Matt Slick Live

A previously recorded Matt Slick show. We have four open lines, 87720722762276, spells on your phone C-A-R-M, KARM.org, the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. I hope you want to give me a call. And we can blab.

KarmIsrael.com, one word, no hyphens, and you can check it out if you're interested in going. Just fill out little forms like four questions, that way we know people are planning to, and then we can figure it out if they want to do something like that. All right, so I think that's all that is for there. And let's see, let's see, so I think that's it.

No, no, I got a couple more things I want to tell you. We have schools, we have online schools. If you're interested in checking out some theology, want to know how to do theology, all you have to do is go to karm.org forward slash school, and it'll forward you to the right information. You can check out the issue of the schools that are there, all right? And they cost $33 each, but if you cannot afford them, if you really want to have them, you can't afford the schools, then all you got to do is just say, hey, we can't afford it, but I want them, and we give them to you for free, but we do like to use them to help keep the lights on.

All right, so there's that. We have three open lines. Why don't you give me a call?

877-207-2276. Let's get to James from Wake Forest, North Carolina. James, welcome. You are on the air.

Hey, Matt. Yeah, question. Did God the Father make promises or vows just to God the Son, Jesus? And if so, how does that affect us believers? What we would say is in the eternal covenant spoken of in Hebrews 1320, where the intertrinitarian covenant relationship was decreed before the foundation of the world. What we would do is say that there was a covenantal agreement, so we could say their promissory, and that the Father would give to the Son the elect as part of the promise, and the Son would fulfill the requirement of the atoning sacrifice of those who were given by the Father to the Son to atone for.

And also the proof of the resurrection would be that not only did Jesus raise himself, John 2 19-21, but also that the Father would be involved in the resurrection as well, and so that the Father raised up Jesus too. And so it was a promise to not let the body of Christ get to the point of decaying, and so would not see corruption as part of the promissory stuff. So, yeah. Okay.

Okay. Now, was the promises or vows made to the Son in order to convince him to come to earth and go through all the horrible things that he went through? There was no convincing necessary. It wouldn't be that the Father and the Son had to go, you know, he had to, look, let me tell you why this. I don't want to do it.

It wasn't like that. Okay. It doesn't work like that. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. All right.

Thanks. There's a doctrine in what we call Trinitarianism called the perichoresis. The perichoresis is a teaching that each of the members of the Godhead intermingle and intertwine each other because they're all one substance. And in this, we have the manifestation of the one will of God. But yet in the three persons, there's a definitely mystery to it.

Definitely a paradox is in there. But the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all worked covenantally from eternity past to bring about the redemption of God's people. And so there wasn't many disagreements or arguments in the Godhead, but there was always a decree.

And you think about this. Since God knows all things from eternity, there would never have been a place in a time where he had to make a decision because it was all known in all decree within the Godhead. So it was already there. So there could be no disagreement. It's kind of a mystery issue. And I talked to actually some agnostics about this.

We get into these discussions and I just tell them, look, there are certain things we can't explain because there just aren't. You know, it was just the way it is. Okay. Right. Okay.

All right, Matt. Thanks. You're welcome. All right. God bless.

Thanks. All right, folks, if you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 8772072276. Let's get to John from Wisconsin. John, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Hey, man.

How are you doing? Good to hear you again today. Well, thank you. I love your answer to the last caller. You know, the mystery of the plural unity, right? Hero Israel, the Lord our God is one God. Right. Beautiful.

That's right. So the reason I'm calling today is I really kind of have a question about the prophetic that seems to be blossoming recently. In recent days, months, and even years, it seems like the prophetic gifts are coming alive.

And I'll preface this question, which is a little complex, to say that sometimes, you know, that God doesn't move before basically speaking to the prophet. And sometimes we see a body of evidence. So, for example, my son and some people have asked me from time to time, how do you know that some of these afterlife experiences, or, you know, how do you know heaven is real from some of these accounts, or about hell is real and these are real and actual places? I said, well, one of the things that we can look to, which is extra biblical, and I'll put that out there for us right now, is that you have a body of evidence of people who have died and risen from the dead, and whether they had a heavenly experience or a hellish experience. It's interesting to see the parallelism or the congruency of their experiences when they had no contact with other witnesses of the same mind.

