Matt Slick Live

A previously recorded Matt Slick show. Live up on And so, a lot of times when I get up, before I get up, I'll talk to the Lord, in the morning talk to the Lord, and what I'll often do is put on the news, you know, on my phone. I'll just reach over and grab my phone and go through some conservative news things, sometimes I go through some not so conservative stuff. And I ended up writing something today, and I put it up on the Karm Facebook page, and you know, it's Wake Up America, and you know, if you want you can check it out. I believe that our country is in a lot of trouble, and I have a suggestion on something that we can do, an idea that's written in there.

If you're, you know, I'm curious, you guys can go and check things out, you can comment on what I wrote, you'll see it on Matt's Lick Facebook and or the Karm Facebook page. And so, I don't know if you'll be able to talk about it, it's not a big deal, it's not the idea of what's happening in our culture, how the political, social, moral, spiritual change that's occurring to our nation, and it's degrading. And our nation can't survive forever like this.

It cannot. Let me give you an illustration of something. Let's say there's a small corporation, say 100 people in this corporation, this three story building, and they sell widgets. And they have a president, and you have a vice president, and you have board directors, you have people who change rules in the corporation, you have all kinds of people who do all kinds of things. Let's just say that in this corporation it's running very well, and the reason it's running very well is, think of a good product, I know a good thing, but the people are good. And the people there believe in being honest and producing quality work, and not stealing.

They don't believe in having self-interests above the interests of others. They are patient, they're kind, and they take their work very seriously, because they know that they have to answer to someone, namely the Lord. They know that, as the Bible says, do whatever you do, do for the glory of God.

Do as though the Lord's watching, because he is. And so the company works well, it's not perfect, people aren't perfect, but it works well. So with this, let's imagine that some people start getting hired who don't believe in honesty, don't believe in integrity, and they're a little self-seeking, and they want to move up the command chain and get more power, more money. Let's imagine that that's the case. And let's just say there's five people who did this, to get hired in, and no one knows that they're like this, and they start getting in positions, and they are, in this corporation, they're doing some shady deals, and in order to do that, they have to kind of cook the books a little bit here and there. And when something looks like it might be discovered, they blame somebody else. Which is what happens in politics, okay? Just trying to give you an analogy. And this goes on, is this company going to survive?

Well, yeah, it'll survive, there's a lot of good stuff there. Well, let's say five more people get hired in like that. And the same kind of a thing is occurring. Now, this is just an illustration and a bit of an exaggeration at some point, but I want you to understand something, that when a corporation like that were to be filled with people who have self-interest, not in the interest of doing a good job, and they start telling everybody else what ought to be done, they're the ones, they're a minority, and what they do is, say these 10 people out of 100 now, what they start doing is telling everybody else how things ought to be. And when things don't go their way, they complain and file grievances. So what happens is the harmony is lessened, the effectiveness is lessened, and now more energy needs to be spent in dealing with these kinds of problems. And as this increases, things get worse, and pretty much it doesn't take very much to conclude that what'll happen is the company will do more and more badly. And pretty soon, if it continues like this, more and more people come in there who make demands and take bribes and do shady deals, under-the-table stuff, who don't care about the original bylaws of the company, and alter the bylaws, reinterpret the bylaws as they gain more power, this is what would lead to the downfall and destruction of that company.

This analogy is easy for us to kind of grasp. And the same kind of thing is going on here in America, and it's a very bad thing. And what we have to do as Christians is we need to pray. We need to be praying. We need to be praying that God would be blessed in our prayers. And we need to be asking God to work in our country, okay?

He really does need to. Let me read what I wrote today. And people said they really liked it, okay, so I'll read it. Despair, worry, and fear raise their ugly heads, and the more I listen to the news the worse it gets. I lament over the socialist politicians who have no character, who lie, who seek power and trample the Constitution underfoot. They're full of hypocrisy. They promote communism with euphemisms, socialism with smiles, and leftist agendas with kind words. They want an increase of governmental power that they can only, that can only be had at the expense of our freedoms. They promote, excuse me, they promote that which is ungodly and then penalize conservatives for not marching lockstep with their leftist propaganda.

