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.
Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the show.
It's me, Matt Slick, and I was out Friday unexpectedly. And the reason was my wife has COVID and we had to get tested and things like that. And so I don't have it. I was tested negative, but she does. But the next day I had a fever and then it went away. I had one day fever.
So that happens and not a big deal, but there you go. So I unexpectedly just not do the show yesterday or Friday, but I'm here on Monday 11-2. If you want, you can give me a call at 877-207-2276. I'd love to hear from you. And we have three open lines if you want to give me a call.
Like I said, 877-207-2276. Let's see, yesterday or last night, it was a debate with a Mormon and I thought it went really well. And there are a lot of Mormons there because they said the Mormon won even though I was at all kinds of documentation and proving a point. But hey, that's just the way it goes. So if you saw that and you want to comment on it, please feel free to call and let me hear from you.
Let's see, what else? Two open lines, 877-207-2276. Why don't we just jump on the line? Let's get to John from New Jersey. John, welcome. You're on the air.
Hey, Matt. I have a real fast question. It's about John 1-3. Okay.
All right. So when it says all things created through Jesus, what does that mean? Because I know that Jehovah's Witnesses go somewhere else with that. They take that verse somewhere else, don't they? Yeah, what the J-dubs will do is say that Jesus is the first created thing and then God the Father created everything through Jesus. That means Jesus was kind of a conduit, a kind of person that did that.
And so they'll say that. And then when you go to Colossians, if you want to deal with it, you go to Colossians 1-15. And what it says there is, he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him, all things were created, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers, authorities, all things have been created through him and for him.
He is before all things and to him, all things hold together. And so what they'll do there is they will add the word other into the text four times. It's not there in the Greek. And so it is a faulty translation. And it's a very biased translation to show their view.
For by him, all other things were created. That's what they'll say. They'll add the word other, but it's not there in the Greek. There's two words for the word other, alas and hetaras.
Neither one are used there. It's both in heavens and earth, et cetera. So that's what they're doing. And you're on the right track. And what you can do is simply go to Isaiah 44 24.
This is what it says here. Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out all the earth alone. It says spreading out the earth all alone.
That's what I'll do. And I'll say, so he did it alone, spreading the earth out by himself. So I say harmonize that with John 1 3, where it says all things were created through him, yet Yahweh says he did it alone.
Can you harmonize that? That's when they have a problem because they can't harmonize it because they're imposing their theology upon the text instead of the text guarding their theology or guiding their theology. And so the answer of lies in the Trinitarian communion and the truth of God's word, et cetera, et cetera.
So, okay. Yeah, I understand harmonizing and stuff like that, but when it says through, what does that mean? When it says all things were created through Jesus, I don't really understand. Well, it's a hard one to answer because we don't know what it means from the perspective of God's creative work, how God cleared through the sun. We don't know. What exactly does that mean? Well, we're not exactly sure to be able to say, well, through means this.
So what we can say and generally want to say is to the effect that somehow, some way, there was a conduit where the word was involved in creation. We don't know exactly how it works though. And we just don't. Wow. Okay.
Wow. It's one of the mysteries of the Trinitarian communion, that's all. And we just have to face that and realize that there are things that we're just not going to get. And, you know, that's it. Some would say, you know, God did it through him, or Jesus was the conduit. But actually what you ask is the exact right question.
What does it mean to create thrill? And I don't know how to answer it, to be honest. Okay. Okay. Do you have any more callers waiting?
Yes, we have two more, but go ahead really fast. About the Trinity, this guy, Arius, my friend was saying, argued, he argued against the Roman council introducing the Trinity while he lost. It took another 200 years before the Trinity took root.
I'm just reading a text that he sent. I just read the text that he sent me a while ago on the Trinity. He's saying that, I guess, Arius or the Roman Catholic church invented the Trinity or something.
No, no, that's not true. The Trinitarian issue is not invented by the Roman Catholic church or anybody. The issue is that it is derived out of scripture. And what I'll say to the J-dubs when they say this kind of thing, they don't know what you're talking about, I'll say, the Trinity's arrived at systematically by looking at the scriptures. That's what it is.