So you see an accord through a body of evidence. And so to parallel that, I guess, that evidence into the prophetic, we see a lot going on in the prophetic. And I guess a lot of people feel, you know, just by the nature of how things are changing so rapidly, they see end times the prophetic coming true and things like that. There's been a groundswell of prophecies through the prophetic that have become very, very vocal. And you're familiar, of course, with dozens and dozens of online prophecies. Do you have a question? Do you have a question, though? I guess my question is, it's not specific about any one thing that he said or she said, but I'd like to hear you speak on the body of evidence of how God speaks through, how God speaks through his prophets before he moves, and what that's telling you about, really, the groundswell of voices and warnings.

So you want to know about how God speaks through present-day prophets and charismatic gifts. Absolutely. Okay.

All right. Well, we know in the Old Testament, the name is 3.7. It says that God will not do anything unless he reveals his counsel through the prophets. But the prophets, in the Old Testament sense, are done away with, because a lot of the prophets were until John, Luke 16, 16. So that Old Testament style of prophet isn't here. The New Testament style of prophet is a little bit different. And when we go to 1 Corinthians 14, what we see there is the issue of prophecy.

And so what is this? Now, first of all, are the charismatic gifts alive for today? Me? My opinion is, yes, they are all here for today. I believe in all of them. And I don't believe, however, in an individual who is the prophet in a particular area, and he speaks for God in the Old Testament sense in the New Testament times. I don't believe in that. I don't believe an individual has the gift of healing, and he can go and, hey, you're healed, and all that kind of stuff.

No, but God works through his body of believers in different ways at different times. Now, I've prophesied once. I had a word of knowledge once.

I've been doing this for 41 years, and I've only had these two occurrences like this. Well, it doesn't mean I have the gift of prophecy. It means that God condescended to use a lame-headed moron like myself to speak the truth to somebody. It doesn't mean I have any gifting, except my wife says to be obnoxious, irritating, and annoying, which I then said, okay, I'll perfect those gifts.

And she goes, doop. But at any rate, so the thing is in the Christian church, what we want to do is understand that all prophecies are, well, there's different ideas, but all prophecies are to be judged by the church and by the elders and by the people. Now, this says pursue love in 1 Corinthians 14.1. It says, pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. So some people want to know what this prophesying is. It's from the Greek propheteo, and it means to prophesy, to speak forth. Now, speak forth what? Speak forth truth and or speak forth the future. So when we talk about this, we have to be careful because it says in verse 4, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. And I don't have all the answers for you.

I'm just telling you. So what does it mean to say that someone who prophesies is prophesying and edifying the church? How is that possible?

How does that work? If tomorrow such is going to happen and it happens and it edifies the church, it certainly would. It could also be that the prophecy is the proclamation of God's word, as some commentators have said, and it edifies the church. But then it says, now, I wish that all of you speak in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy.

So it gets more complicated. So I can't tell you exactly what the prophecy is in that sense in the New Testament. However, when we go back to Acts 2, it says, in the last days, pour forth my spirit on all mankind. I will in those days pour forth my spirit and they shall prophesy. Now, that's a quote from the Old Testament, and it seems to be that that quote in the Old Testament has to do with predicting the future because that's what it meant in that context.

So we can make the case then that the spiritual movement of the Holy Spirit upon us in a charismatic sense is speaking in tongues, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, and actual prophetic utterances. So now what do we do, if that's the case, with these people who have said, President Trump will have a second term? Maybe he will. Maybe there's going to be a coup and they're going to get rid of the treasonous people and put him in. I don't know.