Once in power, they seek their own interests, their own power, and their own wisdom. They accuse others of being evil while they themselves promote the doctrines of the devil. They're enemies of the people of the Constitution. The news outlets promote the slightest offense against anything conservative and bury the damning truths against the Marxist thought puppet agenda. They're enemies of the people of the Constitution. The social media outlets are servants of the far left. They are biased and suppress everything not in harmony with their progressive agendas.

To them, lies are better passed off as truths while ignoring the facts that contradict their hypocritical candidates and socialist policies. They're enemies of the people of the Constitution. Because of these unpleasant truths, I'm growing more convinced that we need a revolution. I don't know how and I don't know when and I don't know what kind, but our country is under attack politically, socially, morally, and spiritually. We Christians need to pray for God's merciful hand and the peaceful revival of our land. Because if it doesn't happen, darkness will descend on the souls of the people of our nation and it will fall. We must resist the evil that surrounds us. We must pray. We must vote. We must protest. We must prepare. We must seek the Lord and be ready to do what is necessary to defeat his enemies and the enemies of the people of the Constitution.

Now that was short and sweet and I have a suggestion afterwards. And I believe as a Christian, I believe that we are called by God himself to be involved in society, in politics, in the media, in literature, in movies, not only in the pulpit. We should not allow ourselves to be relegated to a Sunday morning corner where they encroach our rights and demand that we not meet or demand that we hold certain ideas or threaten us with various penalties if we don't submit to what they want.

I have an idea. What if there was an organization that promoted an event called something like Wake Up America? What if we could get people to read and or join online so they could prepare and organize? On a particular day, all people whose last name started with the letter A would go to their state capitol or representative office building of cities near them with signs and slogans that pointed to a common website with common slogans there.

The website would promote our constitutional rights, document the lies and socialist Marxist agenda of people in government and urge a change among many other things. It would be a peaceful protest, not like the leftist rioters. The next day the same thing happens with the people whose last name starts with the letter B. The next day it's with the people whose last name starts with the letter C and so on.

Some letters would have to be combined of course. Of course then no one shows up on Sunday though because they need a day of rest. And when they leave the area, the protesters leave the area, it should be cleaner than when they got there. What if this happened in every state, in every capitol for three weeks?

Would the liberal left news ignore it? Representatives could be interviewed, et cetera, it could be really something. The Wake Up America organization or something else it could be called would take donations that would be used to defend people who are arrested and falsely accused. The funds could also be used to bring lawsuits should it go that far. Of course my idea is grassroots and I don't think anything will come of it. After all, it would take a national figure with a lot of connections to pull something like this off. Nevertheless, a small spark can light a forest on fire.

And then we do the same thing to the media outlets. I believe in doing something. I'm not like a lot of other Christians. When I see Mormon missionaries on the side of the road going to someone's house to knock on it and bring their false gospel, you know, they have the right to do that, but I'll stop and wait for them to leave that house and I go talk to the people in that house. I've stood out in front of Mormon churches with signs is mormonismchristian.com. In front of Jehovah's Witness Kingdom halls I've gone in and their assemblies I've stood out in front with signs. I've gone door to door and I've preached and taught in prisons and want to do so more and more. I ask God regularly to use me more and more. I'm the kind of Christian who believes in doing what Jesus said, go out into the nations and make disciples of everyone. I believe that what Paul the apostle talked about as he traveled and bringing everything in subjection to the lordship of Jesus Christ. I believe it's what we're obligated to do as Christians. Not just go on Sunday and be comforted by a nice sermon and then go get fed. I believe in doing something and if we all did something we could change this country.

It wouldn't take that long, but it would take prayer and it would take work. Anyway if you want to give me a call all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. We'll be right back, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276, here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome back to the show. We have three open lines if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276, let's get to Matt from North Carolina.

