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. Hey everybody, how you doing out there?

It's me, Matt Slick, listening to Matt Slick Live. Hope you're all having a good day. I got a bit of a head cold.

Don't know where it came from, but the doctor said something about bubonic, then he left the office, so I don't know. You never know. When I went outside, the lights were off and everybody was gone, but hopefully it's not too bad. And if you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. We have four open lines. Let's see, I just want to let you know, a reminder, that we have three online schools, if you want to check them out.

877, I mean, so many things going on. If you want to check them out, all you got to do is go to karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. On the right hand side of any page, you'll see the link for the schools. It's really easy. You can check them out. I hope that you do. And if you want to watch the show, not a big deal, but you can.

You can just go to karm.org and there's a link on the right hand side for Facebook and YouTube. We have people who participate right now. We've got 20 people in, now 22. And people go up to about 70, 80, 100, 200 sometimes.

And then people are watching and chatting in there usually. And if you want to do that, you can. Pretty exciting, huh? Okay. Four open lines, 877-207-2276. Why don't we just jump on the phone? Let's get to John from North Carolina. John, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, what's up? How does it help me know Jesus better by all those names in the Bible? I can't pronounce and probably won't remember.

Yeah, it does help. A lot of people don't realize that the names in the Bible are significant. So the way I relate or try and relate the idea to people so they can understand really what is happening is to think of American Indian names. Like where's Running Bear?

Okay. Oh, he's playing over there with Hopping Squirrel, you know, whatever the names might be. It's the same kind of a thing with the names in the Bible. Mary means bitter. Matthew means gift of God.

Things like that. And so the names are significant. And so when we look at the names, for example, the genealogy of Christ, you'll see that the names carry certain theological meanings.

And I've done that. I've looked up each name. I think I forgot what genealogy I did. It was either Mary's or Joseph's. And I found, you know, it was Mary's. That's right.

I think it was. Anyway, and it was really interesting to see all the names that were associated. You know, God is with us and things like that. So, for example, if you go to Genesis chapter five, you will see a genealogy between Adam and Noah. And, you know, so-and-so, begets, so-and-so, begets, so-and-so. Well, their names, you know, Adam and Noah and Methuselah and Mahalel and stuff like that. When you take the names, you put them in English, you translate them, you get a sentence from Genesis five, this genealogy.

You put a couple of it ises and some thes in there, and you get this. It is appointed to mortal men sorrow. The blessed God will come down.

When he dies, it will come bringing to the despairing hope or rest. Okay. So those names are very significant.

Oh, go ahead. Sorry. They're just significant names. Okay.

Okay. I was thinking more along the lines in Numbers and Chronicles. There are, oh, so many names.

And I was wondering about, is that the same thing? I mean, there's a lot of names in there. Well, I've not gone through and checked every single one of them. But, you know, Numbers and Chronicles, it has genealogies. And one of the reasons that's important is because you want to make sure or they want to make sure who their patronage is from, what line. It was just important in that culture. It's not so important here in our culture in America. You know, what line are you from? I don't know. I just, you know, just work as a mechanic.

Okay. Well, back then in that country, at that time, like a lot of countries, your lineage was very important. It designated who you were, what you were allowed to do, what you weren't allowed to do, and things like that. So names are very important. I remember talking to a guy from Africa, and he told me that the names in this one village where he grew up, the names were geographically located because they didn't have roads, they didn't have internet, they didn't have phones, that if you somehow got lost, someone would ask you your name, and your name told them where to point you geographically.

It might be Red Hills, River Run, Blue Sky. They go, oh, that's over there. And so they could point. Anyway, it's just interesting to think about names. So I don't know. I don't know what all the names mean. You know?

I just don't know. Except for, like, Amenadab means my kinsman is noble. And that's in Numbers 2, verse 3. And Nathan means to give. And let's see.

I'm looking for some other ones here. Chief of, no, that's not a different one. Anyway, that's what happens. It's just the names are not really significant, and sometimes they're not. Okay? So even, I know I'll probably never be able to, they're still important no matter what they mean, right? Yeah. Everyone's name's important in different ways.

