The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Match Click Live. It works out when you got my name that matches the show. People come in and we talk in the chat room. And a lot of times after the show, we stay and have an after show chat.
So that's something to do as well. I'll be short tonight because I got to do what's called an AMA, Ask Me Anything, on Discord tonight where people are going to come into a room, a lot of unbelievers and believers, and they just fire questions at me and I do that kind of a thing. I do more teaching, a different style there because it's more, yeah, just a different venue.
So hey, why don't you give me a call, five open lines, 877-207-2276. If you're new to the show, what we do here is answer questions on the Bible apologetics, which is the defense of the Christian faith. We talk about Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity Baha'i, Islam, UFOs, the occult. We talk about all kinds of stuff. And I've had the privilege of being able to study these things for years. And, you know, I got some answers, you know, but I don't plan to have all the answers.
But if you want to give me a call, we can talk about that kind of stuff. All right, so I don't know if you guys, how many of you are aware of what's happening here in America as in the demise of our moral structure. I am working and we'll be developing some articles and some stuff about this. There are books being written about it, about where our status of our country is, where it's heading to, the rise of socialism, which is a mild form of communism. And that reminds me, so I was on something called Discord today and having a discussion with some people. And one of the guys, actually I can find the dialogue, it's an interesting dialogue, he was actually defending communism. And he said he's a socialist, a democratic socialist. It's just another word for commie. And he said, get this, he said, communism is not a bad form of government if you use your brain.
You can tell that. It's not perfect, but neither is capitalism or monarchism. And I wrote, I said communism, which is along with socialism because that's what it is basically. Communism is full socialism and socialism is communism-lite. Anyway, communism restricts personal rights, confiscates guns, reduces private property rights, if not outright removing them, requires submission to the state's control, controls all forms of production as well as the distribution of those products. And I asked him, is that what you want? And I put in a link then to show that the non-religious wars are 6.98% or 6.92% of all wars in recorded history are based on religious issues.
And half of those are from Islam itself. So then I asked him, and we talked about this a little bit, and he said something, he said, look, you look insane if that's what you look like. He says, what communism aims to do is increase the quality of life for all by removing government, making sure everyone has their needs accounted for, and giving people what they want as long as they're helping the commune. And he said guns won't be necessary in a communistic society.
This guy just lives in a fantasy world. And of course it removes private property rights because land isn't a commodity to be bought and sold in communism. That's the whole point. Everyone is provided land to live on by the commune. The state doesn't exist when true communism starts because the commune as a whole is considered the state. There's no actual government entity, which is ridiculous. He doesn't know what he's talking about because communism is a governmental system.
And you can't have a commune, which you can't have a nation as a commune, but you can't have a commune without some rules, some order and some enforcement of those rules and orders. That's just how it works. And I told him he doesn't know what he's talking about, and I said communism is universally oppressive. He said you need to do some research on this. And he said I was the one who was subject to propaganda, which is really interesting because I've noticed this kind of a thing with the left. They think that we're the ones who are brainwashed, yet they're the ones who are pushing a political system that has failed miserably every single time.
And yet they're the ones who say that they're doing it right and we're not. And he said he's done a lot of research. And I said no, no, no, no.
Dude, you're the one who's brainwashed. I said not me, man. I said if you think you've found what you've got, let's see this.
I asked him a question. I said how many people have communists killed in the 1900s? And he said no one. He said true communism was never reached. Now this is interesting because this is the kind of mentality that these leftists have. They say true communism or true socialism is never met.
And all the forms that have existed, they're not really true and we can do it right. Now the arrogance and the ignorance of that kind of attitude to me is really interesting. But I said how many people have the communist leaders and the regimes killed in the 1900s? And just so you know, folks, there's over 100 million people.
100 million. And we had this discussion at this point you didn't want to talk anymore, which I think is interesting. It's pretty typical in my opinion for people who don't really study the issues how they then claim that they do. And when you ask them for documentation and you say, hey, no, I want to know where you're getting this stuff, they don't want to talk anymore.
And this is how the left is on the TV. They don't really want to have serious discussions on these things. They don't want to challenge the debate. They don't want to participate.
It's agenda over fact. Anyway, we have a few open lines. Give me a call.
877-207-2276. Let's get to Vicki from North Carolina. Hey, Vicki, welcome. You're on the air.
Hey, Matt. I wanted to ask you about, it kind of creeps me out thinking about it. I saw on the news about the Chinese who had created the chimera that lived for 20-something days. Part ape, I think, and part human. If they were, would something like that create, that would not have a soul, would it? Well, first of all, I wouldn't say that a chimera actually exists, or chimera as they call it.
But no. Well, the issue of soul first, souls are something that humans have, because we're made in the image of God. Angels are not, but they're self-aware, so it all depends on how you define soul and spirit and things like that. We're made in the image of God, but angels are not, and we have free will, they have free will. We're self-aware, they're self-aware, but they're different.