Welcome, you're on the air. Hello? Hello Matt, can you hear me?

Yes I can, yes I can. So what do you got? Okay, let me, I'm having a lot of trouble hearing you, let me step out of this. All right.

I'm trying to work and talk at the same time and it's not working. Okay. One second. Okay. I apologize. It's all right. So what do you got?

It's okay. I think he's going to have to call back, so we'll just see what happens. So call back if you can, call right back and we'll get you on there. Let's get to David from New York. Dave, welcome. You're on the air. Hello? Hello.

You're on the air. Yes, I think so. Okay, yes you are. So you got a question? Yes, my question was, it seems pretty clear to me when you look at John chapter 20 verse 23, Jesus tells the apostles, whoever sins they forgive will be forgiven them, whoever sins you do not forgive will not be forgiven them. But like this is a sacramental confession that a man goes to one of God's representatives on earth and they forgive his sins. I'm wondering how you would explain that as a Protestant.

Well let me ask you some questions because they're relevant to the text. Do you imply or do you believe that because a priest forgives sins that God now is obligated to do what the priest says and forgive their sins? Not necessarily that he's obligated, but I believe that normatively is the way that God set it up like the Catholic church teaches.

So let me ask you another question. Do you believe God's obligated to do what the priest does? I don't think God is obligated to do anything. I believe God has formed the church. Okay, then the answer is no.

Right? The answer is no? I don't believe he's obligated to do anything. Okay, so he's not obligated. Then why does it say, from your perspective, if you forgive the sins they've been forgiven? Because God's the one who forgives sins, right? Yes, I believe God does it for the priest. So then if God does it to the priest and the priest forgives sins, then God must forgive, right?

He's obligated, right? I mean, the Catholic church understands that the person is not... I'm talking to you. I'm talking to you about this text. You brought it up. I'm asking you questions about the text. Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah, I would not claim that the text explains every element of how that works, but I'm not sure, like in your system, you would say man can't forgive sins and then God can't... Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. We're talking about the text here, okay? Yeah.

Not in my system. We're talking... You brought this up and you said, how do you Protestants? That means you're Roman Catholic.

So I'm asking you a question about the text. You see, you're saying you believe that the priests have authority. It doesn't say priests here. It doesn't say that. It says disciples.

Okay? He's talking about the disciples. Well, yeah. He's talking about the disciples. He's not talking about priests, okay? He's talking about the disciples and to them, if you forgive the sins, their sins have been forgiven. So the Catholic Church misapplies this and says it belongs to their priest, their priesthood, which is not in the text there whatsoever. But if we were to take this and say the priest goes in there and he forgives the sins, the text says their sins have been forgiven. The question then is necessary. Are you then saying that God is obligated to follow through with what the priest does because he's once forgiven the sins, he has authority, so therefore they have to be forgiven.

Right? Assuming the person is genuinely repentant, I believe God would do what the priest does. Okay, so if the person's genuinely repentant and the priest forgives them, then God's obligated to forgive them because the priest is doing the forgiving of the genuine person. Because he promised to. Because God promised to. Because he promised to.

Yeah. Where did he promise to do that? 2023. Whoever's sins be forgiven.

Really? Whoever's sins be forgiven. So it says there that God's obligated and God promises to forgive their sins? I think he's saying that he will. No, it doesn't say that. This is what I deal with with the cults, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

They can't read a verse to save their life and actually believe what it says and understand what it says. Let me help you out a little bit here. Oh, I'm... Let me help you out.

Well, I called you to stop. It says, if you forgive, that's present tense, okay, well actually it's in the aorist. If you, past tense, forgive, the aorist tense in the Greek is the past tense.

It's an aorist subjunctive. If you forgive, something that's done in the past, their sins have been forgiven. That's a perfect tense. Perfect tense means it's already accomplished in the past. Wait a minute. If they forgive sins, they've already been forgiven?

