one to answer in the sense of absolute 100% fact. Because You know, it says in, where was it? It mentions the word Dorcas. Let me explain something here. I think it's in Matthew.

And uh come on, slime ball, get in your computer. Dorcas. And it's in Acts, in Acts.

Now, Luke wrote Acts. What's interesting, it says now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha, which translated in Greek. is called Dorcas.

So is he writing in Greek in the book of Acts or in a different language, and this is part of the translation?

So yeah, these questions like this arise. And Generally speaking, what we understand is that the The early church knew who wrote what. trusted what was written. And that it was commonly understood who wrote what. And the idea is that They believed and trusted that the authors, Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, etc.

were the ones who did this. And it was then transmitted. And it just was common, from what I understand, it was common knowledge. In the early church and the early believers, and even the early church fathers wrote it was commonly attested to so-and-so and this and that, as they commented. And this is the evidence that we have.

that they did the writing. And as far as accuracy goes, it's difficult to say were they a hundred percent accurate. Uh now As far as inspiration goes, well of course, we know that. But as far as step stepping back and saying, Is there a test that we can implement for verification of things?

Well, not really, not like that. We don't have. the absolute originals written in um in the original languages.

Okay, yeah. The original copies, I believe they're all written in Greek, but uh Maybe Matthew might have been written in Aramaic, some say. Or Hebrew and translate it into Greek. But there's suggestions of that. But the thing is How accurate are they?

Well, they certainly seem to be accurate. They accurately represent history, accurately represent facts and cities and dates and times. and they're consistently uh proven to be correct.

So we can then abductively not deduction, not induction, but abduction, basically is the conclusion of the best inference. Yeah. The most evidence so shows us, yeah, it's accurately formed, accurately written, accurately transmitted to us, though we can't prove it in a court of law. That we can prove as if here's the original of each one that we can compare. We don't have those.

So we have to go a different way of analysis. For such ancient literature, and when we do that. We find that the documents are very early, very accurate, very consistent. And so that's how we do it, okay? That is amazing, as usual.

Thank you for the click. Yeah There was one other thing. We talked for like about two minutes. um about uh one of the I guess quote unquote original books, or original texts. And that was the Byzantine Bible.

Uh-huh. Remove a Derek. Uh no I don't, but that's okay. I'm hurt and shocked and just dejected. My late wife would often say, Don't you remember us talking about it two minutes ago?

And I'd say, Who are you? You know, stuff like that. Yeah. Uh and and if she heard the the radio conversation she'd be rubbing her forehead and making all kind of grunting noises. That's right.

And staring at me with those half masked eyelids, you know, without movement. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Yeah, yeah. She she she was a a nice lady.

What's right, you get to meet her, don't you? Yeah, you did. I certainly did. That was a pleasant point. Yeah.

Yeah, I forgot about that. I remember you remember you looking at her, looking at me, looking at her, looking at me, and looking at her and going, Are you what's the what what why'd you yeah, I remember that it was that was interesting, you know, and I didn't complain because it's just basically true, you know, yeah. That's right. Anyway, go ahead. Yeah, no, it's it's uh it's all right.

Hey, I saw a picture how you uh were. You know, uh, you know, when you're younger, hey, you're a stud man, so so don't play so short. Yeah. Uh Yeah, so there there's this guy that's also on the Truth Network called. Dr.

Abadan Shah with Clearview today. He also has a podcast called Clearview. He has I think I'm saying this accurately. Continued along with others, continued There's a bad connection. It's getting bad.

The connection or something sounds or something are happening weird when you, I think when you say S's, I'm not sure. Oh, uh, hopefully that's not me just uttering. Uh, but I do have a connection at the house, unfortunately. Yeah, it's uh it's getting it's getting getting difficult. But at any rate, go ahead.

Yeah. We'll ship and work through it. Move around and took it apart. Is that better or worse?

Okay, well it's about the same. But anyway, we'll just push through it.

So, okay, keep going.

Okay. So Um Dr. Abdul Shah completed a book talking about the original text. It's called, I believe, the Byzantine Bible.

Okay. ninety seven percent of it has been recovered. And the other 3% are just up to grammatical errors like Commas in. Apostrophes and things like that. Yeah, that's the low percentage I've heard.

