Matt Slick Live

A previously recorded Matt Slick show. It's Matt Slick live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry found online at karm.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. Even though it is 9-11, the day that Twin Towers were destroyed, and a lot of the Muslim world rejoiced because of the thousands of people killed in the name of Islam. And if you want to call and you want to talk about Islam, feel free to have a question on any other topic. That's fine.

It doesn't really matter. I can do a little bit of an expose on Islam, what it teaches. If you are interested. Sorry about that.

Let's see. If you want to watch the show, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. You can watch on Facebook and also watch on YouTube. Now, I do Facebook and we ran out of friends. People who want to, I don't know, they call it friending, whatever. And I don't do very much of it because I just don't. It's over the years. I've added a few people. If they're Christians, you know, I can tell.

Look at their bios a little bit and I'll do that. And over the years, well, I maxed out. And so someone suggested I do what's called the Matt Slick fan page and I did that. And so they were telling me that it was better to do it that way. And so that's what's going on. If you are interested in checking it out, all you got to do is go to Facebook and type in Matt Slick fan page and you can get the information you need. Not a big deal.

But, you know, there it is. Also, we have, let's see, three online schools if you're interested. School of Theology, one of Apologetics and one on Critical Thinking. And they're self-paced. They are very easy to use and, I might add, they have a lot of great information in them.

Even if I do say so myself, having been the one who wrote them, took me about a better part of two years to get those three schools done. There's a lot of information in there and it's systematically arranged so that you can go through lesson by lesson and learn what it is that theology teaches. So you can check that out if you want.

All you got to do is go to karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, and on the right hand side you'll see the link to the schools. You can check that out. Not a big deal.

But we use them to keep the lights on. So if that sounds good to you and you want to do that, please check them out. All right.

Let's see. We have four open lines if you want to give me a call. 877-207-2276. Why don't we just jump on the line and get to Nicholas from Florida. Nicholas, welcome. You're on the air. Hey. Hey. Hey, it's so good to talk with you. I really appreciate it. Good. Well, thanks for calling. So I had a question. So I've interacted with the International Church of Christ, and your resources have been invaluable.

Good. So as I was talking with someone, trying to minister to them in the cult, and I pointed to Ephesians 2 verses 8 on what it says, justified by faith, not of works. Their response was, the works in that passage are only referring to the works of the Torah, the Old Covenant law. And I've never heard that before, so I had honestly no idea how to respond to that, and I wanted to get your thoughts.

Say, okay, so then there's a couple ways you can tackle it. That means the works of the Old Testament law. Are you saying baptism is the work of the New Testament law? If they're going to refer to that, it's the Old Testament law. Oh, are you saying that baptism is the work of the New Testament law?

I'd just ask this question and just see. Second, if they say it's just the works of the Old Testament law, then I would ask them to demonstrate that that's the case. They can make the assertion, but all you've got to do is say, well, okay, show it to me.

Show me how that is the case. Show me from the text that that's what it's talking about. And you can also cross-reference it with Romans 4-5, which says this, but to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies in godly his faith, his credit, his righteousness. So you could cross-reference that and say, now, Paul is using the word work there, and he does it in Ephesians 2, 8, and 9. And so could you please just explain, is he talking about just the works of the Old Testament law?

Is that what it is in Romans 4-5 when it says to the one who does not work but believes, that's faith alone. So you're saying it's only the Old Testament law, so you're saying we have to do New Testament law. Can you show me that in Scripture? Show me that in the Bible where it restricts it. See, the Catholics do the same thing when I bring up Romans 3, 28. We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. And they'll say, well, that's just the Old Testament, and they'll say things like the ceremonial law. They'll just pick something out of the law and say that's what it refers to.

In other words, they're making the Scripture say what they want it to say to fit their theological error. So that's some of the ways you can tackle it. Okay. And then I've got a question for you to ask.