Well, luckily I've got a computer program because I have trouble seeing, and it reads the names all to me. But I understand what you're saying. What about, is anything lost in translation from Hebrew to King James to NAS? Yes. Yes.

Always. From any language translated to another language, there's always going to be a loss of some way, somehow, some bit of information. So if we were to look at the Indian analogy, where is running bear? In their language, they would say running bear, for example. Well, the word might sound something like, and I have, of course, no idea, but it might be, you know, Shinta, right? We would just say, oh, that's Shinta over there. But to them, it means running bear.

So if they were just translated as Shinta, we would lose it, unless we did that research. I just made up that word. I don't know if that's what it is, but you get the point? Yeah. Oh, so my last question, I answered it with my first one, or you answered it.

I did. Okay. I appreciate it, brother. All right, man.

Hope that helps. Thanks. All right. You too. Oh, thanks. Appreciate that.

All right. Hey folks, if you want to give me a call, we have four big wide open lines and all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. Also, just want to let you know that we do stay on the air by your support. If you are inclined and you want to help us out, you know, all you got to do is just go to karm.org forward slash donate, and you can set something up. I like the idea of $5 a month. It's not much.

And if we just have a few hundred people who do that, that we can meet the bills. Let's just say that summer's a tough time and the COVID is a tough time for everybody. And I'm not begging or pleading, just informing. And if you want to help out, that would be great. All right. 877-207-2276.

Kim from Rural Hall, North Carolina. Welcome. You are on the air. Matt, would it be considered a sin if you don't take communion? Well, I'm not taking it right now and I'm not in sin for it. Are you there?

Are you there? Well, the question, you see, is it a sin not to take it? Are you asking, is it a sin to refuse taking it, period, permanently? And that would be yes, because Jesus commanded that we do it. And if we disobey Christ, we are in sin.

But you don't have to take it every second. All right. And there's no requirement that you have to do it every time you meet in church and have a service. It does say though, as often as you gather, you know, do this.

And I think that's a good admonition that the communion supper should be participated in more regularly than, say, once a month as a lot of churches do. Okay. Are you there? Oh, okay. Thank you. God bless you. Okay. Well, God bless you.

All right. Hey, I was in a debate last night. We've got another caller waiting here in a minute, but I was going to say, if any of you listen to the debate I was in last night with an atheist, you want to call in and you want to talk about that, let me know.

I'm going to debate tomorrow with another atheist. But last night it was a polite conversation and it was on apologeticslive.com. And I believe that I dismantled this guy's position about morality. He's the one who wanted to talk about morality. And he said morality is based on the objective principle of the reduction of harm. And let's just say that I enjoyed the conversation. And in my opinion, the gentleman could not defend his position as being the right one. And I asked him some difficult questions, which he stumbled at.

And maybe we'll give a little bit more information, but if anybody was out there and you heard that, on either side of you agree or disagree, you can call up and say, hey, this is what I saw and it's what I think. And we can talk about that. 877-207-2276. Let's get to Matt from Los Angeles. Matt, welcome.

You're on the air. Hello. I actually am the atheist. I'm going to be debating tomorrow.

Oh, really? I'm going to be debating you, huh? Okay. What are we debating? Yeah. Oh, no, we're dating, is Christianity true? That's right.

Yeah. So I was going to give you some Bible verses that I have, that I think are ethically indefensible, but given what you just mentioned about the person yesterday, I would be very happy to defend the principle that morality is about minimizing harm and maximizing death. Did you, did you see the, did you by, did you by any chance hear the discussion from last night?

I did not, unfortunately. I would suggest you, you listen to that so you can become a little bit more informed about the nature of objective actualities and transcendent abstractions that deal with the issue of universals on why something is or is not applicable to more than one person at a time. If you're going to develop a moral system, you have to have one that is applicable to all people and it can't be subjective, otherwise it's meaningless. So how is the principle that we should maximize being either inflexible to all people or subjective?