So what is that? What is that system that we go to? And they don't understand what the question even means. Because what we do is we look at the Bible and it says, there's only one God and all the creators, you know, that's it, one God period, before, then after. Yet Jesus has called God, the Father's called God, the Holy Spirit's called God. Jesus creates, the Father creates, the Holy Spirit creates. Each indwells, each is involved in the resurrection.
And it goes on and on and on. And so the doctrine of the Trinity's arrived at by looking at a monotheistic teaching in the scripture, and then noticing that each member, the Father said, Holy Spirit is called God, is called divine, as a well, speaks, indwells us, is involved in creation, the resurrection of Christ. And so they put this together and that's how they came up with the Trinity. So the J-dubs say that the Catholic church invented it.
No, they don't have any clue what they're saying. They don't know how the doctrine of the Trinity's arrived at. It was not arrived at by somebody inventing it. It's arrived at by looking at scripture. So what I'll tell them is I say it's arrived at systematically by looking at the word of God. So the issue is, it's false if that approach to the word is false. So please tell me, what is that approach to the word that people use to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity? Because if it's wrong, it's wrong based on that. So what is it? And they have no idea how to answer the question. They never have an idea how to answer the question because they don't know.
They're just brainwashed. Okay. All right. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate it. You're welcome, buddy.
God bless. Yeah, you too. Bye.
All right. Hey folks, if you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. Let's get to Kent from North Carolina. Kent, welcome.
You're on the air. Hey, Matt, how are you doing? All right. How are you doing? All right, Matt.
I'm not going to ask you a question. Where was Jesus Christ from? What was his origin? What was he from?
The eternal Trinitarian nature and then became flesh. No, I'm talking about what was his born there? What was his origin?
What was he born at? Well, he was born in Bethlehem. Okay. Bethlehem.
Yes, sir. Okay, let me ask you a question then. If he was born in Bethlehem, how can that name, his name be Jesus? Because that's what the Bible says. And why did they change that name?
Because that's what the Bible says. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Why did they change the name?
Because that's not his original name. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Wait a minute. You keep calling. I keep showing you the same thing in scripture. You keep failing to answer the issues. It's still a mystery.
So the Bible, the New Testament documents are what we have, and all of the Greek manuscripts that we have say his name is Jesus, Jesus in the Greek. So where do you get off denying the word of God? Well, sir, let me ask you this question.
No, no, no. You answer me. Why do you deny the word of God? Because I think a lot of things have been changed, you know. I don't think the truth, hold on a sec. You think things have been changed. So have you studied the historical reliability of the New Testament documents?
I know the answer. No, you have not. You absolutely have not.
No, you have not. What's the percent, hold on. What's the percentage accuracy of the New Testament documents and how many approximately New Testament documents are there in Greek? I see. Well, sir, that's not the original versions.
Those are not the original versions. Hey, I asked you a question. Do you know how many supporting Greek manuscripts there are of the New Testament? Thousands. How many thousands? Thousands. Thousands.
Okay, let's go with that. What's the accuracy of those thousands or roughly 6,000, just so you know. What's the accuracy of those? Give me a rough estimate of how accurately well copied and identical those documents are. Give me an estimate. I'll say zero. Okay.
So it's actually something like 99.8% textually identical. You have no idea what you're doing. You have no idea what you're talking about. You are involved. You are involved in a non-Christian cult. You've been brainwashed.
You have nothing to offer. Okay. I give you the answers. I have, I give you the information.
I'm going to put you on hold so I can talk. I give you the information and what you do is you ignore it. This is a sign of a brainwashed individual who doesn't care about facts, doesn't care about truth, only cares about an agenda. It kind of reminds me of the leftist propaganda machine called the media. They don't care about the truth, don't care about facts, only the agenda. This is what you're doing in black Hebrew Israelite. You are doing nothing but parroting what they tell you to say and tell you to think.
You need to start doing your own homework. Now, why are you rejecting what the Greek manuscripts tell us is Jesus' name? Because the priests are the ones that hung them and there the Romans and priests came in and changed a lot of things out of the Bible. How do you know they changed it? How do you know? How do you know they changed stuff? What evidence do you have that they changed stuff?
I do because I know that's not his original name. How do you know? How do you know they changed stuff?
Where's your evidence that they changed stuff? Because the spirit showed me, sir. The spirit showed you? The spirit showed you. That's not his name.