Maybe he might run in 2024. I don't know. So we don't know what's going on. If they were to say it's going to happen in a certain time and it doesn't come to pass, that's a problem. So we always have to judge prophecy by scripture, and one of the things that people tend to do when charismatic gifts are moving is they put the emphasis on the gift instead of the word of God. And I mean that in a double sense, Jesus and the written word, because we want sensation, we want ease, we want to be wowed instead of wooed by the subtlety and magnificence of God's eternal, powerful word written in scripture that's inspired. We want the quick and easy, amazing fix that we get from seeing something charismatically happen.

And I'm saying those are bad, but we have to have a balance, and the word of God has to be primary. I'm just going to ramble a little bit, but does that help? Well, I love it. No, and it's especially the portion of identifying the church, and you can't tell a pop fly ball until it lands, right? I like the aspect of it that keeps our eyes focused on him. It keeps us looking and seeking. Right.

I believe in the charismatic gifts, and as a reformed individual it's not that common, but I'm not loyal to any denomination, I'm not loyal to anything except my Lord, Savior Jesus. I read the word and I say, hey, look what it says, and that's how I do it. Okay? All right, buddy? I love it, thank you. All right, man, God bless.

That was John. Hey, folks, we have five open lines. Why don't you give me a call? 877-207-2276, give me a call. 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. If you want to give me a call, please do, 877-207-2276. We have four open lines, so give me a call. Let's get on the phone with Edwin from Alabama. You are on the air. How are you doing, Matt? Doing all right, hanging in there, man.

What do you got, buddy? I got a question, you know, from the Church of Christ people. They believe with all their heart that John 3-5 is talking about water baptism, and they'll quote that verse all the time. My question is, you know, what is the correct interpretation of the verse, and is water baptism a possible interpretation in John 3-5?

Let's take a look. Now, I'm going to tell you what my opinion is of the verse, and I'm also going to tell you that my opinion is not the majority opinion held by most people who study this. Most people who study it hold to the idea that the water has to do with the word of God, the spiritual movement of God, and personally, I don't agree with that, and I'm not saying they're wrong.

I'm just saying when I look at it, I don't see that. It could be that I'm wrong, but I'm going to tell you what I believe about it and why I believe it, and you can say yes or no. When I bring this up to the Church of Christ people, they can't refute it.

They don't accept it, but they're not able to refute it, okay, and here's my position. This is what I see the text saying, because Jesus says in John 3-3, he's talking to Nicodemus, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he's old? So Nicodemus obviously is thinking about entering a second time into the mother's womb because this is exactly what he says.

He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he? Jesus responds to what Nicodemus said. He says, I tell you, unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now, Church of Christ people are going to say the water has to be baptism, but look at this. In John 3, well, which baptism is it? Because they're going to say it has to be the Trinitarian baptism of immersion, but yet that's not what was in place here in this context. It's not talking about that because it hasn't happened yet. So I asked the Church of Christ people about this, and they'll say, well, he was speaking prophetically in this.

Well, was he? Because Jesus says, unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. So he's responding to what Nicodemus said, enter a second time into the womb, and Jesus says, unless one is born of the water and the Spirit. And in the next verse he says, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. So because of verse 5 and 6, what Jesus says, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, and then he says flesh is flesh and born of the Spirit is spirit, I think that the water is referring to the natural birth, the breaking of the water. Jesus says that which is born of the flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, and previously he said born of the water and the Spirit. I see the parallel there.

This is my opinion. And like I said, I'll say this again, most of the scholars that I've read do not agree with that, and they have their reasons for it. But this is what I see, and so that's my position. And when I talk to the Church of Christ people and I bring it up, I say, Jesus said water and spirit and then flesh and spirit, so I think he's talking parallel. They don't like it, and they get all wigged out and say that I'm wrong. I say, well, show me from the context that I'm wrong, and they can't, because you can't say exactly what it is from the context, what that water is since the issue of natural birth is in verse 4 and in verse 6. So you see what I'm saying?