Well, you don't understand. It's just a, it's just a goal that you're saying we ought to do. Now, why ought we, why is that the proper moral standard? As a Christian, I can give you the reason why we ought to treat people better, but you can't, as a, as an atheist, defend the position as a universal principle. Um, I don't agree with that too.

I have a couple of arguments for why utilitarianism, why we ought to pursue well at the end. Um, so the first one is if we're going to break up, hold on, there's music, hold on, there's music. Okay. And, uh, I'll give you a little hint of something.

Uh, think about the, the problem of the is ought, what is and what ought to be the is ought bridge problem that you would have to cross. Let's get to, we'll be right back. Hey folks, we have four open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276.

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 four open lines, 877-207-2276. Matt from LA, you're still there?

I am still there. Um, okay. So you mentioned the is ought gap as a reason why we cannot have objective morality.

I would say that if that were a objection, I would apply equally to biblical morality, because just because it is the case that God decrees something or that something corresponds to nature, it doesn't fall away from that. Thus, we ought to do that thing. You're a little bit difficult to understand. Are you on a speakerphone? Yeah.

Okay. Probably better if you got off of that because it's a little bit tough to follow your reasoning, but nevertheless, the is ought problem is why something that is leads to an ought. It's a deontological issue related to ontology. So if there's an ontological phenomenon, an ontological thing, why is there a deontological connection to it? That's the problem that atheists have. And I don't know if you're going to go to are you going to go to categorical imperative?

No, no, I'm not a deontologist. I'm a consequentialist. Oh, consequentialist. Oh, so you're a utilitarian consequentialist is what it amounts to in a materialistic way. Yes, I am a utilitarian. So you're arbitrary. Okay. Yeah.

No, I'm not. Yeah, it is. Why is utilitarianism arbitrary? That's the principle we should maximize well-being. Well, here, let me ask you a question. Is well-being, the practice and increase of well-being good? Yes. Is good what increases well-being? That's not how it's defined, but that is one of its aspects.

Yeah. So what's good is blue and blue is good. Well, how do you know blue is good? Because good is blue. In other words, you're just defining it. The point is you're just defining it a certain way and then using your definition as the right definition, but you're not justifying that your definition is the right one.

This is the problem that this guy had last night. It's a problem you're having here. Yeah, sure. Well, I'll be happy to justify why I think well-being is good.

So there are a lot of reasons that I could get into. Let's say one of them is, so if it is logically possible for experiences to be either good or bad, you'd expect evolution to apportion those good experiences in response to things that increase our fitness. So what is good is what increases our fitness? So push-ups are good? No. No?

No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. To clarify, what my argument is, it's not that a thing is good because it increases our fitness, rather it's that through the iterative process of evolution, you will expect to get well-being, to get things that are good in response to things that increase our likelihood of passing on our genes because if we get things that are good in response to things that pass on our genes, we can become more likely to pass on our genes and we get well-being in response to things that improve our ability to pass down our genes. So we conclude that well-being is good. So then passing down our genes is good? No. You said so. You said it's good, which enables us, for us to be able to pass down our genes, right?

No, you're missing the point. The point is not that it's good because it allows us to pass down our genes, rather the point is that to the extent that it's logically possible that any experience could be good, you'd expect the process of evolution to produce the things that are objectively good in response to things that pass on our genes. Can you define what good is? Yeah, it's good. I think it's synonymous with mortal, desirable, etc.

No, no, no. You have to define it, not say what's said in them. If you can't define what something is, like I said to the guy last night, I asked him what well-being is. He had trouble defining it. Well then, how do you know that well-being is the right standard if you don't know what good is?

Do you have to develop a good stand? Do you want me to define good or well-being? You have to define good. You say things are good. What is good? Define good and remember, your definition has to apply to all the situations and stuff that you're using this principle in. You have to have a transcendent definition of good.

Go for it. According to Google, it says that which is morally right. Wait a minute. So that which is morally right. In other words, you're just defining it. Good is what's morally right, so what's morally right is good. So it's circular. It's tautologous.