I've heard as high as 99.85%. De depending on how you count things. Yeah, because for example, if you write the word ha, which is the word th the and it's an o with a little comma above the uh the o.

Well, it's a comma. Flakes off and they copy, let's say they make ten copies of that original without the comma over the A, the O, which is the word the comma is called a rough breathing mark. Let's just say you copy it ten times without the rough breathing mark. Is that one error or is it ten errors? And that's this differentiation of how you c you copy it.

Because we know that the word ha is supposed to have a rough breathing mark over it. But if a scribe is accurately copying exactly what he sees, Then he, if he misses the rough breathing mark or his manuscript, he hadn't had it, then that would be counted in 10 copies, has 10. Ten variants. But it's really only one, you see. Hey, hold on now, we gotta break.

Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your call at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Jamal from North Carolina. Jamal, welcome, brother. You're back on.

You know?

Alright, so where were we? Abram's bosom and then Other stuff? I forgot. Then I was uh studding over my S's and had a bad connection, and then I was rambling on about you being a stud, and uh then we went to and then we were also talking about the scribes and the Byzantine text, so we were covered a lot and uh Yeah, and I'm going to try to make it short because I know you got the callers calling in.

So, you know, I'll try to be quick.

Okay. Alright, that's it. Wait, that's a good Okay. Are you there? Uh that was pretty much about it.

Um So um Just to kind of um Clarify about the Byzantine text. That is something that you have heard about, right? Oh, yeah. Uh-huh. Yep.

Okay. Alright, cool. And also, something that it's worth promoting. Yeah, it's just a manuscript tradition or line. And uh It's brought up, you know, like a lot of different things, the Siniaticus, Alexandrinus.

There's different kinds of flavors and stuff like that, textus receptus, majority text.

So, this is stuff that experts who study this stuff would be able to. Articulate, and I'm not an expert in it by any means.

So I am familiar with it, and it just has to do with manuscript traditions. And so you'll find that different traditions have slightly different variants. In various things, very small. And uh but what it shows is even the different traditions are extremely well preserved in virtually identical. But the variances of the things that they use uh are are the things that are are worth noting and a few of the issues.

So but other than that I really don't do much about it. I haven't done done a deep study on it.

Okay. Well, I mean, that's good enough for me. That's good confirmation because even though doctor Schaard did that, I still wanted to get somebody else's perspective on that, and you gave me a lot of good information. But hey, very good answers as usual. praying for you.

Guys support his ministry. About five, ten dollars a month is not a lot to be able to have his resource at the Breach of a phone call. He also does, as he said, debates and all that.

So let's keep him on the radio. Call Truth Network, as you said, and tell Truth Network that you appreciate the program. We've got to keep Matt Slick on the radio. Hey, thank you, and I'll be listening in. God bless you, sir.

All right, man. Hey, thanks. Thanks, man. I'd appreciate that. All right, brother.

Yes, sir. All right, and that kind of reminds me, tonight I will be doing an online live QA on Reformed theology. The reason I'll be doing that is because.

Some obstreperous individuals who were misrepresenting the Reformed faith were on the Carm Facebook page, just saying things that are just not true. And I said, Well, would you guys like to have a meeting and we talk about this? And I can answer questions and show you that's not our position, etcetera, etcetera. And long story short, is tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern time, but I can't put the address URL in until about 10 minutes before.

because of how it something works anyway. And so I'll be doing that And you can go to carm.org forward slash calendar. And I'll put it up tonight. That'll be about an hour and a half. And if you want to join in, you can ask questions.

And you don't have to believe in it. You can disagree with it, and we just talk and stuff like that. Let's get to Elijah from Pennsylvania. Elijah, welcome. You're on the air.

Planetary. Hey Matt, um I just got finished watching a debate between two Christian ladies and two former Christian ladies who are now. Jewish and one of the arguments that they brought up in the discussion Was Isaiah seven fourteen, and the Jewish ladies were saying that. Uh in the original Hebrew Um, the word vir virgin is uh that Hebrew word doesn't actually mean virgin and that it can actually mean uh multiple uh different things. And they were saying that they were saying that when Matthew whoever wrote Matthew wrote that gospel, they had misinterpreted Isaiah seven to mean that it was referring to a virgin.