Hold on, hold on, hold on. So the spirit showed you that that's not his name even though all the documents say the same thing about his name. There's 6,000 of them from different places and they're all corrupted.
They're all false? Yes, sir. Wow.
Do you study it? Okay, so the spirit told you... I taught him Jerusalem and Israel. Well, what's the original... Okay, let me ask you this question.
What's the original name? Jesus. Do you know what you're denying? There's a break. It was nice talking to you, but seriously, you need to find Jesus and you need to believe in who he really is, not in the false god that you believe in and people that keep this stuff. Hey folks, we have one open line. 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. Why don't we just get back on the lines here with Robert from Utah. Robert, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, how's it going? Thanks for taking the call. Sure, no problem.
What do you got? I have a question. So I'm going to a church. They have female deacons and I'm wondering if that is a reason to look for another church. Well, let's turn to the word of God, okay?
Okay. And this is a church that you know of. Really? Now I want to know what it is. So you've been there.
Do you want me to give the name of it? Yeah. Okay, it's Lifeline Community in West Jordan.
Wait a minute. You mean the church that Luke goes to? Um, let's see, Bill McKeever. Bill goes there? Um, do you want me to give you the name of the pastor? Uh, I think I know his name. Yeah, okay. He and I went to, yeah, and there's something that had to be addressed here.
Uh, I'll talk to, uh, I'll call Bill about it. Um, here's what it says. This is what the Bible says.
I'm going to read the whole context because it's important. 1 Timothy 3. It is a trustworthy statement if any man aspires to be the office of overseer, that's the Greek word, episkopos. It is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. But if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God? And not a new convert so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
And he must have a good reputation with all those outside the church so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons, likewise, must be men of dignity, not double-minded or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith, which is clear. So, it says here, there must be men of dignity, right? Now, this is what it says, but it says deacons, likewise. Now, the problem here in the Greek is that when it mentions the deacons here, it's in verse 8, it says there must be dignity.
It says, likewise, hous soutas, semnos. And it doesn't have the word men involved in there. It doesn't have the word men there.
But it is masculine form. But nevertheless, let's continue. For those who have served well as deacons, obtain for themselves a higher standard of great confidence. Oh, I skipped some verses. Darn it.
I moved my mouse and it scrolled. Dignity, not double-winded, the double-winded. Wow, I'm messing up. Not addicted to wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with clear conscience. These men must also first be tested and serve as deacons. Women must be, likewise, be tested. Deacons, it says right here, deacons, in verse 12, must be husbands of only one wife.
All right? So, I'm looking at the Greek and it says here, andres, mias gunaikas. Andres, mias gunaikas. Andres is from the Greek aner. And it means males as distinguished from females.
That's what it means. And it says of only one wife, mias gunaikas. One wife, gunaikas. Woman, wife. The deacons must be husbands of one wife. Or men of one woman.
We get into these issues here. Well, what if you have a deacon or an elder? Which does the same thing, the requirement that the elder is the same thing. And let's say an elder is, you know, the Bible does say a husband of one wife, right? Well, what if his wife dies? Is he no longer worthy of being an elder?
No, that's not it. Because he's not married anymore, right? But it says he's a man of one woman. And it means, the idea is, he's a man who holds to monogamy and practices monogamy. That's the point. But it's male.
Deacons must be that. So, would I leave? Absolutely yes. Okay. I would.
After I took 1 Timothy 3.12 to the pastor, who I know who it is, and I would say. And I actually talked to him yesterday. Uh-huh. And? He came to this chapter and he said, two people can come down on both sides of this issue.
No, they can't. And I said, well, I've been listening to Matt Slick and he disagrees that women can be deacons. And he talked about going to the Greek and the Hebrew. And yeah, so I asked him, I said, so do the deacons here, do they have authority in this church? And he said, no, because all they do is serve coffee or clean. And I'm thinking, well, why are you attributing the title of this office to a woman, no matter what they're doing? Excellent question. And see, what happens is that the pastor then must go to the women if he's going to be biblical here and say, you can't be called deacons anymore.
Here's the problem. So let's say there's a woman that they call the pastor of children's ministry. She doesn't really have any authority. They just call her the pastor of women's ministry. So people go into the church and they hear the word pastor being associated with women's ministry as a woman. They don't know any better. They move in the way to go to another church, woman pastor. Hey, that's fine. They had a woman pastor over here.