There's evidence for it. Now, could it be water baptism? I don't believe that that's the case because water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

So here's what I'll say to the Church of Christ people and all Church of Christ people who are listening right now. Are we justified by faith? The Bible says yes because it says in Romans 5, everyone having therefore been justified by faith. The question then is are we justified by faith when we have faith? Because if we're justified by faith, then aren't we justified by faith when we have faith?

And the answer, of course, is well, yeah. Otherwise, we're not justified by faith. So what they'll do is they'll say, oh, you're justified by faith when you get baptized.

That's the twisting, and I'll say, wait a minute. You're justified by faith when you get baptized. Yeah, that's what it is. So you're not justified by faith when you have faith.

You see the problem. And so sometimes what they'll do is they'll go one step further and say, well, what kind of faith are you talking about, Matt? And they want to do ascension versus fiducia and varying kinds of faith and all this stuff, and I say, oh. In Philippians 1, 29, it says that God grants that we have faith. So the faith that God grants to us is that faith that comes from God is that enough to save us if we're justified by faith. The faith that God grants us, is that good enough? What are they going to say then? I've actually had one Church of Christ person say, no, it's not good enough.

What do you do with that? He's just talking absurdity. So the gift that God gives us is not good enough to save us. The faith that he gives us when justified by faith is not good enough. Wow.

What are you going to do? At that point, he's just a cultist, behaving like a cultist. Matt, do you believe that Church of Christ people, are they considered Christians?

No. They believe in baptismal regeneration or they're not Christians. They believe that you have to be baptized in water in order to be saved. So they add a work to salvation. They add a ceremony. I want to read you something.

Yes, they do. The Roman Catholicism also has a false gospel. In Galatians 3, 1, you foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

This is the only thing I want to find out from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish, having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected in the flesh? And what he's talking about here is circumcision. He goes on to Galatians chapter 5 and he says, he says, I testify against everyone who receives circumcision.

He's under obligation to keep the whole law. So if you do one thing, circumcision, you've got to keep the whole law. Well, this is what Paul's teaching even after the crucifixion of Christ and his resurrection and ascension into heaven. There are people who wanted to complete the work of God by getting circumcised because it's an Old Testament law thing. The Church of Christ, you're going to say, no, it's not the Old Testament law. baptism is a New Testament.

And I'll say, is it a law? Is it something you must do in order to be saved? Just as they were saying circumcision is something you must do in order to be saved.

And I show them this. I go to Romans 4.11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised. So circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith. That's what Paul says about circumcision. When we go to Colossians 2.12, Paul says, Have you been buried with him in baptism? This is the circumcision made without hands, verse 11, actually.

You've been circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Have you been buried with him in baptism? So baptism, if we're to continue with the relationship that Paul seems to be establishing, is a seal of the faith you already have. That's what baptism is. It's a covenant sign. But they're saying the covenant sign is what saves you.

That's not the case. The covenant sign of my marriage is my ring, but the ring isn't what may be married. It's my promise, my faith, my life. We've got a break, buddy. Hold on, okay? We'll be right back after these messages, folks.

Please stay tuned. Everybody welcome back to the show. So, Ed, are you still there? I'm still here, Matt. Yes.

All right, Matt. So did that answer the question sufficiently? It did.

It did, yes. Are you able to comment on Acts 22, 16, or is that... Yeah, it's wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. The calling on him is what washes our sins away.

Not getting dunked in water. Okay, my confusion, Matt, is was Paul already saved before Ananias telling him this? And if so, why is he telling him, you know, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord, if he already had done that? There's a phrase, calling on the name of the Lord, in the Old Testament, and it's called upon the name of Yahweh. It means prayer, worship, and adoration. It occurs in Psalm 116, 4, Zechariah 13, 9, and it's translated into the Greek, Septuagint, call upon the name of the Lord, instead of call upon the name of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Into the Greek, call upon the name of the Lord. And that is applied to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 1, 2. And so the issue of calling on his name is a reference to the Old Testament, in reference to Yahweh, signifying that it is Yahweh who is the one who cleanses us. That's the power of the phrase, calling on his name. So get baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

So there's a pun going on. Because in baptism, Sorry about that. Some people think that baptism automatically, necessarily, must mean immersion.