So that was one of the arguments against Christianity.

So what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, they are partially correct. The word there in Isaiah 714 is Alma. The general word for virgin in Hebrew is Bethula. And that's not there.

And so they're going to say, well, that's obviously Matthew Blewett and uh the English translations uh blew it.

Well, what they need to understand is when the Jews themselves translated Isaiah 714 into the Greek around 200 BC, they used the Greek word parthenos. which means virgin. That's the same word in Matthew 1.23. when he said, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, but his Parthenos. And that's the same word used in the Septuagint by the Jews in Isaiah 7:14.

So their issue now has to be with the question and the challenge: why would the Jews, 200 to 250 BC, in the Septuagint, why would they translate alma, which means young maiden, why would they translate that into the Greek Parthenos, which means virgin? Why would they do that? Are you saying they're wrong?

Okay. They didn't say that explicitly, but like what they were saying it did Seemed like that's what they were thinking because they kept saying that our English Bible. Who's that? The Jewish girls or the Christian girls? Yes, yes, the Jewish women kept saying over and over again that our English Bibles are are from a translation into the Greek and then a translation into the English.

And they're saying that's a problem because when you Translate From Hebrew into Greek, you lose some of the meaning. And so they didn't say it outright, but what they were saying.

Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait, wait, wait. If it's translation, you lose some of the meaning. Then, when they translate from Hebrew into English, can we trust the meaning that they have? Because it's lost. I'm just using their logic against them.

You see, they'll say things like this, but they don't apply to themselves. They'll say, whenever you have a translation, you lose meanings. Are you translating the Hebrew? Yeah, then you've lost meaning. How can we trust what you say?

And it's not always the case that you lose meaning. I've translated Spanish and Greek and stuff into English, and you can get very precise equivalents. It's not a problem. But the challenge is Why did the Jews translate it with Parthenos in the Septuagint? They have to answer that one because that's the critical issue, okay?

Yeah, and um When when when they were having that debate, something came into my mind that never came into my mind before.

So so the Jews of Jesus' time and even to today, they believe that when their Messiah comes, he's going to be a conquering warlord. And I find that interesting because in uh uh most m m I think most Uh Christians today believe that Daniel 11:36 through 45 is a prophecy of the Antichrist. And when you read those verses, it literally teaches that. The Antichrist is going to be a conquering warlord.

So when he shows up on the scene as a conquering warlord, I think that's going to be a major sign to the Jews that he is their Messiah. And that's going to be a major sign. deception for them. Yeah, yes, uh and the I've written an article on Antichrist on Carm, and this this section you just referenced also shows where he probably is homosexual. But hey man, hold on man, we got a we got a break coming up, okay Of abrupt there.

So hold on. Hey, folks, we write back Afflee's messages with Elijah. Then we'll get to Cody from Ohio. We have two open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-277-2727-2772 2072276.

Be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, and welcome back to the show. It's the bottom of the hour.

If you want to give me a call, we have two open lines: 877-207-2276. Let's get back with Elijah from Pennsylvania. Elijah, welcome. You're on the airbrusher. You bump screw here.

Alright.

So hope that answered that, because That's the answer. That's your response to them. And they have to be able to. answer why the Jews translated it the same way Matthew did. Yeah.

Yeah, they never give an answer as to as to why they think that the uh Jews uh translated it that way. Yeah. And this is the thing, is a lot of times what people will do in discussions is they won't focus on the issue. If I was discussing this with them, and I'd say, Well, why did the Septuagint uh Jews translate it the same way Matthew did? You know, the Jews did it.

And if they were to say, well, we can't trust that Bible button, they go on to something else. I'd say, no, no, no. Why would they do that? Why would they do that? You have to answer the question.

Because it's Parthenos in the Greek, which is virgin, from the Parthenon in Athens, okay, in Greece, which I've been to. And so this is something they have to address. Death would dress it. And so if they refuse to do that, Then, what I'll do sometimes is: the fact that you refuse to do it means it doesn't fit in your argument. And so you dismiss it, which means it goes against your argument.

You don't have an answer, you just dismiss it, which means your whole position is weak.

So do you have an answer? And that's what I'll do with them.