They can do it over here too. This is the problem. So women are not deacons because it says deacons must be the husbands of only one wife.
Now, this is what it says. Now, the issue here is the pastoral epistle on how they are to behave in the household of God, because verse 15, which is just three verses later, but in case I'm delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of living God, the pillar, the support of the truth. So this is how it's supposed to be done in the household of God. So if it says, deacons must be andres, mias, gunaikas.
It is not possible to render that as a female or as generically all kinds of people. It specifically is from the Greek aner, which is man, husband, male, period. The deacons must be. The word deacons here is diakonoi. In the Greek, it's the masculine plural. Must be husbands of one wife.
Okay. So he brought up verse 11, and he was using that as supporting his argument that these wives are deacons in verse 11. But I see it as Paul is describing the wife of a deacon. And then in verse 12, he goes, Look at that. So it says in verse 11, women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.
Okay. And so the women are wives of deacons. And so therefore become deacons, even though it says deacons must be husbands, must be men of one wife.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. I just see it as he's describing the wife of a deacon. And then in verse 12, he's going back to describing the deacon, who is a man. And why is it, oh, the wife of the deacon must be the husband of one wife. Okay. It makes no sense. Right.
Because wouldn't Paul have written. We'll get a break. Okay. This is important. All right.
All right. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. Welcome back to the show.
Let's get back on the air with Robert from Utah. Robert, welcome. Okay. Thank you.
So you're going to leave? I, well, see, this is the thing. My brother and I, we were sitting here yesterday and we both had the idea from reading this chapter that deacons should not be women. And yesterday we were sitting and listening to the announcements and when the elders comes up and they have on the big screen up on the stage, um, pictures of women as the new lifeline elder or deacons. And we kind of looked at each other and we're thinking we need to talk to this pastor.
And we, we both have the idea that we need to leave. And then talking to the pastor yesterday after church, it kind of got me frustrated. I left really wondering what to do, but as I read chapter three, I still hold that women cannot be deacons, but he's saying that it's not really an essential.
And so it just kind of, I'm just kind of left frustrated. Not an essential. I guess it's okay to have women elders then too. Right. Even though Paul says this is how we're to behave in the household of God, the church, he says, this is what we're supposed to be doing in the church.
Deacons are to be, uh, um, on Ermias Guinikas, men and one woman. That's, that's what it says. So he's not doing that. I would just ask you just to do what it says. It says this very clearly. If he has to go to another place in scripture to, to argue against a clear part, part of scripture here in verse 12, there's an issue because one, here's a thought that a lot of people fail.
Well, I'll tell you, I'll do an apologetics. I'll quote a verse, let's just say, for example, verse 12 here, and they must be husbands of one wife. And I'll say, um, you know, it says on Ermias Guinikas, it means literally a man of one woman, a man of one wife. That's what it means. And if they were to say, well, um, it says, uh, over here, it says deacons, verse eight deacons must be, uh, men of dignity, but doesn't say men in the Greek because it doesn't.
They'll say, see, now what do you do there, Matt? And I'll say, okay, so let me ask you, are you, you recognize what it says in verse 12 and you're trying to counter it by going to another verse? The only reason you would go to the other, the only reason you'd go to another verse is because you see what it clearly says in that verse and you're trying to contradict it. That's setting scripture against scripture.
They must be harmonized. Furthermore, it says, uh, in, uh, it says deacons in verse eight, where it says deacons must be, it says of dignity. The Greek word there, uh, is, uh, and it is the, uh, accusative, plural, masculine form of the noun. Oh, so, so you see, you know, people, when they go, let's go to the Greek, let's go to the Greek. Okay.
Let's do it. And it says, uh, you know, these men must be tested, right? These must be trusted. There is no word men on there or anthropos there, but the word these is the, uh, the masculine. And see in the Greek, a lot of people don't know this. You have these different forms of the noun.