How is it possible that if a priest does the forgiving that the sins have already been forgiven? I will be honest. I don't know Greek. Do you know of any English translation that translates the passage that way? I'm looking at it.

New American Standard Bible. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven. I've had four and a half years of Greek in college and seminary. The perfect tense is different than the pluperfect tense. The perfect tense is I have been. The pluperfect is I had been. When you say I had been, I had been walking, it means you were walking in the past and you stopped walking in the past. I had been.

I'm not doing it now. To say I have been is you were walking in the past and you still are right now. I have been walking for hours, which means you're still doing it. That's what the perfect tense means. The aorist here means past tense. It's an interesting tense in the Greek, but how it's translated here, because it's an aorist subjunctive, is that it says if you forgive... So would you accept the New American Standard translation as accurate enough for the sake of this discussion?

I think I'm looking at the New American Standard right now and I think my question would still hold if we used that. Well, you can do whatever you want. I'm just telling you what the Greek says. Okay, that's what the Greek says. Okay, but even if it says if you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them, that's still tying God's action to the action of his apostles. Okay, so you already said God's not obligated to do it, and now you're saying they're tied, but I'm saying to you, or I'm asking you this question, it says if you forgive the sins, it's like saying they've already been forgiven. They have been forgiven.

So I'm asking you a question. If the disciples were to forgive their sins, they have been forgiven. It's been done in the past and has a present effect. So if that's the case, why then is it written like that? Why does it say if you forgive the sins of any, their sins will be forgiven?

Will be. Upon the declaration of their forgiveness. That's what you're implying, but it's not what this Greek says. If you forgive the sins of any, they have been forgiven.

It's already done. All the disciples are doing nothing more than recognizing what God has already done. So your argument basically is that this text is purely, so you're not seeing any tie between the disciples forgiving and what God does in heaven. No, I didn't say that, did I? Did I say I don't see any tie? It sounded that way, but I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. No, I didn't say that. What I am saying is that what we have in the text here is where the disciples pronounce what God has already done. I said that.

To say there's no tie doesn't mean you're not listening. So what tie are you seeing between what the disciples declaration and what was already done? Because theoretically, based on your interpretation, the disciples could say, I forgive your sins, but your sins aren't forgiven. Well, yeah.

That's right. Then what is the point of this text? Like if sacramental confession doesn't exist, what is the point of it? Hold on.

You're assuming way too much Roman Catholicism. Read scripture. Okay. We'll be right back.

Okay. Hey folks, if you want to call, we have four 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. Why don't you give me a call?

We have four open lines, 877-207-2276. David are you still there? Yep. All right. So, uh, where were we? We had a break going and you were saying something we had to kind of go. I don't exactly remember what I was saying, uh, four minutes ago, but I'm looking at this even in the translation you gave me and it, it seems like the, um, it seems to me that even if you say that it's whoever sinned you forgive have been forgiven, that this still seems like a very strange thing to say. If you don't believe in any form of sacramental confession, it seems like it's for good reason that the ancient churches have applied that passage in this way.

Well, here's the problem that you have. This is a problem that you and other Catholics make when you say these, the church fathers, the ancient church. What you do is you ignore scripture and then you go to these church fathers, you find what you want and then you raise them up. The church fathers contradict each other all the time.

One of the shirts I want to wear out in public is my church father can beat up your church father because it just, there's not a uniformity of opinion all over the place. There's all kinds of issues. I did, I did a debate with, and I would be happy to do a formal debate with you sometime if you would do it with me. I did a debate with another Protestant pastor, um, like a few months ago and we, it's kind of hard to unpack in like a short conversation, but I don't feel that the contradictions really matter. I'm aware that they exist. Like ultimately the fathers have different opinions and Catholics have different opinions today on different things, but I don't think fundamentally you can find the Protestant framework anytime before Martin Luther.

That would be more. Yes, you can. I can tell you exactly where the Protestant framework is found. You want to know what I can tell you? I'll, I'll, I'll give you a, I'll give you your shot at it.