Thank you so much, I really appreciate that. Okay, I've got a couple of questions for now. Now let's set them up on this one, okay? So ask them, are we justified by faith?

Just ask them that question. And they're going to say various things, but since Romans 3, 28, Romans 4-5, Romans 5-1, Galatians 2, 16, 2-21 teach that we are justified by faith. So what you want to do is get them to say, yes, that's what the Bible says. You can go to Romans 5-1, having therefore been justified by faith. You can just read that to them and say, are we justified by faith? If they argue with that, they're arguing against Scripture. What they're generally going to do is say, yes, you're justified by faith when you get baptized.

That's going to be the response. They say, okay. Then I have a question. Are we justified by faith when we have faith or not? If we're justified by faith, then we're justified by faith when we have faith. Or it's not the case that we're justified by faith when we have faith.

Do you see the problem for them? Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. That's super helpful. I really appreciate you taking my call.

No problem. Let me know how it goes with them. Or have them call me up. Love, as in adore, as in cherish it, as in really want it to happen, that they would call me up and argue with me about baptism over the air. It would be fun. Oh, I will absolutely be calling back. I have a feeling that I'm going to be interacting with these people a lot more.

Well, good. What's going to happen is you're going to have to bone up on covenant theology, baptism, works, imputation, justification, and some other things, and it will give you one other pointer. You need to look at Colossians 2.14. Colossians 2.14 is a very critical verse because verse 13 says, Having forgiven us all our transgressions, verse 14, Having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which is hostile to us, he took it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

So you can discuss this with them. What is the certificate of debt that was canceled at the cross? And since it says in the previous verse, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled the certificate of debt, well, to cancel the sin debt, then ask them, is your sin debt canceled when you get baptized?

You can ask them that. And they're going to say, well, of course it is. Take them to Colossians 2.14, which says it was canceled at the cross. If it's canceled at the cross, how is it canceled at your baptism? That's a killer question for them.

They won't know what to do, okay? So we're justified by faith when we believe, but the sin debt is canceled at the cross. Make sense? Yes. Okay.

No, that makes a lot of sense. So, again, I really appreciate it. I've been jotting down all these notes, and I really appreciate all the resources you're pointing me to. Hey, man, no problem. I've got a lot of stuff there for you, all right? All right, thank you so much. All right, man, God bless. All right.

You too. Bye-bye. Okay, that was Nicholas from Florida. We have four open lines, folks. I want you to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Joe from Australia. Hey, Joe, welcome. You're on the air. Hello, Mick. How are you doing? I'm doing all right. I'm hanging in there, and I'm glad you're calling from Australia. So what have you got? Yeah, I'm your biggest fan, just to put it out there, guys.

New Zealand and Australia. I've rang before. Praise God for your ministry and for equipping the saints. Praise God is right. So I've got a – yes, glory to God it is.

I know you will give it to him. So I've got a text, Matthew 27-52. Now, I agree with your eschatology. So I follow John MacArthur, and I used to believe in the rapture, but I don't believe in the rapture now, because I'm really convinced of the two ages you promote or you teach from the Bible. I'm convinced there's only two ages. Now, how do you explain Matthew 27-52? Well, it's not a problem.

Since, incidentally, I'm convincing the two-age model, which is what Paul and Jesus taught, just so you know, I also believe in the rapture, okay, because the Bible does teach it, and we can talk about that if you want. But it says, The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. That's what you're talking about?

Yes. And you want to know about that in the context of – So what's that referring to? Well, it's referring to the people who died in Christ in belief, one way or another, and had fallen asleep, and they were raised. They were not raised in glorified bodies. They were just raised as resuscitated, as was Lazarus in John 11.

And then they ended up dying again. Oh. Oh, okay, sure, sure. I was thinking, does that say glorified bodies?