It's like English actor, actors, actress, actresses, these men. It's like saying these plural men, plural form of men, or, but when it says these it's masculine, these masculine ones, the masculine form ones. We don't do this in English, but I do it in Greek. It could, you could have it where it would say the female ones, the feminine form of these verbs, of these, of these, but it's not there. The neuter form of these, but it's not there. It's the masculine form. The Greek is very specific saying the masculine ones, the masculine form of the word these must be tested.
Why? Because the word deacons in verse eight is diakonos, which is the masculine form. Men of dignity, not double minded, not addicted, et cetera. And then it goes down to deacons must be husbands of one wife.
And it is absolutely clear. So he, he's not agreeing with scripture. And personally, I could never attend a church where they didn't take this seriously because from here, you just go to another area, you're going to slide. And so what I would do if I were you, because you're in the church, take the information, go to the elders. I'm starting trouble here because I know what's going on there. Go to the elders, talk to them first.
That's what you should be doing. He went to the pastor. Now go to the elders. The elders should, should take this up.
Okay. He did say yesterday that on this, with this issue, along with other issues in the Bible, he said, even people in our own leadership have disagreements about. Well, they should not have disagreements.
Tell them I'm willing to drive down there. And we can have a meeting and we can go over it. I'd be happy to set them straight on what the word of God says.
And they're going to say, that's arrogant. No, it's just simply, what does it say? Let's go with what it says.
Stick to what it says. The elders need to be sticking with what it says. First Timothy three, 12. And in verse 15, the deacons must be okay.
Undress me ask good night guys, men, males of one wife, ask how a woman can fit that. Just go back on verse 12 and verse 12. Paul would have said, let deacons each be the husband of one wife or the wife of one husband, but he doesn't include women.
He does not. So there's, it's an authoritative issue here. Paul does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man who remains silent for Adam was first created. First Timothy two, 12 and 13.
That's just one chapter earlier. This is an issue of authority. Okay. And men need to stand up. Men need to stand up and be authoritative in the home. They're not domineering, you know, the club and pull a wife by the hair.
It's not what I'm saying. They need to be spiritual leaders in the house. And they need to stand up. And in the church, they need to stand up.
This is what it says. Deacons must be the husband of one wife. If I was a pastor of a church again, and they said, would you have female deacons? No.
Because first Timothy three, 12. No. Yeah. Well, that's going to offend them. You know, we'll buy them some pampers, you know, they can go cry in a corner someplace. That's what it says. Well, we're going to have to compromise the word of God because it might bother people.
You know, let's just look at our fingers, go outside, put it up in the air, see which way the wind is blowing and just follow that direction. Or are we going to be leaders inside the Christian church, standing on the word of God. And if the ladies don't like it, there's the door. Right. I agree. If the men don't like it, there's the same door.
Follow your women out if you want. But if they're going to stand and stand on the word of truth, that's what it says here in first Timothy three, 12. Deacons must be Andres Mias Gunaykar. Gunaykas.
It literally means male of one wife or one woman. Okay. Ask how a deacon can fit that. Hammer on it, hammer on it, hammer on it. This is clear.
It's what it says in the Greek. What does it say? Okay. All right. Tell them, I'd be glad to come on down there. Come down after the show on Friday. Have a meeting with them on Saturday.
I can drive back on Sunday. I know who they are. Okay. And they're nothing malicious. I know, but I'll tell them.
And I wouldn't go to a church that did this personally. Well, I'm just causing problems because people are listening. Okay. Okay. Well, you answered my question. So that's just me. I believe in holding to this and not compromising and it's complicated.
I came out of Mormonism, so I want to know, I want to know what the Bible really says. So that's what it says. I just read it to you. Okay. Okay. All right. All right, man. God bless. Thank you very much.
Let me know what happens. Okay. All right. Bye. Goodbye.
So much heresy, so little time. Let's get to Earlene from Richmond, Virginia. Earlene, welcome to the show. You are on the air. Hi, Nick.
Hi. My question is, what is the difference between a Christian and a Mormon belief in regard to who Jesus is? Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the brother of the devil begotten through sexual relations between God and his goddess wife, who both came from another planet. And in Christianity, Jesus is the eternal second person of the Trinity, never created, was never a man on another planet, was not the product of relations between a God and a goddess wife from another world. They're different beings, different altogether, altogether entirely. They're not the same.