Not always the case. When we go to Joel 2-28, it says, the Holy Spirit will be poured out. And then in Acts 2, 17 and 18, it says the charismatic gifts and the movement of the Holy Spirit on you, the Spirit on you, is pouring out. You go to Acts 1-5, it says that John baptized you with water, Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. That second baptism has to be pouring on.

That's how it's used in the context. Now in Romans 6, 1 through 6 roughly, you can definitely find the idea of being buried with him in baptism. But we can also find that baptizo is used of washings in Hebrews 9-10 and the context deals with sprinkling. And when Jesus was baptized, according to the Old Testament law, which is why he said he had to fulfill all the righteousness, Matthew 3-15, the requirement of the man at that time, according to the law, was to have water applied to him, to literally have water sprinkled on him in order to be part of the entering into the priesthood.

That's Numbers 8-7. So I can show you, this is very, very quickly, I can show you that the word baptize has three different meanings, four different meanings actually, in the New Testament. Immersion, sprinkling, pouring, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit kind of means this movement of God upon you, but it's really kind of hinting at the pouring. So when we see the idea of us calling on the name of God, it is this Old Testament phrase in the context of all of this that deals with the issue of being cleansed by faith in Christ, which we know the verses on that from the Old Testament.

So that's what's going on. So to be baptized is a covenantal sign and the covenant sign that is replacing circumcision, per Colossians 2, 11, and 12, so that we are demonstrating publicly what our baptism is and there's a pun in the washing of it, but it's not the actual thing that removes our sins because the Bible says the blood of Christ is what cleanses us from our sins. So all that's going on in Acts 22. So was Paul saved?

I'm sorry, what? Was he saved? Was Paul saved before this commandment from Ananias?

I can't tell you he was or was not. Because we don't know what the text doesn't say. But I can point you to Acts 10, 44-48. And in Acts 10, 44-48, people are speaking in tongues, glorifying God, they've received the Holy Spirit just as the disciples had, and they weren't even baptized yet.

So they were saved before their baptism. Okay? Thank you so much, man. I appreciate it. You're welcome so much. No problem, man. Call any time.

All right. Hey, folks, we have three open lines, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Sheila from North Carolina. Sheila, welcome. You're on the air. Hi. Matt? Yes. My question is, I've been reading some lately about works of Jonathan Cahn, and I just wanted to see if you had an opinion of his work.

Yeah, I would be wary of him because there's some instances where it looks like false prophecies that he's made. And so for that reason, just you're done. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Bye-bye. Quick and slick.

All right. Hey, folks, we have four open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Michael from Raleigh, North Carolina. Michael, you're on the air. Michael, are you there?

Yes, I have a question. My question is, in Genesis it speaks of when God created the heavens and the earth, but before he created the heavens, it speaks how the spirit was hovering over the deep, assuming that it's talking about the waters, and that it was basically pitch black dark on the earth before he gave it light. And it was formless. The Bible talks about the earth being formless. When it speaks of the earth being formless, is that speaking of when he kicks Satan and his demons out of, or his angels out of heaven and they crash into earth?

Is that where the formless come from? Well, let me back up and address a couple of things. When it says that the earth was in darkness because light had not yet occurred or been invented or created by God, we don't know if that's actually the case because 1 Timothy 6, 16, 17 says that God dwells in unapproachable light. And so if he is light, and one of his characteristics, if he was there in the presence, it is possible that there was light shed upon the earth at that time because of his presence, and then God made the sun.

So I'm just saying it's a possibility. Because the Bible didn't say that he created light. It said, let there be light. In the sense, let it be visible, in the sense of it was already there, but it couldn't be seen.

Hold on. If something is visible, you have to have eyes to see it. If there's no people on the earth to see it, then it's not an issue of visibility. So the condition of light's existence would be out of God's nature himself. This is just a minor point, that's all, for clarification. But God did say, let there be light, and there was light, and the light was good.