So it becomes difficult when we discuss that issue of soul. As far as creatures like that, it's too mythological and ambiguous to be able to say. So you don't think they actually did that? Oh, no. A chimera is a... I guess that's what they were calling it on the news, anyhow.
Well, okay. Now, you're talking about them using cloning and genetic manipulation? Yes, they had done it with, I think it was a combination of an ape and a human or something like that. And this is just like within the last week, and they said it lived for 20-something days before it died. And I thought, well, if they created something like that, I wouldn't think it would have a soul, it probably wouldn't have a conscience if it survived either, or a sense of right or wrong or anything, you know what I mean?
I don't know. It would be like creating a literal monster. Yeah, it would be interesting because there are possibilities with it. We know that a soul exists in a human being, and what signifies someone as being human is the soul, not the body.
That's what's interesting. Sometimes people think that the soul emanates from the body, but it does not. And there's reasons it cannot, and it cannot be restricted to the physical body. But so the soul is a human thing, and so there's debates and discussions on how the soul is generated within a human being. Is it something given by God?
Is it something that is a product of the egg and the sperm that come together and develop? We just don't know. There's discussions about it. Because we don't know, we can't say if a cloned person is or is not possessing of a human soul. We don't know.
That's one issue. And we can say yes, we can say no, and there's arguments for and against. And if it doesn't have a soul, then it's empty. Is it possible that demonic forces could inhabit it? That's a possibility.
All these possibilities, but we don't know for sure. Right. And they do these combinations. This is what I'm getting very concerned about, is that people start playing genetics, putting things together, and they might create something that is bad, real bad. Yeah, you're going to be sorry you created them. Exactly.
This is why I like it. Go ahead. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, go ahead, you go ahead.
Ladies first. No, I was just saying, I'd be afraid that you could create something that wasn't born without a conscience. I'm like a Democrat. Yes, exactly. Or leftist, I should say, communist, socialist.
You're right, that is right. Yeah, we don't know. We don't know.
I could write an article, but what it would be, would be possibilities here, here, here, and here. And we just don't know. I'm wondering what you thought about it. It freaks me out a lot. And I think that your man's messing with stuff that they're not supposed to mess with. Well, you are familiar. They want to be God. Yes, that's what everybody wants to do. That's what it is. They don't have true knowledge, and they want to think that their knowledge entitles them to act. But true knowledge requires true responsibility, but you can't have the latter without the former.
And people don't know that they're connected. As you have knowledge, you have responsibility. But too many people, what they want to do is have knowledge without responsibility.
Yes, sir. What bridges knowledge and responsibility is wisdom. And so they don't have it because they're ungodly, which is why true knowledge, truth is what conforms to the mind of God. And whatever God reveals and we believe is how we can have true knowledge. And then with God's wisdom, we can have true knowledge and wisdom.
And we will then know our responsibility. Okay? Amen. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. You have a great night. You too.
God bless. Take care. Okay. Bye-bye. All right, goodbye. Let's get to Tyler from Texas. Hey, Tyler, welcome. You are on the air. Hey, man, how's it going? It's going, man. What do you got, buddy? So I had a question and I was just sitting here, so I kind of have two quick questions, if that's okay.
Sure. I'm trying to talk to my Catholic family. And I'm running into some dead ends because I've been trying to go over, like, the history of the papacy and everything like that.
But they always have something to come back with. And I was doing a little bit of study with Matthew 23, 9, and how it says, call no man father. But it uses two different fathers in the Greek and in Strong's concordance, and I was wondering why it uses two different. Oh, no, it uses patera, your father, but there is one father.
There's patera and pater. And when we get back to the break, I'll explain why that's like that. Okay? Hold on. Okay. If you want to give me a call, call 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to the show.
We had a little bit of a glitch, I just found out, right when I clicked on to get him back on here. So if you want to call back about that issue, I'll explain, though, what's going on in Matthew 23, 9 with the issue of patera. Patera is the word for father in the Greek, and what it says, do not call anyone on earth your father. And the Greek word here is patera, patera. One is your father, pater, so patera and pater, some people think is a different word.
It isn't. Greek is different in English. So, for example, the word actor and actors, are they the same word? Well, yeah, it's the same word. One is just plural and one is singular. Or how about the word actress and actresses?
Are they all four of those? Actor, actors, actress, actresses, are they all four of the same word? Yeah, it's the same word. It's just that in English they change form a little bit to designate plurality and gender. We don't have too many words like that that do both.
You have table, tables, waters, sun, suns, as in Skype, and star, stars, so we don't have gender with them. We don't do that very much in English. But in Greek, nouns do what's called declension.
They decline, they change. So we would have what's called the nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative. And the nominative case, or the nominative form of the word, it would be p-a-t, pater, p-a-t-e-r.
I think pater is the nominative, which means it's the subject. And so the same word when it is the accusative becomes patera. It's the same word. It just has a different spelling at the end, the same way actor, actors, actress, actresses. It's the same word.
It just takes different forms depending on its usage. That's exactly what's happening here in the Greek. We know this is a fact because the Greek word is from the Extraordinary Accordance 3962 in both instances. On earth your father, for one is your father.