Wow. That's a total different belief. Yes, it is. It's a complete different God. The logic, see people, Mormons will say, no, they believe in the God of the Bible, the Jesus of the Bible. No, they don't. What they believe in is a creation of Joseph Smith, who, let me write this down. Okay. There we go. Here we go. They believe in a creation of Joseph Smith, who was a con artist and he was involved in the occult when he was younger.
And people, it's not me just making this stuff up. It's documented and you can get it in the book, Mormonism Unveiled by E.W. Howe, written in 1834. Eyewitnesses talk about this.
Okay. It's there. You can get it online or you can get it, anyways, Mormonism Unveiled by E.W.
Howe, H-O-W-E. It's well documented. Well, the thing is that Joseph Smith just made stuff up.
I hate to say it, but he did. See, in Christianity, in Christianity, there's only one God. In Mormonism, there's many gods. In Christianity, God has always been God. In Mormonism, he used to be a man in another world, became a God. They're not the same. In Christianity, Jesus is the eternal creator.
In Mormonism, he's not. They're not the same. Can I ask a... Sure, go ahead. Okay. You answered my question. Can I ask another question that's not on that subject? You can right after the break.
We've got a break. Okay. Okay. Well, we have three people waiting.
Can you call back and get back in line? Is that okay? All right, Orly?
We want to get through the callers. All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Great. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these relevant and important messages. Stay tuned. Welcome back to the show. Let's get to Tyler from New York.
Tyler, welcome. You're on the air. Good evening, brother. How are you? I'm doing all right, by God's grace.
What do you got, man? Good. I just have a quick question regarding... I have a good friend of mine who converted to Catholicism a while back and left the Reformed faith. And it just really surprised me because he's a very smart man, very brilliant guy, and understood theology and doctrine right. But, you know, like, I feel like, you know, without getting into like, you know, the history behind, you know, obviously, the Reformation is pretty simple and biblical. I feel like, you know, the one passage that always just sticks out to me in Scripture that really just refutes the whole system of Catholicism with their, you know, with the Eucharist in, you know, like, obviously, Eucharist is scriptural, but not the re-sacrificing of Christ and the mass, you know, in Greek to tell us that, right, it is finished. Right. You know, I feel like that that alone should just get Christians thinking like, all right, well, what did Jesus really mean that when he said it?
Well, you see, that's John 1930, before his death, right before his death. And so what they could come back and say is that he finished what was necessary in this sacrifice, which was different than him instituting John 6 substantially earlier, the idea of the supper. That would be the, the argument he'd come back with. Then your response would be something along the lines of, in Leviticus 17, 14, it says that the Jews are not to drink the blood of any flesh. So would Jesus be telling the disciples to drink the blood of any flesh, of human flesh? And he can't do that.
It'd be breaking Levitical law. So what was Jesus doing? Then what they'll do is they'll say, well, it was mystical. It was this, it was that. And then they get into some philosophical thing about the aspects, properties and accidents and things like this.
And then they had to get more and more philosophical to try and defend our position. Another thing I'll do is I'll ask them, I'll say, so when Jesus instituted the supper in John 6, was that the sacrifice body and blood that he was instituting? They'll say, yes. I'll say, well, he hadn't been sacrificed yet. So how, how, I don't get it.
Why are you, why do you think it is? Then what they'll do is they'll come back with something like, well, he's outside of time to do whatever he wants. You know, they just get into this mumbo jumbo stuff. And I say, well, could you quote that?
I have the book of second Moronicals right here. Can you find that verse? Because it's just not scripture. And so what they're going to do is introduce things that are just not biblical in order to justify their error.
This happens in all kinds of areas, women, pastors, women, deacons, women, elders, they try and find ways to justify error. The Bible says what it says. Jesus would not have asked the disciples to violate Levitical law. And the reason we know is because they were still underneath the old covenant because the new covenant isn't ratified until Christ died.
That's Hebrews 8, 13 and Hebrews 9, 15 through 16. So at the institution of the supper, they were still under Levitical law. He could not have asked them to drink blood.
He wouldn't have done that. Well, that makes a lot of sense. They'll really actually at the end of the day, like you said, like, you know, obviously the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't deny inspiration. But also like they would only because I remember R.C.