And he separated the light from the darkness, and the light called day and night. So we assume that there's some instance here of creating the sun. Okay, so what you're talking about here is what's called the gap theory between Genesis 1 and verse 2. I do not hold to the gap theory. There are people who do, because it says he created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void.

Wait a minute. If he created the earth, how could it be formless? What does it mean to be formless?

Because even their own logic works against them. They want to say heavens and earth, but the earth was formless and void. That means something happened to the earth.

Well, wait a minute. Verse 2, the earth was formless. Then how could it be an earth if it was formless? It doesn't make any sense. But really, in the way of saying it, it was empty.

It was a waste. It was empty. There was nothing there, nothing real ordered.

Well, that could be the case too. And God just simply did it in that thing called the void. And he said the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep or over the waters, which means there has to be a shape, so it's not necessarily formless. So we're not sure what's going on here, and we can't read in between the lines here in verse 1 and 2 and say there's a fall where the angels came to earth and laid waste to the earth and God had to remake it. And some people will even go so far as to say that in that instance, in that situation, there was a pre-Adamic race and that God wiped them out and Adam was the new star. And it's just not there in the text. It's not there. So we should not go beyond what it says.

Okay. So, yeah, it's a tough one, and the only thing I would look to for further information on this would be very, very early Jewish commentators on this. If they said that there was some theory back in ancient times, well, okay, we would still have to consider that, but it doesn't mean that it's true. And so the modern times, the gap theory between Genesis 1, verse 1 and verse 2 is, I don't believe, substantiated by the necessity of that text.

Okay, now another verse, or another question, didn't you? Yeah, well, it was concerning light and darkness. I know that in the Bible, God called us like the children of light. We're supposed to be the children of light, and the children of darkness is represented as the children of the evil one.

And so the sun, the sun, the moon, and the stars. So I've been trying to do some Bible study, and I would talk that down. Can you hold on? Yes, sir. We have a break coming up. We've got a break, so hold on. Okay, we'll be right back after the break.

Okay. Hey, folks, we have four open lines. Why don't you 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, welcome back, everybody. If you want to give me a call, we have four open lines.

877-207-2276. Michael, you still there? Yes, sir. All right, Matt. Okay, so let's continue.

I forgot where we were, though. Yeah, my next question was, I was reading Genesis, and just kind of trying to catch up with the Old Testament, you know, because I'm not really familiar with the Old Testament. But I was reading, and, you know, God placed the sun, moon, and the stars and the vote of the sky to give us light. Was that kind of a revelation, like Jesus as being the sun, the greater light, the moon being the lesser light as the church? No. And the stars as being like the believers? No. No, it's just talking about creation.

We can't allegorize stuff like that. It just got to be light. There was light, and it was good.

It separated the light from the darkness. But there was no symbolism. Okay.

I just thought I was... Go ahead. I can't say there is no symbolism, but I don't see any reason to say that the sun deals with Jesus and the stars or the church or whatever. I wouldn't go that far, because if we are going to go that far, then we can basically kind of make it say anything we want. See the problem? Yeah, I get what you're saying. I mean, on one hand, like what I was reading, I mean, it made sense, because Jesus is the greater light. Like, he came to die for us. He had salvation, but he also came to give us light to let us know what we was doing was wrong and to turn from that wrongdoing and get us out of darkness. So he is the greater light.

And when it was reflecting on the moon being the church, I also could see that, too. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Go ahead.

Yes, sir. What you're doing is you're venturing away from Scripture. You're calling Jesus the greater light. I would say, show me that in Scripture. What a lot of people tend to do is read into the text phrases and ideas that are just not there. The Bible has the phraseology it has for a reason. That's not to say we can't come up with a phrase, you know, the doctrine of the Trinity or atheism, because concepts are taught. We have to make sure that what we're saying is biblical, to say he's the greater light. That means there's a lesser light.