Yeah, sure. Um, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. That's where it's found. Number, number one, I believe the Catholic arguments from the scripture are stronger. I numbered two, even if that was the case, would still have a big gap between like 150 or 300. No, they're not.

They're not stronger. You know, here, let me, let me go reverse with you really quickly. It's just, I believe Romans four or five. Let's go to that. All right.

I'm looking it up. All right. Now it says here, what translation are you saying? Just so I can, I could do the King James, a ESV, RSV. I'm fine with whatever. I just wanted to be on the same page.

I'm fine with an ASV is fine. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Now it says here, what it does not work, so no works at all, but believes. So works and belief are contrasted.

What it does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Now, just so you know, the word believes is from the Greek verb pistuo, which is the verb form of the word for faith, which is pistis. It's from the same root.

Okay. So it's pi, iota, sigma, pistis. So pistuo is P-I-S-T, pi, iota, sigma, tau is the root for the belief. So it has believe and faith as we do in English, but it's the same thing in Greek. It's from pistuo to believe in pistis, faith, but to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

You know what it says? Notice what it says, but the one who believes, his faith is credited as righteousness. The one who believes. So is his faith credited as righteousness when he believes?

That's my question to you. Oh, yes, I believe this. So then if the answer is yes, that he's credited righteousness when he believes, then that means he's justified before God when he believes, right? Without works.

Right? Well, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2068, it says, you obtain salvation through faith, baptism, and the observance of the commandments. So which is correct here? Okay, so I do believe you can reconcile these things, just like you would say you could reconcile this with James chapter 2, verse 1-4, and I know that's not of a... That's easy, but I'm asking you to reconcile it here right now. James 2 is something you just don't really contest. No, I think because under what I...I mean, we believe that if you have genuine faith that's infused with hope, love, and charity, that alone can save you. The issue is, I think... Really?

Either you would... Wait, wait, wait, wait. Yes. No, no, no, you can't say that because the Council of Trent has said in Council of Trent canons on justification, canon 9, if anyone sayeth that by faith alone the impious is justified, let him be cursed. There's additional text in that canon, I don't have it in front of me on my head, but... Sure.

I can read it to you. If anyone sayeth that by faith alone the pious is justified, in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema. Of course we would say... Right, so I think that last section is pretty central.

Yeah. Because it's basically saying that if you're saying basically just a intellectual assent is required without any actual cooperation with grace, then you're anathema. Like, I think you're reading too much into this one text, people don't... Here's the problem, to say cooperating with grace in Catholicism means that you do all kinds of things to obtain the grace of God which is infused into your soul.

Paragraph 1999. Grace is a substance that's a commodity in Catholicism that is administered through the priesthood down to the people. That's what it means.

I think the major... I think the big disconnect here would be that you would see the sacraments as works, like you would see the sacraments as kind of a... Like a work, we don't necessarily, we don't see it that way, we see the sacraments as grace being given to us through God's ministers, and I gave you an example of John 20-23, I could also point to John chapter 6, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life, and whoever does not eat my flesh and blood will not have eternal life. Yeah, and the problem with that is that if Jesus was saying eat his literal blood and he'd have been violating Leviticus 17-14, which says do not drink the blood of any animal, of any flesh is what it actually says.

So that's another issue. But this is what justification is in paragraph 2020, according to the Catechism. Can I comment on Leviticus 17 since you brought it up?

Sure. Leviticus 17, Jesus said do not eat the blood of an animal because the life is in the blood, and I think this is where Protestants have a bit too literalistic of a hermeneutic. But I found this very fascinating when I thought about it, because we eat the body and blood of Christ and the life of Christ is brought into us, so again, it's kind of like you're taking this very literalistic understanding of the Old Testament with a ceremonial anyway that's ultimately pointing towards Christ, to we receive the life of Christ when we eat his body and drink his blood. You take that part literally in John 6, and when it says here in Leviticus 17-14, as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life, therefore I said to the sons of Israel, you are not to eat the blood of any flesh, any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off. So are you telling me that Jesus was telling the disciples to drink his blood? Yes, and I think this is interesting.

Wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me that Jesus was asking the disciples to violate Levitical law? I don't think, well, I think it's a kind of a different thing that obviously, you know, when you eat, like the accidents of bread and wine are still there, but ultimately I think the point is that we don't eat a creature's blood because the life of the creature is in the blood. We partake of Christ's body and blood because the life of Christ is in his body and blood.

Like there's a beautiful symbolism there. The text says you're not to eat the blood of any flesh, any flesh, any. But you disobey that and you assert that the sacrifice that Jesus offered on the cross, right? You say that's what it is. When he offered the bread and the wine, was that his sacrifice, body and blood in John 6? Yes. But how could it be since he wasn't yet sacrificed?

Because just like the mass brings the sacrifice forward in time, it also brings it back into time. Where'd you get that? Where'd you get that? A book of thorectomy?

No, no, no, no, no. Show me scripture. Show me scripture. First Corinthians 10. First Corinthians 10.

First Corinthians 10. 16 and 17, which says, is not the cup of blessing which he blessed sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which the brick is sharing the body of Christ?

Okay. What does it mean to share? Is not the cup of thanksgiving which we give thanks, the participation in the blood of Christ?

And is not the bread that we break the participation in the body of Christ? What does it mean to participate? To participate in his blood? What does it mean?

It means we're partaking of his body and his blood. Like I said, I mean, I don't know why. That's not what it says. It's not what it says. It's not what it says. It's not what it says. This is what you do, you Catholics.

You read in the text what is not there. You accuse us of either being too literal or too figurative, depending on whatever argument you want to present at whatever time. We've got a break. You want to keep holding on?

I'm sure the audience would- Yes. I'm happy to come back on. Yes. Okay. Hold on. I'll be right back.

Okay. Folks, we'll be right back after these messages if you want more of this. 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. Dave, are you still there? I guess he's not.

Maybe he didn't understand. That's okay. Let me try one more time. I assume, Dave, you're not there. Dave's not here. I am here. I'm still here. Oh, I was just going to click off. All right. Oh, I didn't know you couldn't hear me. No, it's okay. It's all right.

That happens. We've got a question for you. We were talking about John 6, right? Is that what we were talking about? Oh, yeah.

The first 13th. Mm-hmm. So you were saying something like, we read our ideas into Scripture, and you don't or something like that. Yes, you do.

No, you do it a great deal. You read stuff into other texts. It's just not there all the time. And what are you saying I'm reading into 1 Corinthians 10? Can you explain that? He said, okay, is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ. What does that mean? Does it mean we're eating his blood?

Yeah, I believe it does. Well, we're drinking his blood, I guess. We're drinking.

That's fine. Does it say drinking? No. It says sharing. Well, what does it mean to share in the blood of Christ?

It doesn't say sharing. Well, in this context, it's not just you for it, so sharing would be eating and drinking. It's sharing the blood, so it means eating, okay?

That's what you're going to say it means drinking. So what you're telling me then, just to be sure, is that when you take the Eucharist, you're drinking Christ's literal blood, right? Yes. Okay. And you're eating his literal body, right? Yes.

Okay. And so that's a sacrificed body and blood of Christ, which he instituted before he was sacrificed. Yeah, because his sacrifice is outside of time. His sacrifice is outside of time. I love it when Catholics tell me that. It's outside of time.

And I love that because I ask another question, and then they stumble. What does it mean to be outside of time? I'll give it my best shot. Good. Go ahead. What's it mean to be outside of time? It means that, obviously, Christ is only killed once, right?

We're not killing Christ every time we have a Mass, but that sacrifice is being offered to God the Father, even though it's the same sacrifice, it's being offered on our altars each week when we have the Mass. Okay. I asked you a question.

And I can talk more about that. You didn't answer. I said, what does it mean to be outside of time? What does that mean? Outside of time? What is it? It means that even though Christ only died once, that sacrifice is brought into the time period of whatever a Mass is offered.