Sproul saying in his lectures on systematic theology, like Rome has the dual source theory of authority, like scripture and tradition. Right. So I guess that's their fault right there is like not full script for it. Okay, that makes sense. Right. Yeah. So what I would do is I'd go to your buddy, and I'd ask him what he has to do to be saved, to have his sins forgiven. Say, have your sins forgiven.
Ask him, ask him. I'd also, if I were you, what I would do is go to CARM, you've been to my website, I hope, go to CARM, go to the cut and paste section. So you can go to CARM.org, just C-A-R-M dot O-R-G forward slash CUT, C-U-T, and it'll bring you to the cut and paste section. Go to the Roman Catholicism section. I use the cut and paste stuff when I'm pasting in debates and things like that in short whatevers.
And I use it all the time now and for other things as well. And you can go through that, and it's a kind of a summary of a lot of the stuff in Catholicism. And in there you'll find paragraph 2036 in the Catholic Catechism, which says that you're justified, you retain salvation through faith, baptism, and the observance of the commandments. And then there's verses that refute that. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a false gospel, absolutely teaches a false gospel.
You cannot be saved in the Roman Catholic gospel. It denies the gospel of Christ. It denies the true gospel of the scriptures.
And the reason it does is because it does not hold the scripture to be self-sufficient and superior to all other things. And because they denied that, the sufficiency and authority of the word of God, they've added their own tradition. Now think about what their tradition is. Their tradition comes from their church. So they're the ones who are in charge of tradition.
They're the ones who can tell you what really the truth is. They're not submitting to the word of God. They're submitting the word of God in their tradition.
That's what's happening. And so therefore the Roman Catholic Church is essentially an idol and has replaced Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches false doctrine. You cannot be saved in official Roman Catholic theological doctrines on salvation.
Okay, makes sense. Yeah, it just goes away with the lordship of Jesus Christ. And I'll never forget what someone said in like some video on YouTube, the vicar of Christ is the Holy Ghost. And I'm like, wow, that makes a lot of sense because it bears witness to the Father and the Son and within the triune God. So absolutely.
Oh yeah, there's a bunch of stuff that you should, you could go in there, look at paragraph 841. The Catholic Catechism says the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator and the first amongst them are the Muslims. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham together with us. They adore the one merciful God mankind's judge in the last day. The Muslims don't adore the one merciful God. They adore a false God.
The Catholic Catechism can't even get that right. Just all kinds of stuff in that cut and paste thing. Just read through. You'll see all kinds of stuff.
Bring it to your friend. You'll see this stuff on salvation. I would ask on that. How are your sins forgiven? I'd ask how your sins forgiven and just politely hammer them on it.
Go to the verses that are listed there. All right. All right. Thank you very much. Have a great night. You too. God bless.
All right. Let's see who's the next longest waiting person. Rod from Des Moines, Iowa. Ron, are you still there after 35 minutes? Yes, Mr. Slick.
This is Rod. Thank you for taking my call. I have a question on a conversation you had with the person putting forth Roman Catholicism, I think it was Wednesday of last week, where you were asking him, how could the priest forgive somebody who's already forgiven? And what I understood from that is that in Calvinism, what you are forgiven, you're forgiven.
And you don't need to be forgiven again. I don't know whether that's correct or not. Is that correct?
Yes, there's some. Yes, it is. But there's a doctrine that exists in biblical theology called the now and the not yet.
And it sounds like it's some catchphrase out of a fortune cookie, but it's not. I can get into that. But for now, yeah, your answer is yes. Okay. Okay. Now, I called before that, a while before that, and asked you if I needed to ask forgiveness of myself after I was born again. And you kind of said more or less the same thing.
I think I understand that. But my question is, if that's so, then why is there a first John one nine, where it says, you know, if we confess our sins, and it seems like what that is, is speaking to a person who was already born again, that you still have to confess your sins if you believe you've sinned? So can you shed some light on that as far as what I'm understanding or not understanding?
Yeah, you're on the right track. And this is a difficult issue. One of the ways to understand first John one nine is to say that, generically, if we do this, we're forgiven. And this is part of the now and the not yet, because forgiveness is different than the atonement, which is different than justification.
So let me explain a little bit. See, salvation is being saved from the righteous judgment of God. But that's not the same thing as forgiveness. Forgiveness is where God, let's just say, removes your sin debt, removes the sin from you, let's just say.