It doesn't prove anything. I think that the things that are morally right is those that produce experiences that are rationally desired. Rationally desired, so now you have a moral set upon rationality, so you're into Kant's categorical imperative and the rational obligation. No, no, no. Yes, you are. That's what he's saying.

No, no, no. Sorry, to clarify, what my point is, it's not about Kant's categorical imperative. It's rather that well-being is good, we know that, because a rational agent desires well-being. There's something intrinsically desirable about well-being, which is self-evident. So good is based upon your subjective desire.

I get it. No, good is... You just said, you said it's based on their desire. You said it. No, I didn't say, yeah, good is based on that which is desirable, not based on subjective desire. If good is based purely on subjective preferences, then good would be subjective. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait a minute.

Look, you gotta put it up better than this. You said it's based on their desire, but not a subjective desire. Is there an objective desire, a transcendent abstraction of desire out there that you're coming in contact with? Yeah, I think there are things that are objectively desirable. I think well, it is objectively more desirable to have a nice meal than to be burned alive. Well, it might be desirable, but does it mean it's morally right or wrong? Your issue is dealing with morality, not what we like or don't like. Well, I think morality is synonymous with producing that which is desirable, that which is worth speaking or doing. So morality is synonymous with producing what is desirable. Okay, so that's your statement, that's your thesis. Can you prove the thesis to be correct?

Yeah, sure. So why absent something being good is that thing desirable? So that which is, you said, I think that morality is that which is, you know, is desirable. Okay, so then in other words, you're saying that morality is based upon your subjective preference. No, it's not my subjective preferences. You said, I think subjectively desire. You say, I think that's your opinion. So you're saying morality is based upon your opinion.

I think was modifying, you know, the I think was modifying the entire statement, not to be, not the desirability. So I, but then let me ask you, is there a moral principle? Is a moral principle, is it an abstraction? You know, don't lie is an abstraction, right? You don't find the principle underneath a rock.

You don't freeze it. So is it an abstraction that occurs in the mind? Yeah, I think, I think moral principles are abstractions in that front. Yeah, sure. Okay.

So they occur in the mind. So, uh, am I obligated to follow any particular moral principle? Like say, for example, you shall not murder. Am I obligated to follow that as a true principle? I mean, I don't think that that's an absolute principle.

I think there are some exceptions potentially, but I think that's a generally good rule that you should adhere to. Okay. So in self-defense. Well, yeah, that's not murder.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. It's not murder for self-defense. Murder is the unjustified killing of another person. So, uh, so you know, you would agree, but if here's a problem, we got to get going here, but I'm going to warn you, okay? If you want to debate like this tomorrow, um, you need to do a lot of serious studying before then, because I'll give you a hint and I suggest you watch the discussion I had with this guy last night. What you're saying is that if there is a moral principle that we ought to adhere to, you're adhering and I'm adhering, then it's a moral principle that's an abstraction that's independent of us that we both have to obtain. You're saying then that there's a universal moral principle out there, which is an abstraction, which you can't define or defend as an atheist.

It's a problem for your worldview. Hey, we're out of time, buddy. We'll do the email contact on details. Okay. Tomorrow. All right. Gotta go.

All right. Be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody.

Welcome back to the show. Hope you enjoyed that little bitty, uh, bit of, uh, of debate. This is the kind of stuff I do on the weekends for fun. And, uh, so have fun doing that. Um, but usually during a debate like that, uh, what I do is I have a principle and if he's listening, I'll be here's a principle. It's called, uh, the rope principle, the rope principle. You let them talk as they, they, uh, they hang themselves with their own rope and, uh, that's what they'll do.

The atheist worldview doesn't work. Let's get to Matt from Raleigh, North Carolina. You're on the air. Hey, Matt, how are you? Good, Matt. Boy, that's a, we've got three mats here.

You mean the previous guy. So what do you got, man? What's up? Hey, I just wanted to, uh, no, I had a question I was been thinking about the last couple of days. Uh, just wanted to get your thoughts on it. What exactly do you, would you say, uh, God means when he says, you know, we're created in his image. I just want to get your thoughts on that. Now, theologically, God has what's called incommunicable and communicable attributes.