Okay? Yes, and one more argument that they brought up that I thought was interesting that I thought I brought to your attention. They said Hey, uh Jews believe that the Messiah will come through, um will will will will be d suspended. From a male lineage, and that he will have a human father. And they say that since Jesus never had a human father, then he can't be the Messiah.

Then he also Wow. Hold on, hold on, hold on. If because before I forget this, if they say he didn't have a human father, I'd say, are you admitting? He didn't have a father that was human, then who was his father, if you're admitting that? That that's that would be a s A stumble on their part because it opens a door for the incarnation.

But anyway, okay, what's the other part? Yes, so so so they went on to um Hey, I I think that he went on to say that he wasn't Directly related to David or something like that, because Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies, and one of the Gospels gives like more. more uh uh ancestry or something like that. Once through Mary, once through Joseph. No no big deal.

Yeah. No big deal. Yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah, and and then they also brought up that. Since Jesus wasn't biologically related to Joseph, then he can't be the Messiah because Jews believe that he would have to be biologically from that lineage and not through a marriage. I'd say, show that to me in Scripture where that's the requirement.

And if you can't do that, you need to retract the statement. A lot of times what they'll do is they'll say things that just aren't true. We just heard this, we believe this. But the lineage has to come through the house of David. And after David, it splits.

It goes down to Joseph and through Mary. And so both of them fit the house uh requirement out of Scripture.

So Yeah, they they uh they don't have a good leg to stand on.

Okay. They don't. Yeah, and what you said about uh them them admitting that uh Jesus uh didn't have a father, uh that that that's actually pretty good. Uh I didn't even I didn't even think of that when I was you know watching this the debate. Yeah, I'd say, well, if he didn't have a father.

Then what are you saying? That the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, and And she was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is exactly what the Bible says in the New Testament. Is that what you're saying? And then what they'll usually do is retract.

Well, she had to have a real father. She probably was messing around. I'd say, oh, so in other words, you're accusing her of sin to fit your theology. Yeah, that's not looking at the facts. You know that's just Uh That's just reshaping the story to an excuse that fits what you want in your narrative.

You're not looking at the historical evidence. And besides that, I'd go back to it and say: why did the Jews translate it as virgin? In Isaiah 7, 14. Why did they do that in the Septuagint? That's something they have to answer.

And if they can't answer it, see, that to me it's like you have a board with a bunch of nails, and during a debate, you tap different nails through different topics. That one, Isaiah 7:14, Septuagint, I'd keep tapping on it. Drive it home. Boom, boom, until they get irritated. I've done it many times.

Are you certain? The Septuagint says, Look, I'm tired of talking about it. Are you admitting that the Jews crowned it as as a virgin? Once they admit it, Say, okay, so then the the complaint goes away. And then I say, what do you got next?

Okay. Do you want to hear what d or did did you want to hear about one last thing that's very, very ministry? Sure.

So So I saw this uh street interview in Israel uh that happened uh not long ago. And uh these Christians were in Israel, Jerusalem, walking around uh uh, you know, talking to Jews about the Old Testament. And they walked up to a j a a a j a bunch of Jewish people on different occasions. And they asked them, can we quote you some scriptures from the Bible? And they said, sure.

Yeah. The Jewish people didn't realize that they were reading Isaiah 53.

So after they had finished reading Isaiah 53, they were like, um. Uh who who did that sound like to you? And they said, uh, that sounds like Jesus. And The Christians said to the Jewish people, Yeah, but we're not reading the New Testament, we're reading Isaiah 53. And all of those Jewish people were shocked.

They were like, Whoa! Oh, yeah. Yep, yep, that happens a lot, that's right. uh Jewish people don't read their own Bibles. uh to and really study it.

But when they do, a lot of them become Christians. Christians, by the way.

Okay? Yep.

Alright Matt, it was good it was nice speaking with you. All right, brother. God bless, man. God bless. All right, now let's get to Cody from Ohio.

Cody, welcome, Brett. You're on the air. Hey man. Hey, man, how you doing? Doing all right, hanging in there, man.

Hanging in there. What do you got? Yeah, same here. I ain't got much time. I'm getting ready to go to work.