Is there a greatest light? And then all these kind of questions then come up and it becomes problematic. That's why I recommended people, for as much as possible, stay with what the Scripture says as much as you possibly can, and then derive from what it does say what the truth might be. Okay? Okay. That makes sense. Okay.

That makes totally sense. Thank you, Matt. You're welcome, man. God bless. Bye-bye.

All right. Let's get to Kent from Durham, North Carolina. Hey, Kent, welcome to the show.

Oh, you're on here. Hey, Matt, how you doing? We're going to have fun. How do you say?

So what do you want to get into this time? Matt, you know what I'm going to call it, Matt? Uh-huh. The Savior.

Uh-huh. The question is the Savior, was he Hebrew, Greek, or was he Latin? Was Jesus Greek, Hebrew, or Latin? Jesus was a Jew. Yes. Jesus was a Jew, yeah. Yeah.

Okay. The name Jesus Christ, is it Greek, Hebrew, or Latin? We would say that it's probably the Greek name, Jesus, yeah.

Okay, let me ask you this question. How can that be his name then if he's a Hebrew? That's a Greek and Latin name. What's your name, Kent? No.

Is that an English name? Right. Okay. Where does it come from? Uh-huh. Where does Kent come from?

I'm from a bar, but how can that- Wait, wait, wait. See, Kent is from a British Celtic origin. Okay, so it's- Okay.

You know, Celtic. So they pronounce it a little bit differently in the original. So shouldn't you really go with the original pronouncing of the name, right? So what's your original name mean?

Man. So- My original name Andrew means man. Your name's Andrew? Yeah, Andrew Kent, but it means manly. Andrew means manly? I know an Andrew.

I wouldn't say that about him, but that's okay. So Andrew is a Greek name. Did you know that? But my point is, so if he's from the Middle East, how can it be his name? That's a Greek and Latin name, and that's a Roman and Greek name. And the Savior was from the Mideast. Well, what was- I get you.

I'm just trying to show you something from scripture. Peter was Hebrew. So what's his name? What's Peter's name? What's Peter's name? What's Zebedee's name? What's his name? Yeah, what's Peter's name? Original name in Hebrew.

What is it? But you call him Peter, right? He's right, huh? Okay, so what's Peter's Hebrew name? And if you don't want to call Jesus by the Greek, why would you call Peter by the Greek?

I'm just showing you you're inconsistent. The point is this, that what we have been told is that you shall call his name Jesus, Matthew 1-21. This is what God chose to have the New Testament written in was Greek. You can say that his name was Yeshua in the Old Testament.

I don't have a problem with that. But the Greek equivalent that God inspired, the Greek-inspired version is the Greek word Iesous, which is used over 900 times in the New Testament. Are you saying then that all of the occurrences of the New Testament writings of Jesus, or Iesous as it's pronounced in the Greek, are all wrong? Yes, sir. Okay, so they're all wrong.

Because whenever I said that, the Jesus created 400 years ago, the Jesus came out 400 years ago, so how can that be? Over 2,000 years, what was his name? So, are you saying we have to pronounce his name properly? Yes, sir. Why? Acts 4 and 12, there is no other name.

For what reason? Acts 4 and 12, there is no other name other than heaven or earth, and man can be stated by the name Yeshua HaMashiach. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Which is in Hebrew. Wait a minute, it says in Acts, it's talking about the name of Jesus. Why is that in the original Hebrew? Well, wait a minute, the book of Acts is written by Luke.

It says in Acts 10, all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus, Nazarene, you crucified. Okay. And then he says there's salvation under no other name. So, you're the one who's got a problem. Okay, do you know the problem?

Hold on, you've got a big problem. Because the Bible says that, can you listen for a second? Yes, sir. The Bible says that the name of Jesus, Iesous, is the name by which you have to be saved. You can't say Yeshua, you have to say Jesus. That's what the Greek says.

Are you saying it's all wrong? Yes, sir, because the Hebrew name is Yehoshua. So, I go by the original name. You're not listening to me.