So I'll explain what this means and then I'll explain it and you'll go, Oh, get it. So what's communicable, uh, and non communicable or what we say is incommunicable. So incommunicable attributes are the attributes that belong to God and they cannot be communicated to us as creatures. And what that means is, for example, God is all knowing that cannot be communicated to us in the sense what it means theologically is it cannot become something we, we share in. We don't share in his all knowing. We don't know everything. God is everywhere all the time.

We are not everywhere all the time. So we cannot share in the incommunicable incommunicable attributes. They're the attributes that belong to God's nature and essence alone. And we can't share in them his omniscience, his omnipotence, his omnipresence, things like that, his aseity.

Aseity means the doctrine that God is eternal without beginning, without end, and he is non contingent. Well, we are contingent. We depend on him. And so we don't participate in his, the attributes, the incommunicable attribute of aseity.

So what are the communicable attributes? Well, he loves, we love. He hates, we hate. He can reason, we can reason.

He can show mercy, we can show mercy. So there are attributes that he has that can be communicated to us. They're called the communicable attributes. And since we're made in the image of God, it means that the communicable attributes of him are communicated to us in our nature. And so this is how we derive our personhood, our culpability, or our responsibility morally, and the like, because we are made in his image. In other words, certain attributes that belong to him can be communicated and made part of what we are.

Love, reason, self-awareness, thinking, rationality, mercy, et cetera. Okay. Okay. I appreciate it.

All right. Well, there you go, buddy. Yeah, I sure appreciate it.

It kind of had me stomped. And that's kind of what I was thinking, but just, I'm not as versed as you are, obviously, but yeah, I really appreciate that. That makes a lot of sense. Well, no problem, man.

That's it. It's a good question too. And you just, it comes to understanding that theology, the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God and how they're applied to us. And then of course we mess them up. God loves perfectly, but we don't. You know, he thinks perfectly, we don't. We can share his attributes in that sense.

We would have made his image. And incidentally, incidentally, because we're made in his image, therefore, because of it, all human beings of the single race called human are made in his image. And therefore all people are worthy of respect and honor. That's how it works. That's what the image of God leads to. This is why slavery in the chattel sense should never have been allowed. Now the voluntary self-indentured sense is that's okay.

It's by your own word and commitment. But this is why we should never judge anybody by their gender or their color or their size or anything and say, this is it. Now think about this. What the secularists do is they pervert certain attributes of humanity. Like for example, gender orientation. And so if you identify as, you know, as an American Indian lesbian transgendered reptilian alien in a female body who looks like a guy, well then, you know, you can do that. And so therefore they say, now you owe me this respect based on this. No, because it's not respect based upon the image of God. It's what they desire. And what they demand is respect and acceptance based upon the image of God.

So what they're doing is perverting it. When we realize what it means to be made in the image of God, we can then ascertain what is proper, so to speak, orientation. What is proper behavior, belief, and things like that. And because the world has abandoned the truth of who God is, then as Judges 21, 25 says, and everyone did what was right in their own eyes. And when we that happens, nations fall. And that's exactly what's happening here in America is that everyone is doing what's right in their own eyes, not in the eyes of God. They spit into the face of God. And they say that they themselves are the ones who will decide what is moral and what is not. And we get the hypocrites who say one thing and do another. And then can they do that? And we get the hypocrites who say one thing and do another. And then condemn us when we point fingers at them and say, you're a hypocrite. Then they say, no, I was set up.

You know, whining little baby, Siberian whacko losers. Okay. Yes, sir. I appreciate it, man. God bless. All right, man. God bless. Okay. All right.

Let's get to, let's see, the next longest waiting is from Durham, North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Hey.

Hello. So my question, I've actually heard you touch on this before, is about tithing. I guess I'm trying to figure out, is it appropriate always to give 10%? So like in my situation, if I'm also trying to save and catch up on my debts and things like that, is it appropriate for me to pay those since I've pretty much committed to doing so and pay what I can on my tithe or does it have to be 10%? If you are a Christian, you have died with Christ, Romans 6, 6, Romans 6, 8.