But. So I just had a question about the three synoptics. In Matthew 16, 18, Mark 9, and then Luke 9.

So there's, and it's just a recent reading on it. At the transfiguration, Matthew and Mark say that it took It was after six days, then they went up to the mountain. And Luke tells us that after eight, now about eight days. They they went up to the mountain. Uh I just was curious.

Um So if it says about about eight days About eight days is not specific to six.

So linguistically, we could say, well, it's about six is about eight, eight, about seven. I could see the that.

Okay. Right. Not that it's a contradiction, but I mean, so if they've walked up the mountain, would it take eight six to eight days to walk up the mountain? The transfiguration? Oh, I don't know.

That's a good question. I don't know how long it would take. Yeah. It's just a very And plus they can use different counting conventions too. Because Yeah, oh yeah, there's different time conventions used in the four Gospels.

Which hour? Are you using the Jewish system or using the Roman system? And so which day is Yeah, for real, what's what day is it that you're counting? If you count, for example, let's just say sundown was at 6 p.m. And then they started their journey.

Before that, but ended at 6:30, let's just say after sundown, ended their journey.

Well, that counts. In Jewish thought in some countries.

So it just depends on which one I could look at it to see, but. These are the proposed ideas that would work.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. So so right after that you know, the and loops. Verse 37, he says, On the next day, when they had come down from the mountain.

So I don't know. I just, I was seeing that in. I was trying to figure out if it was if they waited six or eight days somewhere around there to go up the mountain or if it took them that long to get up the mountain and then it only took a day to get down.

So I don't I don't know. I just Yeah, I don't even know if I've written all this. Let's see if I can go Bible card Bible difficulties. And that would be out of Matthew. Yeah, Matthew sixteen, eighteen, and then Mark nine and Luke nine.

So, and if you could, and I'll hang with you after this, but if you could sometime soon, if you could. Painig. Give a uh Yeah. I guess an excerpt on When Jesus said in Matthew 18, He said, You know, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. And Catholics believe it's Peter, and whoever believes it.

Yeah, I can do that easily. Yeah. And then you are Peter. And then geographically. Geographically, though, he he was talking about the rock that they were.

getting ready to go up to. No. No. Right? No.

Yeah. No, Peter had just said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And then Paul, I mean, Jesus says, You are Peter, Petros, and upon Petra, I'll build my church. Petros is the masculine form, Petra is the feminine form of the word. And Petros is a small rock that you can pick up and move.

Petra is an immovable rock you can't move. And Petra is used of Jesus, an exact reference of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 10:4.

So it's building upon the truth of what Peter said about Jesus, and it was upon that what Jesus was saying, okay? You want to hang? All right, appreciate you. All right, brother. God bless.

Hey, we'll be right back after these messages. We'll get to Jermaine. California. and then maybe to Papo. We'll see.

Hey, God bless. Be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking a call at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome back to the show.

If you want to give me a call, we have two open lines, 877-207-2276. And I just want to remind you that we stay on the air by your support. Please consider supporting us. That's the only way we can do it. And if you can go to carm.org and look at the top of the page, you'll see the word donate.

You can set it up. It's $5, $10, or $15 a month. That's what we ask and more or less. You can set it up for what you want. And we would appreciate that because it does help.

I know that a lot of us out there are struggling financially, and I get it. And if you can't do it, that's okay. And you can pray for us. But if you can, you want to forfeit a cup of coffee a month. For us, a fancy cup, then please consider supporting us at carm.org and at the top of the page with the word donate.

Let's get to Jermaine from California. Jermaine, welcome. You're on the Oh, Harry, Matt, happy Monday to you. Hey, thanks, man. What do you got, brother?

Well, um, this uh actually last Sunday, yesterday, I was invited by my sister-in-law. to go to witness her baptism, and I thought that was great. She used to attend our church. Locally the machine's kind of a hour away or an hour or two away, but I went there and when I drove into the parking lot, I saw the Church of Christ. I was like, huh, okay, I wonder if she's.

fully aware Of what their beliefs are. And she's been studying with some ladies for a long time.