No. Because God doesn't contradict himself. He doesn't. So Jesus is the first fruits. Okay, you can go to Colossians 1.15 for that, and you can go to Romans – excuse me, 1 Corinthians 15, 35 through 45, it talks about the resurrected bodies, and Jesus is the first one risen from the dead. Now, at this point – in a glorified body, that is – at this point, when he was crucified, the bodies and things opened up and things like that. So he hadn't been resurrected yet.

So they're just the ones who were resuscitated, let's just say, and they ended up dying again later. Now, that would have been an interesting conversation to have with those people. You know, what'd you say? Yeah, for sure. Yes, it is. So, about the rapture, you know, 1 Thessalonians 4, 16 to 5 verse 2 does say, we'll be caught up together to meet him in the clouds. And that's what the rapture is. So, I believe in post-trip rapture, not pre-trip myself. Yes. Yeah. I'm post-trip, yes. Not to say that there's no rapture. Oh, okay.

In lines with post-trip, yes. I believe once – as you teach the teachers, once he comes, that's it. There's no more – you know, you said the wicked will get caught up first. That's right. So, yeah, I'm convinced that once Jesus comes, then, well, that's it.

Because there's no forgiveness of this age and the age to come. That's correct. Which just makes perfect sense. So, yeah. Now, I'm really grateful for your ministry and, yeah. Thanks for taking my question. Well, no problem, man. God bless. Call any time, buddy.

Okay? Yeah, I appreciate it. God bless you, man, and your wife and your family. Amen. Thanks. Bye.

All right. Hey, let's get to Mike from Washington State. Mike, welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt. I had a question about Matthew 17, 10, and 11 regarding Elijah the prophet.

I go to a dispensational church that holds to that Elijah the prophet will come again. There's the break. Hold on a sec. Oh, this will be an interesting question. Sure.

I thought that. That's our timing. We'll be right back. Okay.

Hey, folks. Please stay tuned. We have three open lines. Give me a call. 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the show.

If you want to give me a call, we have three open lines on this lovely Friday, 877-207-2276. Mike from Washington State, you're back on the air. All right, buddy.

Hey, Matt, again. So my question was regarding Matthew 17, 10, and 11 when Jesus tells the disciples that Elijah truly shall first come and restore all things. That's the King James. In the NASB, it says Elijah is coming and will restore all things, I believe.

It says that. This has opened up the door for people like Herbert W. Armstrong from the Armstrong cult or William Branham from Branamism to in themselves fear coming of Elijah. I go to a dispensational church that holds to that Elijah may come with the two witnesses, and of course I've seen that in the MacArthur Bible commentary under Matthew 17. It was all fulfilled in John the Baptist. I just wanted to know your view. Well, there's some debate about it, and some think that the two witnesses who return to die will be Moses and Enoch, and the other one is Moses and Elijah.

So I'm just telling you, there's discussion and debates on who those are. When it says here Elijah is coming and will restore all things, but I say to you that Elijah already came, they did not recognize him. He was talking about John the Baptist. Why was he talking about John the Baptist? Well, Elijah had a camel's hair mantle that he wore. John the Baptist's father, Zechariah, was a temple worker, and he may have had access to certain things that were in the temple. One of the theories is that the camel's hair mantle that John the Baptist wore might have been the same one that Elijah had, which would designate him as being a prophet. And so they would have to see him.

Why would they go out and see him? If it was the case that he was wearing Elijah's camel hair mantle, then it would have been very interesting for people to go out and see what this guy is doing and saying. And so anyway, that's just conjecture, we don't know for sure. But it seems to me that that is what Jesus is talking about.

So between all of these things, I don't know really what the right answer is. I know that Elijah here is typified by John the Baptist, who was proclaimed and prepared the way of Jesus. And we know that Moses and Elijah appeared in Matthew 17 and Transfiguration. So who is it going to appear in the last days? Moses and.

Either Elijah or Enoch. And that's about it. That's about all I can tell you.