No. What does it mean to be outside of time, to have a condition of outside of time? What does it mean, outside of time? What's the phrase outside of time mean?

I think I just told you, I'm not sure exactly what time. We are inside of time and subject to time. It's a sequential series of events through which we progress. Time seems to be the fourth part of our existence.

We have height, width, depth. We have those elements, which is space, and the fourth dimension, they say, is time. We live inside of a time, space-time continuum, a space-time realm. So what does it mean to be outside of time? It means that the sacrifice of Calvary is not just experienced during the six hours that it was originally.

What does it mean? You're writing a journal for a science class and you say outside of time means, what does it mean to be outside of time? I don't know how to explain that better than I already did. So then you don't know what it means to be outside of time, and that's your explanation for this.

I'm going to use something I don't know what it means. That's going to be my explanation. That's why I love that. I mean, I think that, what's that? That's why I love it when Catholics tell me that.

I love it because they have no idea what they're saying. It's outside of time. And somebody goes, oh, okay, I guess you got me. What does it mean? I don't know. What's outside of time mean? I don't know.

I mean, there's a certain level of mystery to the face. I think it's reasonable for the body and blood and we believe in him and we partake of that and that's not necessarily to be able to explain to you exactly what outside of time means. So you don't know it. You don't know what it means. You shouldn't use it as an explanation for this issue.

Hey, I got a question for you, another question here because you said earlier when I quoted Romans 4-5, you said that the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness and I asked you, are you justified when you have faith? And you said yes. You stick by that still? Yeah.

Right? Okay. So that's when you're saved. To be justified means you're right before God. You're saved.

That's what it means. That's what salvation is. In paragraph 1257, it says, the Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation. So if baptism is necessary for salvation, then you cannot be justified by faith because that wouldn't work. Well, yes, because every single passage in the Bible that talks about baptism explains that it's saved, that it truly regenerates.

Now I know you can explain them all away and we do believe that there is something as baptism of desire if you have perfect hope and charity in your soul. You're not listening. Even if you don't have the opportunity to be baptized.

You're not listening. You said that you're justified when you have faith. If you're justified, it means you're saved. That means justification occurs by faith. How then could baptism also be necessary if you've already obtained salvation by faith? Because normatively speaking, faith is infused into the soul at the time of baptism. Faith is infused? Faith or grace?

I misunderstand you. Actually, I think I said faith, but I think I should have said grace. That's okay. Well, it happens.

No biggie. So grace is infused when you have faith or when you get baptized? I guess here's what I would say about the whole issue. What Paul's getting at is that you can't earn it by following the Jewish law. That's the broader spectrum issue of the book. So it's not necessarily like the moment you believe in Jesus.

That's the exact moment that you're justified. I think that's what the technicality you're trying to pin on this. But I do believe that salvation is by grace alone and that it's through faith.

It's not by works. Mormons say the same thing. Mormons say the same thing.

They believe it's by grace alone. Mormons have a false god and there's a whole bunch of others. I said they say the same thing and they define things differently.

So that's what happens. But if you want to debate me on this, you know, you say you've had debates, we can do it on Discord. I would gladly formally debate you if we had time to plan it.

People are stacking up to want to debate me on various things. That's fine. Just email me or find me on Discord if you're on there. All right. I'll send you an email.

Can you tell me what the email is or is it on the site? Okay. All right.

I'll email you. Absolutely. All right. Sounds good. Thank you very much for your time. Sure. Thank you. Okay. All right, folks.

We have four open lines. If you want to give me a call. Wow. Man, it's almost five o'clock.

Almost half of the hour. Let's get to Joel from Tennessee. Hey, Joel. Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. It's a pleasure to talk to you. I am a born-again Christian, and I did not decide to start being obedient to God in my daily life until about maybe one to two years ago, and I'm living my life being obedient to God the best I can now.