And the one who's died in Christ is freed from the law of Romans 7, 4. You're not obligated to tithe. There's no law that says you have to tithe. Okay. You don't have to.

What I like to tell people is you're free to tithe. So you have bills, right? Okay. And what I would suggest is...

Yes. You have bills, pay them. And if you can, take a little bit out. It's really not going to make up much of a difference in the bills in the long run. Take a little bit out and give it and help somebody or give it to the church a little bit. We're not talking, it doesn't have to be 10%. You could do 20. You could do 50. Or you can do 1%.

But the issue is that you're free. We're not under that legal obligation of the Old Testament law to do that. But I will say... What was that second scripture you said, was it Romans? After Romans 6, 6? Romans 6, 6 and Romans 6, 8.

Okay. So this is what Romans 6, 6 says. Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him. And 6, 8, we have died with Christ. So we've died with Christ. We're crucified with Christ. Romans 7, 4, therefore you, my brethren, you were also made to die to the law through the body of Christ. So we've died to the law. And if we've died, the law no more has jurisdiction over us. That's what Romans 7, 1 through 4 is talking about.

The law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives. Now the question then becomes, are we obligated to tithe in the New Testament sense? And Hebrews 7 mentions tithing, but it's quoting an Old Testament occurrence. And so when you look at the issue of tithing, you really don't see too much of it, except in the Gospels. When, you know, for example, Luke 18, you know, the Pharisee says, I pay tithes twice a week, et cetera.

So what I tell people is there's an attitude difference. In the law, the hand is forced to tithe. In Christian thought, the heart is free to tithe.

Okay? Instead of the hand being obligated, the heart is free. So I'm not saying, if you really are free in Christ, you're going to tithe. You have to decide between you and God what you can and can't afford and what you can do.

But then there's the issue also of sometimes of just trusting God, where you tithe and you say, you know, I'd like to pay $50 above, get this bill paid off, but I'm going to take 25 of that 50 and tithe, you know, or however it is and say, Lord, I'm just trusting you and stuff. In fact, it was a verse I needed to find. I was going to try and memorize the location. I keep going to it. In fact, hold on. I'm going to find it during the break. We've got a break.

It's a beautiful verse that relates to this a little bit. Now, we'll be right back, folks. After these messages, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Darielle, are you still there?

I'm still here. All right, so here's this verse, and it was easy for me to find. I've got to memorize this. One of those verses, for some reason I just have trouble remembering the exact address, but it's 1 Chronicles 29.14, and I love this. The people are building the tabernacle, or this could be the temple of God, and this is the verse. But who am I and who are my people that we should be able to offer as generously as this? For all things come from you, and from your hand we have given to you.

I just love that. From your hand, God, we give back. And to me, that speaks just so well. See, from your hand, we give back to you. And we have to realize that what we have is given to us by God. And we, in a loving moral sense, are obligated to give back to God. And it's because it's a way of showing appreciation.

But you see, love isn't forced. It's free. And this is why I say to people, you don't have a tithe. You're not obligated to tithe. You're free to tithe. You're free. So what I would suggest is that you get on your knees and just talk to God. And just pray and seek some counsel and say, what would you have me do, Lord, in this situation? I'm not obligated to, but now I'm free. Now that I know I don't have to give any money to you, I don't have to, and I've got to pay my bills, so I have an opportunity here to trust you. And think of it that way.

And then move forward. And sometimes, and I'll tell you, when I was younger, we didn't have much money. It was diapers or tithing. And a lot of times it was diapers. Right.

Or lice. Yeah. And that's okay. You know, it's okay. Because sometimes you just don't have it. But remember the woman, on the other hand, the Old Testament, who gave, you know, two little minas, I think it was, or little bits, and she was blessed.

She gave the least. It's a kind of a catchy thing. I can say on one hand, don't worry about it. Don't do it.