I just haven't studied it super enough beyond that. Okay, so when you see the phrase Elijah truly shall first come, or Elijah is coming and will restore, do you believe that Jesus is saying a future event or do you think that Jesus is simply reiterating the truth of what describes the Pharisees told the disciples? I don't know. Because when it says to restore all things in the future tense, what does it mean? Because it says, you know, it's a cut back reference to Malachi 4-5, Behold I'm going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.

Well, wait a minute. I don't immediately place that in the future because there's been numerous days of the Lord throughout the Old Testament, and they don't always point to a future, like there is coming a future day of the Lord, but I'm wondering if Malachi 4 is speaking of simply the time 2000 years ago, and if I was to place Malachi 4 in the timeline, I'm just simply wondering if that future tense of Matthew 17 is simply just a, kind of like if I was to say the Saxons and the Normans precede the English on United Kingdom territory, it's kind of like a, I don't know, a prophetic present, like it's a certain tense of speaking. Right, right, it's a future present. It's a tough one, like I said, I've gone over this before, and I've read stuff on it before, and there's just debate on what it is, and the reason there's debate is because we don't know for sure, because the scripture's not clear, and I believe it's not clear for a reason. You know, a lot of times the prophecies of scripture are very clear, and sometimes they're not, and I think it has something to do with if it was exactly clear, it would cause problems prophetically, because if people knew exactly some things, then they might thwart what it would prophesy, so sometimes prophecies need to be kind of vague, even though sometimes they're not. So it says Elijah's coming and will restore all things, because he said that.

He's coming, he's going to restore all things. Is it a present tense? He's talking about John the Baptist, which really wouldn't make sense.

Is it future? It seems to make sense. Now, you're right, there's different days of the Lord in different contexts, but there is the day of the Lord, which comes like a thief, and that's an eschatological final day, and that is something that is mentioned here specifically, and so we're not really sure what's going on, and then what Jesus does, he says, well, he's already come. Elijah's going to come, he's going to restore all things, but he already came, and I can just see that people going, okay, let's sit down by the campfire and figure this one out, and there's going to be different views on it, and that's what we have, and that's why, to be honest, I don't know exactly what it means, and I'll just tell you I don't know. Okay. Well, that's all right. I see that Mark chapter 9 lessens that futuristic syntax by saying Elijah verily cometh first. It doesn't have that truly shall first come that the King James says, I'm just going to say that, right, so I'm going to just hold to the fact that John the Baptist was Elijah, and I just don't see a future coming of Elijah needed, and you can correct me if I'm slamming the door too hard on this, that's just where I'm going to hang my hat for now.

Well, here's what I'm going to think about it, he could have been quoting the Old Testament prophecy about Elijah, Elijah's coming, as it is a statement of historical future, where he's saying, he's referencing what it's called, it's called an illusion, not a quote, but just to allude, A-L-L, allude to something, where he's referencing it, alluding to the idea of his return, his coming back, and how he's coming, the answer is, well, he's coming, doesn't mean he's coming right now, but what gets me is, and will restore all things, that's what throws me, because that's Christological, Jesus is going to restore all things, and so that's what throws me on that one, like, okay, what exactly is going on, and I just don't know. Okay? Okay. Well, good talking to you. All right, man, God bless, buddy.

Okay. That was Mike from Washington State, we have three open lines, folks, if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276, we'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, man, welcome back to the show. Kim from North Carolina, you're on the air. Hey, Matt, appreciate your ministry, thank you for taking my call. Sure.

No problem, man, what do you got? So, several years ago, in my spiritual life, it was the time of what I would, I guess, call like a spiritual growth spurt, and you're growing closer to God. You start to see sins that you'd either forgotten about or didn't realize were there. There were times when I wasn't sure if I was being led by the Spirit or being convicted by the Spirit or if I was being oppressed, and there was a line of thinking that got me through it, and I just had to run it past you and see, you know, is it sound or was it just God overruling salty thinking during that time of His grace. So I think what it was was that the state was taking advantage of a time where my conscience was really sensitive, and so there were things that I would think of that, oh, that's something I need to do, but feeling pressed, like I needed to do it right then, couldn't ask questions about it, and it was just like there was no discussion, no questions, you've got to do it right now, and that didn't seem to fit with, you know, verses like a bruised reed, he will not break it.