I have joined an evangelism school online, and yesterday I just purchased the Karm School, so I'm really looking forward to doing that. And my question for you is, does God love everyone? And if you can, can I get the nutshell answer and then the explanation? Sure.

The answer is, in one sense, yes, and in another sense, no. There's a generic sense, which he loves everyone, and that's in Matthew 5, 43 through 48. Let's the sun shine the good and the bad, et cetera, so therefore love, you know, that's the context. Matthew 5, 43 through 48. However, if you go to Psalm 5, 5, Psalm 11, 5, you'll find that God says he hates those who do iniquity, and he says these things, and I'll read it to you. Psalm 5 says, the boastful shall not stand before your eyes, you hate all who do iniquity.

That's what it says. And then Psalm 11, 5, the Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence, his soul hates. If we're to go to Romans 9, roughly, let's see, 11 and 12 and 13, though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, so it's not based on their works, okay? What they're going to do, anything, no works, so that God's purpose, according to his choice, so according to God's purpose, according to his choice, would stand, not because of works, but because of him who calls.

It was said to her, the older will serve the younger, just as I've written, Jacob, I love Denise, I hated. So we have specific areas where God says he hates, and he hates people, and individuals, even by name. And yet, we know that generically God loves everyone. So there's different senses in this, all right?

There's different senses. So in one sense, yes, God loves everyone equally, generically, provides for all of them, he's very gracious, very kind, and there's another sense in which he doesn't love everybody because he says, Psalm 5, 5, Psalm 11, 5, Romans 9, 11 through 13, mentions these kinds of things. That's what the scripture says, we have to harmonize them, and what we do is we say, well, God loves some in one sense, and not others in another sense, okay? Does it have to be absolute with God, or it's God? He can have both ways, he can be both ways, or is there an absolute answer? Well, that is the absolute answer, that he loves some and hates others.

That's right there in scripture, it is Reddit, that's what it says. How is this reconciled against, for God so loved the world that he sent his one and only begotten son, because this is what some people I've talked to, can you help me with that? God sent the son, the Father sent the son, under the covenantal requirements of the Old Testament, that the Messiah was to come to redeem the people of Israel, he was sent to Israel. He was not sent to everybody, Jesus said in Matthew 15, 24, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus himself declares in Matthew 15, 24, that he was not sent to anybody else, he was only sent to Israel. The Israelites would have understood that the Messiah is coming for Israel, the Messiah is coming, he's a Jewish person filling the law, the requirements, this is what the Jews would have understood. If someone would have said, yeah, he's going to save the Egyptians too, they'd have laughed at you and, you know, get away, because that's their mindset, that's what they understood. And rightly so, because Jesus said he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However, Israel broke the covenant requirements, the stipulations, that they were under in order to recognize the Messiah, whose very day of his arrival was predicted in Daniel 9, 25-27, when it predicted from the, I think it's March 14th, 445 BC, the command to rebuild the temple of the walls by Arctic circuses, and that 173,880 days later, Jesus came into the city of Jerusalem riding on a colt. It's all there, okay, I've got it on my website and everything, all this stuff worked out. It's all there. They should have known, but because they missed the Messiah, we the Gentiles are now grafted in. The Gentile nations are now included, that's why it says, God's love the world, okay.

The world means all. Absolutely, and I thank you for that, thank you for that insight, that's very insightful, I think you're a very smart person, and I'm looking forward to doing the CARM School online. You have a wealth of knowledge on CARM.org, and I'm looking forward to it, I thank you very much. Well, you're welcome very much, and thanks for those kind words, so really appreciate it. Alrighty, thank you, Matt. God bless, buddy.

Alright, speaking about the call, I mean the schools, if you're interested in those schools, all you've got to do is go to CARM.org, and on the right-hand side, the name page, you'll see the stuff on the schools, so check them out. Alright, may the Lord bless you, by his grace, and nothing but his grace. We're back on here tomorrow, and I hope that you have a great evening. God bless, everybody. Talk to you tomorrow. See you, bye.