So she did the baptism, but. I know it gets confusing for a lot of people, and I do believe she loves the Lord. But I know they t uh a lot of those places teach how baptism is essential for your salvation. Yeah. And just listening to some of the rhetoric, some of the females who are speaking, It didn't seem to be as clear-cut as Scripture makes it that.

you know, you there's no works are going to save you.

So I was just wondering if you can kind of give us a little illustration of what the Church of Christ is about and whether or not baptism is indeed essential for your salvation. Yeah, the Church of Christ is uh Ugh. Uh faulty. in that it requires baptism in order to be saved. And that is a false teaching because if baptism is necessary, Then two problems arise.

One of them is: then we're not justified by faith. And the other one is then those who die in the womb Can't go to heaven. And this is because if you take the logic of what they're saying, it's essential for salvation.

Well, then. They the babies die in the womb, they can't go to heaven, can they?

Well, no, they can't also.

So, baptism is essential for salvation, except when it's not essential for salvation.

So then they are speaking out of two sides of their mouth at the same time, trying to say things and justify their error. And so Uh the other issue here is justification, which is the legal declaration of righteousness, Romans 4.5, is uh r obtained by faith, having therefore been justified by faith, Romans 5.1.

Well, God grants that we have faith, Philippians one twenty nine.

So then I ask them, Are we justified by faith?

Now sometimes I'll say yes, sometimes I'll say no.

Sometimes they'll say, Yes, you were justified by faith when you do baptism.

Okay, so I'd say, then that means you're not justified by faith when you have faith. Right? And they had to say yes.

So then they're not justified by faith when they have faith, because they're justified by faith. Then their faith justifies them. But you're saying no, it doesn't justify them. The ceremony Is what they have to go through to be justified, and faith is only completed in the ceremony, so they're not justified by faith, but by faith and a ceremony. And so this is what you have to go through with them.

Of course they don't like this kind of a thing, but It reminds me on Saturday here in Idaho, we had someone call me up and said, Hey, or texted me, hey, there's a big Jesus movement park thing. I didn't know about it. And I drove out to it. And maybe a hundred booths, I don't know, and people and singing and praise. And it was an Acts 238 group there.

You have to be baptized to be saved. And I I walked right through the midst to see if anybody would talk to me. And if they did, I was going to talk to them. But no one did, so I didn't go there. But they're a group that people have to be baptized to be saved.

Usually they're. different cult than the Church of Christ, but I don't know if that helps at all. But that's a problem. Yeah, and um th this might be one after is Carry over to the after-show, but let me ask: wouldn't Romans Ten nine and ten really negate this whole argument for people that love to uh bring up these works 'cause I've I've seen literally people who have Literally risked their lives, and some they didn't, you know, they were being videoed and they were confessing Christ knowing they were going to die. And they had accepted the Lord, but they They didn't have time for a baptism.

They were going to die. Yeah. That is more of a proof than I saw people jumping into a warm pool in America.

So. Right. Yeah, I've asked th them.

Some of them will say, Well, I can't judge in that that situation. If you can't judge in that situation, then it means water baptism is not essential. Because if it was essential, you'd have to say they they went to hell. even though they profess Christ. And the other group will say, um Yeah, they went to hell because they didn't get baptized.

And I'm going to say, oh, so then in Romans 10, 9, and 10, when they confessed Jesus as Lord and Savior, they were not saved?

So either way they lose that argument. Yep, you're on a good track, man. Good track.

Okay, well I'm gonna let some other callers get a chance and I'll I'll bring this topic up at another time. Amen. You're awesome, buddy. Remember, you gotta come visit. Yes, yes, let's pray about it.

I want that to happen. All right, man. Sounds good, bro. All right, man. We'll talk to you later, Jermaine.

Yeah. All right, I like Jermaine's good guy. And Jamal. I even like Jamal.

Sometimes Jamal's no, he's a good guy too. All right, let's get to Papu from Puerto Rico. What do you got, buddy? How are you doing, Matt? Good to hear you again.

Hey, man, I'm just doing radio. Last segment of the hour. What do you got, man? What do you got? Okay, I got a new argument that I would like you to evaluate for validating EAF soundness.

Please.

Okay. Polysyllogism. What? Holy philologist and yes.

Okay, it's going to take a lot of work here, but I have to write it out and take a look. But what's P1? Yeah. Okay, if you exist, absolute nothingness never existed. I don't know.