It didn't feel like there was any gentleness there. It felt more like maliciousness, and I guess, you know, thinking of Satan as the accuser, that's what it felt like, and the thought that came to me was the image God gives us of leading the sheep, and then almost at the same time the thought came in about how cattle are driven, but sheep are led, and the various verses where God talks about driving out the Canaanites, you know, driving different groups out with hornets and things like that. And so the thing, when I was so confused during those times, the thing that I thought was God leads His sheep, and there's a gentleness there, but if it feels like I'm pressed and can't question it, not to question it disrespectfully, but to question and understand, it felt like to me that that was possibly of the devil.

And I would just like to get your thoughts on that, see if I'm out of line in that, or if it's legit, maybe it's helpful to somebody. Here's the thing, a lot of times it's difficult to determine which is spiritual oppression, which is spiritual leading. We have to understand that God will discipline us at the right time, and we can mistake that for a demonic force, and that's not to say that God and demonic forces are interchangeable and undiscernable, it's just that sometimes we can't tell if God is disciplining us or the demonic forces are after us, and they're just differences. Like when the pilgrims came over here, they met, you know, from Europe, they met all kinds of problems, storms, and they're blown 200 miles off course, landed in an area that we're supposed to be in. You know, when they were in England, one of their ships, England, well, for leaving Europe, one of their ships sprang, they had to return, is it demonic oppression or is it God's testing?

Well, you know, it's hard to tell sometimes because circumstances are interpretable. So what we have to do is always check the scriptures. And if the motivation is to honor God and then there's resistance, then we have to make sure that we are honoring God and we're within the will of God. That takes prayer, sometimes fasting, and then we move forward. And if it doesn't violate scripture and then we see counter stuff hit us, then it would appear to be that it's a demonic influence. And even then, we can't always be sure, and sometimes we can, but sometimes we can't.

So it's a little bit difficult to build to answer your question because it's just a little tough, if you know what I mean. Would you say that even when God is dealing with us in what we consider a more harsh way, that there's still some sense that there is a, I guess what I'm getting at is, the times when I thought it was oppression, it felt like there was no way out except doing it in a way that I still had questions about. And that seemed to run up against the, you know, it's not a faith, it's sin, and so it still lightens. Had no other way to get out than a certain way. Well, what is a certain way? Is it by Paul the trigger in killing someone else, by robbing somebody? Well, then you'd know that wasn't from God.

So without having specifics, it's difficult, I'm not asking to give specifics, until you're speaking in generalities, and that's okay, but the answers have to be in generalities. And even if they were specific and have counsel with people before, it's hard to understand sometimes exactly what's happening. This is why we have to move by faith. The just shall live by faith, if you have a good two forces, that's what we have to do. But if, and here's, you know, as I said earlier, you've got to check it with scripture. Always check it with scripture and do your best.

And here's an issue of faith. If you're not sure, move towards God through it, asking God to guide you and see what happens. Yeah, and that's what I felt like I was trying to do. I guess the thing that brought me questions about it was, when I felt like I was moving, trying to seek clarification from God, it felt like that was being told, it was almost like there was not a literal voice, but, you know, there was this thought in my head saying, no, you just can't do that. And it seemed to me like it was something trying to keep me from, well, who knows what that was, from asking God for help.

Yeah, I don't know what that was, so I can't comment. So generic advice is all I can give, then you have to apply it to specific situations. But when you're not sure, pray and ask for God's direction, check everything with scripture, and then move forward by faith and you'll make it through. That's just the general rule. All right? All right. You had asked sometime back for t-shirt ideas for when you go out to these protests, and I had an idea.