On the other hand, but if you trust him, you will. You see? Right.

But then how much? I don't know if you made it easier. I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't know if that answers it all, but I get what you're saying.

But I guess I still have some work to do to figure out what my best is, I guess. Yeah. And let me just tell you that by telling you this stuff, I kind of made myself feel bad about some stuff.

If I hurt myself here. Giving you some advice, I'm going, uh-oh. Uh-oh.

You know. Well, thank you so much for the verses. I'm going to, you said, Romans 6-6, Romans 7-4, and then first chronicles. So I'll go back over there and we'll pray and figure out what we can do.

29-14. And remember, you're just free, and God's not going to spank you, punish you. Okay? All right? Okay. All right. All right.

Thank you, Matt. Okay. Well, God bless. Okay.

Well, that was Darriel. And let's see, the next longest waiting is Jeremy from California. Jeremy, welcome. You're on the air.

Hi, Matt. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. I have two quick questions.

By the way, love your show. The first is, do you think atheism is a matter of the intellect and the heart? And the second question is, what are your areas of disagreement with Methodism or the Methodist Church? Atheism is an issue of the heart, the fallen heart, the depravity of man, results in people denying God the truth of who God is. They suppress the truth of God in their unrighteousness. It's both an issue of the noetic effect of sin, the Greek naos, mind, the effect of sin, the mind, the noetic effect, as well as the issue of the heart and the willingness to submit to the children of God a desire not to. They want to be their own little God.

So yeah, it is definitely that. And what was your second question? About Methodism, where do you disagree with Methodism and the Methodist Church? The United Methodist Church is a liberal denomination that ordains women, which is bad, and promotes homosexuality within its doors.

That's bad. There's some other Methodist groups which are, in my view, a little bit too Arminian and too free willistic in that it's all about man's free will, man's freedom. And if I were to sit down and ask questions about that from a biblical perspective with some serious Methodist people who hold to what's called libertarian free will, then problems arise. And I know what questions and I know what issues to raise about that from a biblical perspective. So there's a scope of variations within certain Methodist groups, and Methodism comes from the method of preaching and teaching and evangelizing and things like that. So it usually had a good start, generally speaking, and as time goes on, things get worse.

Just like my own denomination, I was a pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America, I've heard now are starting to move a little bit more liberal. So, you know, it happens. Okay. Well, thank you.

Those are my only two questions I can think of. I appreciate you filling me in. I love your show and I appreciate everything you do for the Christian community. Well, praise God and may God be glorified.

You know, God be glorified. Amen. All right. Have a nice day. Thank you. You too. God bless. All right.

Let's see. We have four open lines. 877-207-2276. Let's get to Gavin from Cleveland. Hey, Gavin, welcome here on the air.

Hey, Matt. How are you doing? Doing all right.

Hanging in there, buddy. What do you got? Awesome. Hey, two quick questions for you. Have you gotten a chance to check out any of the NASB updates in 2020? No, I have not.

Not at all. Okay. I would like to.

In fact, thanks for reminding me. That's something I got to definitely check out. Yeah. Yeah, it's just starting to come out now. It's not on like Bible Gateway or Logos or anything yet, but if you check Lachman's Facebook page, they've been posting some verses that you're interested to get your take on it.

They're starting to use like brothers and sisters and a set of men, people, that kind of thing. He might be coming to the ESV. No, I can't go to the ESV because of Romans 5-18. But if anything, I'll stay with the... Come on. I'm just kidding. Yeah, I know. But I'll stay with the 95 version of the NASB if it's going to be an issue like that.

Yeah, I believe the ESV is very good. It's just that I've been using the NASB for so long and I prefer its literalness, but if they're becoming politically correct, then if I'm ever back down there again, I've been to their headquarters in La Habra, California, I would go in there and politely rebuke them for their political correctness. Yeah. Yeah. I was listening to a podcast, I don't know, maybe a few weeks ago, and I thought I heard you say you were going to debate Sam Shamoon. Did I hear you correctly? That is correct. Yep.