You don't listen. Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus, Iesous, okay, Jesus Christ, Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised undead, by this name, this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief cornerstone and there's salvation in no one else, but there's no other name under heaven which has been given among men by which they must be saved. So, that name is the Greek Iesous, right? No, sir, it's wrong. Oh, so now. No, sir. So, it's not what it says and it doesn't say that? It doesn't say by the name of Jesus? It doesn't say that?

No, sir. It doesn't? Well, I'm reading it. That's not. That is what it says. I'm looking at the Greek, okay?

Okay. Ati enutu onimati Iesous Christutu. So, what it's saying is that by the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ. Can we say that the word has been added by the Council of Dastia? Have you ever read about the Council of Dastia? Yeah, I have and that occurred in 425, but there's Greek manuscripts from way before that time, 200 years before that time and had the word Jesus in it. Can we not say they changed that name? If they did, they had to change it in every Greek manuscript all over the Mediterranean area because all the manuscripts had spread out all over.

They would have to change it in every place and they're still finding manuscripts periodically in different places and they still have the word Jesus in there. So, I don't think you have much to go. We're going to move along. We're going to move along.

Study Acts 4, this is 10 through 12, okay? Let's get to James from Richmond, Virginia. Hey, James.

Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt.

How you doing? I was listening to you when you all were talking about the baptism. Uh-huh. Yeah. Now, I heard you say there's only one baptism and that's the baptism of the Holy Spirit of the baptism. Huh? Yeah. So, are you saying that water baptism, are you saying, we're almost out of time, but are you saying water baptism is necessary for salvation?

I'm just curious. No, that's what I'm saying, it's not. Okay, good. Good.

All right. What I was saying, he told, before we got baptized in the Jordan River, he said this is, I'm going to baptize so the scripture will be fulfilled. That's exactly right, Matthew 15.

And what, huh? That's right. You're correct.

Go ahead. All right, water baptism is a sign that you have received the Holy Spirit. That's what I'm hearing and the reason. Well, what it is, now the reason he was baptized, Jesus was baptized, he says, was to fulfill all righteousness, and that means the Old Testament law. Uh-huh. So, it's out of Numbers 8, Leviticus 4, and Numbers 4, Leviticus 8, Acts 29, actually. Right. Those are the requirements that man needed to go through in order to be a high priest. He'd be thirty years of age, verbal blessing given, oil, those represent the Holy Spirit applied to him, had to be sprinkled with water.

This is what Jesus had to do to enter into the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, according to Hebrews 6. Okay, I agree with that. Okay. Okay, can I use, can I use what I'm saying, you know, as being legit? You're muffled. You're muffled. It's hard to understand. Sorry, you had to speak a little bit softer. So, can I use that as trying to explain to people that, well, baptism is just a sign.

Yes, you can. You can do that by cross-referencing Romans 4-11, which says circumcision is a seal of the faith, and then Paul references Colossians 2, verses 11 and 12, and relates baptism and circumcision. Colossians 2, verses 11 and 12. Yes, I agree.

Colossians 2, verses 11 and 12. Okay. Okay, I too. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, there's a relationship there. Okay? Okay. Uh-huh. Okay, because the death and burial, the death and resurrection of Jesus is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Nope. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the charismatic gifts movement coming down from on high, which is prophesied in Joel 2-28, fulfilled in Acts 1 and 2. Yeah. And then you can also go to Acts 10. Okay, okay. All right.

I'm not forgetting anything. Okay, then, John, that's what I really wanted to know and everything. All right.

Oh, they had a perfect time. We're out of time, buddy. Well, God bless, okay? I do. All right, then.

Okay, then. Hey, folks, we are out of time and the Lord bless you and by His grace. Hopefully, we'll be back on there tomorrow. We'll talk to you then if you've got questions, if you've got comments, save them for tomorrow. Hopefully, we'll talk to you. God bless everyone. Hope you have a great evening. God bless. Bye-bye.