Okay, not exactly accurate, but it's very close. Good enough for now. He removes it, he forgives you, it's not there anymore. That's different than being justified, where God gives to you righteousness. So forgiveness is the removal of sin.
Justification is the addition of righteousness. So he forgives. Now, Colossians 2 14 says that Jesus canceled the certificate of debt at the cross.
Now, this is where the now and the not yet comes in. Now, from that perspective, Colossians 2 14, he says he canceled the certificate of debt, the sin debt, at the cross. But yet, what do you do with someone who's not going to be a Christian until they're age 50? Are their sins forgiven? Are their sins forgiven? That's the interesting question, the now and the not yet.
We would say, in one hand, yes, another hand, no. In the now sense, we would say, yes, they're already taken care of and the debt is canceled, but he's not experienced the forgiveness debt. That's the not yet.
He's not yet experienced that forgiveness. So there's this condition of the now and the not yet that abides in Scripture. We're not yet glorified, but we've said to be glorified in Romans 8 29. We're sanctified, but we're still being sanctified. There's all kinds of things like this in the Scripture where it shows a normal time.
Oh, okay. So then would it be correct in saying that in the propitiation and the expiation, where I'm thinking that when the goat was killed on the Day of Atonement and the blood was of the hands of the high priest that killed the goat, that was propitiation. And then putting the blood of the sins on the scapegoat, that was expiation, wherein Romans 10 9 and 10 is propitiation. And then 1 John 1 9 is expiation. I wouldn't say Romans 10 9 and 10 is expropriation. No, propitiation is a sanctified sin. Propitiation is like removing your sins as far away from you as it is from the West.
If you sin after accepting the Lord Jesus Christ being born again, wherein your spirit is regenerated and you go through the rest of the time maturing that regeneration of the spirit. Am I making any sense? Yeah. Oh yeah.
Yeah, you are. And the conversation can't be solved by the end of the show. It's a great conversation we would need to have sitting down and talking for a half hour to an hour about this, because a lot of it comes up to definitions and how we understand things.
This is what I often do with people is I'll say, well, that doesn't quite mean that. Let's go this way. Let's go this way.
And then we'll put them together and we show how they relate. It just takes time. But back to 1 John 1 9, you know, I know that all my sin that is canceled at the cross, because that's what the Bible says in Colossians 2 14. Yet when I sin, you know, I just go, Lord, please forgive me.
Because it's the now and the not yet thing. I'm still experiencing it, even though I know I'm already covered. I know it's already taken care of. I'm just confessing my sin and my problems.
Lord, please, you know, I know he does. And so there's their respect and reverence to the to the Lord God Almighty. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, Mr. Slick, I'll let you go. Thank you. You've been very, very reassuring in what I've been thinking. I thank you so much. God bless and take care. Okay.
You too, man. God bless. That's a great question, too. Great question. I wish I could talk about that a lot. That's worth an hour's discussion.
Benjamin from Charlotte, North Carolina. We got about one minute. What do you got, buddy? Oh, wow. It's funny you get me in the last.
This is your favorite caller from Charlotte from the northwest. Okay. Real quick. We got to play this week's gonna be big week. Let me tell you what's gonna happen.
You can hear it from me. My sources tell me Trump's gonna win big. Democrats are going to contest the election primarily I think zero in zero in on Pennsylvania. As we're contesting, there's going to be people that are going to be riding the streets in major cities, Seattle, LA, New York, just try to put pressure on the Trump administration to get out. So it's going to be bedlam. It's going to be chaotic, and everyone needs to pray for peace and civility.
I would sure not bet against you on that one. I suspect Trump's going to win, and I think that the leftists who don't know what it means to play fair are going to cry. And like the communists and the Marxists who were useful idiots, they will go forward and push their leftist agenda with violence and bloodshed. Yeah. Until they get what they want. Yeah. And we can't let them get it. Can't.
And if Trump loses, then he loses. That's the way it is. All right, buddy. We got to go. Yeah. All right, man. All right. Thank you. God bless. Sorry, Earlene and John. Hey, call back tomorrow. By God's grace, Beck, let me hear it. Talk to you then.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-01-28 01:07:59 / 2024-01-28 01:27:23 / 19