Sure. If I interpret your sense of humor correctly, I hope you'll find it funny. You said you have a form of autism? Yeah, Asperger's, yes. So I was thinking that you could have a t-shirt that says, autism weaponized for the gospel, and on the back it says, what's your superpower? Oh, I like that. That's good, autism weaponized.

But you may not want to wear it when you up and carry. That might make some people nervous. Yeah. Well, Matt, thanks for talking it through with me, and I appreciate your time, appreciate your ministry. Sure, man. God bless. All right.

I kind of like that t-shirt idea. That's pretty good. And yes, folks, for the newbies who are listening, I do have Asperger's.

It's an autism spectrum disorder, and diagnosed a few years ago, I don't know, five or ten years ago, and whatever, you know, a lot of people have issues. All right, let's get to Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina. Patrick, welcome, you're on the air. Hey, Matt, how you doing? I'm doing all right. Yawning a little bit, which I sometimes do at this hour, but what do you got, man?

What's up? My question is on Colossians 2.12. Can you read that? Sure, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with him through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead, okay, yep. So what's the connection between faith and baptism of the Holy Spirit? It doesn't say baptism of the Holy Spirit. It says... Well, it does because... No, it doesn't.

I'm reading it. It doesn't say Holy Spirit. I don't think it's a lot of baptism. Well, baptism is representative of the baptism of Christ. When he was baptized, we were baptized.

When he died, we died. When he was crucified, we were crucified. And this is called federal headship, that he represented his people, the ones given to him by God the Father, John 6, 37 through 40.

And so it's called federal headship representation, or the male-represented descendants, and those who are in him. We are in Christ, 1 Corinthians 15, 22. So it says we're buried with him in baptism. Now, that's interesting, because if it's water baptism, then are we buried with him when we get baptized, or were we buried with him when he was baptized? And that's what I would hold to because of the doctrine of federal headship, particularly in Romans chapter 6, when it says, for example, it says, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him.

Well, there you go. And it says we died with Christ in Romans 6, 8. So it seems to point to Christ's event. So having been buried with him in baptism, with him in baptism, I think is referring to his act of baptism, and I believe that he represented his people that way. And it says you were raised up with him. It has to do with identification, federal headship, and covenant faithfulness, which most Christians today are not familiar with, don't know about. Okay? Well, in Colossians 2, 14, is the certificate of debt released at our baptism?

No. The certificate of debt is the Greek word kiragraphon, handwriting. It's a hapax legomena, which means it appears only once in the entire body of text. So it's the only place that one word appears in the entire New Testament. And it has to do with, what it means is a handwritten IOU of legal indebtedness. Now, Jesus equated sin with legal debt in our Father who art in heaven, hallelujah be thy name. Forgive us our sins in Luke 11, 4. Forgive us our debts in Matthew 6, 12.

So it says here he was, he canceled the certificate of debt at the cross, our sin-debt's cancel at the cross. Hey, hold on, okay? We've got a break coming up.

We want to talk a little bit more about this. Folks, we'll be right back after these messages, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Welcome back, everyone, to the last segment of the show. Patrick, are you still there? Yes, I am. Okay.

So, did it help? Well, Colossians 2-11 describes a circumcision without hands, but done by Christ. Wouldn't that be the baptism of the Holy Spirit? It does not say baptism of the Holy Spirit there. It could mean that in some other areas, but it's talked about having been buried with him in baptism. The implication there is of the application of the water, as we see Paul using the same phraseology in Romans 6-4, therefore having been buried with him through baptism into death.

Now, I could expand on this, but don't really need to get into these nuances, rabbit trails right now. So just read it for what it says in its context. It seems to imply water baptism there.

It seems to, but it might not. Well, can you read Colossians 2-11? Yeah, and you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, and the removal of the body with a circumcision of the flesh, I mean, of Christ, yes. And some say that that's water baptism is a covenant sign that replaces Old Testament circumcision, because covenants have signs.