That'd be something to discuss. Absolute nothingness. And uh I would say there's no such thing as absolute nothingness compared to nothingness because nothingness is just nothing.

So, how do you have absolute nothingness? I know, it's kind of overdone that way. Yeah. Yeah. So if you exist never exists.

No nothingness. Never existed. Nothingness. Never existed. I don't know if you exist.

Nothingness never existed. Yeah, I don't know if that's legit. I mean, I'm trying to, I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm just saying, I don't know, because if I was an atheist, how would I argue that? Let's see.

If you exist, nothingness never existed. And then they could say, well, there might have been a time before the Big Bang when nothing existed and then something came into existence. They could argue that. But then you can just say, and what brought the Big Bang into existence? Nothing, because nothing is what rocks think of.

So you're you're uh you're smuggling in there um the Kalam cosmological. Argument of you can't have an infinite regression of uncaused causes and nothing comes from nothing is called ex nihilo, nihilo fat. And so it it won't work.

So uh interesting. It will work. I'm just thinking about it. Yeah. So I think you might have gone to something there.

Um You exist that's self evident. I think it's valid. I think the premise one would be challenged. But I think it's valid. And the soundness would depend on well, anyway, what's P2?

What do you got? Okay, the second is impassable, if nothingness never existed.

Something always existed. If nothingness never existed, yeah, that makes that's logically necessary, right? Yeah. Yeah. That's necessarily true.

Yeah, what's what's uh you have p is it a C at this point or P three?

Okay, I'll pit three now. If something always existed, it must have existential security. Whoa.

Okay, if something always existed, it must have Existential Security, which I don't even know what that means. What does that mean? That means that it must secure itself into existence. You mean brought itself into existence? secure secure itself into existence.

that will evade all the possible conditions that might bring that being in destroying that the Evade those conditions. Must have existential security. I think what you're saying is if something has always existed, it must have necessary existence or a seity. Right? It might have a decision.

Well, let's go to the next premise so okay. Yeah, let's go. What's P4 then? If it has existential security, it has unlimited power. Uh yeah, that was yeah, I think you're yeah, I don't know.

Um I don't know what unlimited power would mean in that case. Um if it has you're saying Yeah, I know what that is, but I mean, I think you're talking about, if you're talking about existential security, which I don't know what that term means. I think you're you're referring to uh a seaty. a necessary being and that he has non-contingency eternally. Right, if something's always existed, it must ha have a a seety.

because it cannot be dependent or continued anything else. And so if it has a C a T Then what was your what was it? If SS C D, then what? It's omnipotent. I don't know if there's a necessity to that.

Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. It it has unlimited power. Yeah, omnipotence. Um Omnipotence.

Yeah, I don't know if that's necessarily the case. I'm gonna have to think through it. Um Because if something's always existed, it has to have unlimited power or just omnipotence. Uh then the question here is, uh are you talking about personal or impersonal? Uh existence prior to Because if something has a CAT, the issue here is personal or impersonal.

Because it's a very good idea. My my next premise is go there. Yeah, I think P4 needs explanation and support. But at any rate, what's P f you got P5? If it has some limited power, it has all powers, including the power of knowledge.

if it has limited or unlimited power. If it has omitted power or omnipotence. It has all powers, including the power of knowledge. Yeah, I think, well, I don't think power, knowledge is a power. Knowledge is a state of mind.

And we're uh And power is a is a potential.

So omnip omniscience is a condition of the mind and static. Uh in this case, omniscience will be a static condition without change, where omnipotence is a potentiality in that it's not exercised.

So I think the categories there might be uh different.

So I th I think there's some weaknesses in there. I mean, I love what you're doing, though. I think there's some areas that need to be clarified.

Okay. If he has all powers, it is omniscient. Oh, we're out of time. And there's the It whole powers, it's omniscient. That presupposes that you're smuggling in personhood into it.

And not impersonal. I haven't distinguished that the impersonal is not able to be done, and you might have to inject a disjunctive syllogism. Hey, we got to go. There's the time, there's the music.

So, everybody, sorry about that. We're out of time. The Lord bless you. Be back on here tomorrow. God bless.

Bye. Another program powered by the Truth Network.