Was it on Mary type stuff? No, I'm going to debate him on the nature of the atonement. I'm going to support limited atonement and he's going to work against it.

I will go to various verses. I have a very good argument for limited atonement. I don't believe that. I'll just say this right now. I believe limited atonement is so strong and so biblical that I honestly believe that our views are just simply wrong, biblically. But I don't say that if you don't hold on to that deal, I wouldn't say that people are condemned or heretics or anything like that. Right.

I'm with you on that. Yeah, I've followed him for quite a while and I've been watching some of his online debates. Yeah, he's getting a little rude to people, I think. I've known him for a while and I'm not justifying certain things and attitudes, but I do know a lot about him and his history and some issues that he's gone through. So I give him a lot of grace. But he's a brilliant, brilliant apologist when it comes to Islam. I mean, seriously, he moderated a debate I had with a guy against Islam. I was against Islam, against the Muslim in the Seattle, Washington area. And in a Q&A sometime afterwards or something, there was an obscure, and I mean, I had no clue what this guy was talking about. And Sam Shamone knew the page and the reference of the quote.

I mean, it was just, he's amazing. I'm debating Sam on the 24th at 7 p.m. my time, which is 9 p.m. Eastern time. Is that going to be on YouTube or something?

It's going to be on YouTube. I forgot exactly. Let's see. I'm looking at my calendar.

The guy, if he's listening, call me up or email me. Hey, it's on my show. It's on somebody else's show.

It was set up. And it's going to be interesting. A lot of people are looking forward to it. And I've heard some things about Sam moving towards Roman Catholicism. And I talked to him about it and he said he's not. But that was a while back. So who knows?

Who knows? But, you know, it'd be a friendly debate. I have a lot of respect for him. And he's a great guy. If he's moving towards Catholicism, that would not be a good thing. But I don't know if he is.

That's not what I understand. So we'll see. All right, cool.

I'm going to check it out. All right. Sounds good, buddy. You got any questions?

Nobody's waiting. Okay. All right, man.

We'll see you. God bless. All right. All right. Okay. Well, we have nobody waiting. If you want to give me a call, we've got about three minutes left in the show.

877-207-2276. Now, you know, taken off of the issue of apostasy and people moving towards Catholicism is a generic thing. I'm not saying Sam Shimon is or is not, whatever. Just as his principle of moving towards Catholicism and the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church, the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church, and the reason I say this is the Roman Catholic Church is not a true Christian church. Okay. And when I say it, I don't mean to say, you know, I'm mean about that, or I was injured by Roman Catholics, or I have some vendetta against them.

It's not it. No, you just check what they say against scripture. That's all. So here's a list of some of the things the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

I'll go through them quickly because we're almost at, well, we are at the end of the show. The Catholic Church is the one true church. The Catholic Church is infallible. Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret scripture. The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. Sacred tradition, their sacred tradition is equal to scripture. Now I'm reading from a list I have on Karm, on a list of the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. You can go check it out and it's fully documented.

Okay, I'll continue. Forgiveness of sins and salvation is by faith and works. That's a false gospel right there. The full benefit of salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church. Grace can be merited. The merit of Mary and the saints can be applied to Catholics and to others. Penance is necessary for salvation.

There's the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine of indulgences, paying of money and certain things gets you less time punishment in the afterlife. Mary, there's so many false doctrines about Mary. She's the mediatrix, she's the benefactrix, she helps with the co-atoning one. She's the best way to look at considering the church.

It's better to look to her than anyone else, things like that. Prayer to saints. You can pray to saints. Apparently the saints in Catholicism can hear you and all over the place, different languages and different times, like little semi-gods and goddesses.

It's amazing. The communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ. This is unbiblical. Even though Jesus says it's my body and my blood, he could not have been violating Levitical law, which commands people not to literally drink blood. He wouldn't have been saying it's actually his blood.

He would have been violating Leviticus 17, 14. I could go on, but there's the music. So I've got to get going. May the Lord bless you, and by his grace, follow us back on the air on Monday. I hope you have a great weekend. God bless everybody.