So it must be important to do water baptism. Okay, look, you've called before, and we just go around in circles. I give you an answer, you just argue, you just have one position you want to get to.

So what we'll do is we'll just follow along, because it doesn't get anywhere. Courtney from Chicago, Courtney, welcome. You are on the air.

Welcome. How are you doing? I'm doing all right, by God's grace. What do you got, ma'am?

Amen. Yes, well, interestingly, I'm a current student at Grand Canyon University, and I'm taking world religious introduction, and one of our, I'm having issues trying to, like, grasp, or not grasp, the notion of the self in Buddhism, or even, like, how to contrast the non-self. Well, the Buddhist idea of self is that there is no immutable, constant, unchangeable thing called the self, and so this is the problem with it, that there's a paradox, a problem. They teach that the self itself is not a perpetual, absolute thing, but it loses its identity, and then is reincarnated, but then there's what's called the moral necessity, or the moral problem. You have moral things that affects your rebirth in reincarnation.

Well, if the self is not absolute, if the self is not something that continues on in a self-existent, or, not to say self-existence, but a consistent, absolute thing of what it is, then how can any moral right or wrong be applied to it if it changes, because if someone does something wrong in this life, and then they die, how can that moral right or wrong carry with them to affect their next incarnation, according to Buddhism, since the self is not absolute, but it varies and can get absorbed into nothingness. It's kind of a weird thing in Buddhism. But, if I know that Buddhism is more or less nothing. Is more or less what?

Right. Is more or less nothingness. Well, it's an atheistic religion, and so the problem here, there's many levels of problems with the issue of the soul. For example, in materialism, I use this argument with atheists, if there is no continuing soul, no continuing mind, if the mind is a product of the physical world, the physical brain, that if your physical brain changes, then you're no longer who you were 20 years ago. Your body's changed, your physical brain has changed. You're not the same person.

So how could you be held responsible for things you did when you were 20 at the age of 50? Because under materialistic or physicalistic ideology, where the physical brain is reconstituted through food, molecules being implanted in the brain, your brain changes, therefore the essence of what you are is changing. This is a problem in materialism.

It's similar to this issue here. Because if they're going to say that there is no supernatural divine being and no transcendent nature of the soul, then what is the soul? And they say the soul has no real self. Well, then how can you have moral responsibility and culpability from one life to another? It doesn't make any sense. And also, if the soul, the mind that we are, the thing that says I am, that part of what we are is based in the physical because it's not supernatural, well, then they have the same materialistic problem that applies to them. Does that make sense?

Right. Especially, yes, it does. See, this is fascinating. Especially when you have, in Buddhism, certain concepts of hell, you know, like a heat hell or a very hot hell or a cold hell, the person or the non, you know, and then hopefully you get reborn into a better life and things of the nature. So, okay, that makes, that does definitely break that down and help me out a lot.

Well, there are some problems there because Buddha, you know, what it teaches, it denies that the soul ceases to exist but denies it has an eternal immutable essence. So it changes. Then you have the moral attachment issue, and then you have the issue of the nature of culpability, you know, it goes in there. And then what's called property dualism problem.

But yeah, maybe they'll give enough to jump on. One quick question. Would it be fair to say that their view of the non self, and by the way, I was part of my class reading material was an article from Luke or the articles from Luke on the Karm website. Good. Thank you very much, Luke.

And thanks, guys. But yeah, so like, it's an illusion, the self is an illusion. It seems to be the case. How do you have an illusion that then reincarnates?

How do you have that? It doesn't make any sense. Okay. Right. Okay. Thanks very much, man. All right, man. God bless, buddy. Okay. All right. Let's get to Carl from Idaho.

Right here in Idaho. Carl, welcome. You're on the air again. Hey, Matt. How you doing? Doing all right.

What do you got, buddy? Hey, I got a question for you. What is your view on hallucinogenic? They are okay under proper medical supervision, but not to be taken for entertainment reasons.

Okay. How about for intellectual experience? That's not medical necessity. See, there are certain hallucinogens that have been used medically. So I can't say all hallucinogens are bad or all are good. So for medical reasons, for helping someone under the proper circumstances, but for intellectual this or that, basically what you're doing is just for fun and to learn something new, you're opening yourself up to demonic oppression, possibly.

We are not to misuse what God has given us to alter our minds simply to be entertained. Okay. All right. Okay. That makes sense.

And incidentally, the Greek word for sorcery is pharmakeia, that you guys have to think about. Okay? I've been taught about that. I've been taught that a long time. I'm a Calvinist, by the way. Okay. So I've been taught that, and pharmakeia, the whole drugs thing, I'm still a bit confused on where you draw the line, because God gave us these plants.

I've done mushrooms simply for the intellectual experience. If you say you're a Calvinist and you do this at the same time, you need to repent. If you say you're a Christian and you're doing this for entertainment, you need to repent.

This was years ago. I'm not. No, not for entertainment. Okay.

Not for entertainment. Okay. I don't want to get into this. But yeah, I understand what you're saying. I don't want to get into this too much.

I'm not going to put any ideas in people's heads who are listening. No. Yeah. So drugs are not to be taken just for fun or for expansion of consciousness and all that New Age kind of occultic stuff.

Under the right supervision medically, they can be administered, and it's not that common. Okay? All right, buddy? All right. Okay. All right, man. All right, man. Okay.

All right. Let's get on the air with Jan from Virginia. Jan, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Hi.

That last call blew my mind. Whoa. So my question is, does the scripture give us a timeline as to from the time Satan's released from the pit until he is actually the Antichrist trying to trick us into thinking he's the Messiah? Well, the Antichrist and Satan are different, they're the same person, but there's different views. In the amillennial view, we would basically say that he's been let loose 100 or so years ago-ish. It's just a vague number because the nations are gathered and things like that. In the premillennial view, he wouldn't be released until the thousand-year period is completed or closely towards it.

How long after that? Well, that wouldn't make any sense because the Antichrist is released before the thousand-year reign in the premillennial view. But in the amillennial view, they would be concomitant or about the same time. Satan will be released first and then the Antichrist later on, and he'll be indwelt by Satan and things like that. Right. So there's not really a scriptural timeline from before he's the Antichrist?

Nope. Unless you're a super hyper dispensationalist who wants to add in a subcategory called the dispensation of between-ism, which is between Satan's release and the rightful of the Antichrist. So yesterday, or the day before yesterday, you said something about, there was, I think a conversation back in the day with the war war and the flues and all that, that he could have been released at that time, but we really don't know.

It could be 50 years, 20 years, 100 years. Right. In the amillennial view, right, which says that the thousand-year reign is a figurative reign, a figurative number because it's in the middle of Revelation 20, or the beginning of the chapter, which is so full of figurative usage. And that Satan was bound, according to Jesus, in Matthew 12, 22-32. So if that's the case, and it says, right, and if it says, as it says, as Jesus says, that the wicked will be taken out of his kingdom, and the wicked are taken before the good are, in Matthew 13, then that lends itself in support of amillennialism. But you know, there's other views too, and some verses of stuff kind of make more sense in the premillennial view. So it's a little grounds on some of this stuff, yeah. Yeah.

That's why we have to know the signs instead of know when the signs will be here. Right. That's right.

Know the signs so we know the time. That's right. I only called in with one question, but then I heard y'all talking about the two witnesses, and I have a very quick question about that. Well, we just ran out of time, because there's the music, so you've got to call back next week. All right? Sorry about that. Oh, okay. There. All right. Call back next week, okay? Call back on Monday. Hey, folks.

Sorry about that. 9-11. Pray for the Muslim community. Pray for America, folks. We really need deliverance. Everyone's doing what's right in their own eyes. Judge is 2125, and it leads nowhere. God bless. Thank you, guys, for being here, and I'll see you in the next one.