So call no one on earth your father, for there's one whose father is in heaven. They're from the same Greek word, the lexicon 3962. And so it's just different forms. That's all that's going on, like the word actor, actors, actress, actresses. Nouns in English sometimes change form, and they do that in Greek, except even more so. Where in English we might have actor, actors, actress, actresses, we have plural and gender in that word, declension. But in Greek you not only have a plurality or singularity, what's called number, how many there is, it's either one or more.
You can also have gender, male or female, but you can also have neuter, and you can have nomative, genitive, dative, accusative, optative. And so one word, depending on how it's spelled, can tell you if it is the subject, if it's showing possession, if it's neuter, if it is feminine, if it's plural or singular, or whatever place it has. Greek is far more powerful than English this way. So that's all that's going on in the Greek. It's the very same word that occurs in both places in Matthew 23, 9, don't call anyone on earth your father, for there's one father who's in heaven. It's the same Greek word, it just declines in Greek.
It's the same word. That's all that's going on. If you want to give me a call, folks, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Alberto from Georgia. Alberto, welcome, you're on the air. Yeah, good evening, Matt Slick. I want to ask a question about the last verses of the book of Revelation.
Okay. I heard that some people heard from Daniel Wallace that it was taken out from the Vulgate and added to the last book of Revelation, the book of King James. There was no ancient Greek manuscript that had those verses. Or I heard some other preachers that it was taken out from a commentary. Some people say if they take your part, if you add or take away the words in this book of this prophecy, it will take its purest part from the tree of life and from the holy city. But everyone mentions they take your name out of the book of life.
What's your question, though? My question is, is it the verses come from Vulgate or from a commentary that Theodore Bayes had created? That I don't know. I haven't studied the historicity of those particular verses in Revelation to see which manuscript tree they come down through.
So I don't know, top of my head. Okay, so if you are interested in this, what you can do is do research on the web on what's called historicity, historicity of the New Testament documents. And you can do research on the last few verses of Revelation because there are a couple of variants in there at the end. And I've gone over this before with some people and talked about it.
The question then becomes, well, what's the correct version? Now, before we get into this a little bit more, I want to say that the fact is, folks, ladies and gentlemen, the Bible does have copyist errors, but not very many. And there's only a few places where they really are worth the discussion. This is one of them. There's what's called the comma Jehanim of 1 John 5.7, the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8, the ending of Mark.
And so these are the kinds of things that are, well, they're worth discussing. They don't affect doctrine. But the fact is that because people copy these documents, they did not do it perfectly, but pretty darn close to perfect. Because the New Testament documents of all the manuscripts that have been recovered, when they compare them, they're 99.8% textual identical. So what you're talking about here is one of the very, very few areas of all the New Testament documents that have been uncovered where there's a differentiation in some of the verses at the end of Revelation in different manuscript trees. And exactly the wording and which verse goes where. And so that I just haven't studied in particular.
But I do know that it exists. I got a problem. You don't want people to say they want to translate word-for-word translation. That's not possible because when a verse says, if everybody takes away an ad to the words of their prophecy, when you translate it from the Greek to Spanish or to Chinese or Japanese, you can't translate the word-for-word.
Wait, wait, wait. You said something that I wanted to take. It is possible to do a literal word-for-word translation of Greek. So, for example, the word agathos just means masculine singular good. That's what it means. It's good, but it's in the masculine singular position. It's just the word good. And you can say agathoi, which is also the word good, but it's the word good in a plural sense.
So just the word good. You can do a complete translation and say it's accurate. It's just when you start getting into more complicated sentences where you can have some issues sometimes on how to translate something, like Romans 5.18, for example. And when you understand the Greek, you'll realize that sometimes translating it exactly into the English is not so easy. It's sometimes better in other languages that carry gender and plurality in their nouns, where English doesn't do it very well.
But we can still get around it no problem and have a very good understanding. So, you know, an illustration I use is in Spanish to say, I'm hungry, say, yo tengo hambre, which literally is I, I have hunger. That's how you literally translate it. Well, we can literally translate it, I, I have hunger. And we can get an accurate translation. What it means is I'm hungry.
And there's dynamics in that. Hold on, okay, we've got a break. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages.
Stay tuned. Hello, Roberto. Welcome back. Are you still there?
Hello, I'm still here. All right. All right, man. So, uh, I was going to recommend... Yeah, what about, what about, what about... Like a, like a Luke 9.44, you know. Let these words stick into your ears. You can't translate exactly that from Greek into English. Or Mary was happily with a Bailey, Bailey, baby or Bailey. Like I heard Daniel B. Wallace one time said that some of the American, the American standards translate the word polis to city or, or, or town, but not always can translate it every time to city, because I'm trying to have the population less than 30,000 people.
Sometimes I said a town or a village. Okay, take a break, take a break, take a break, take a break. Hold on a second.
Get somebody in here. The issue here is that there are different translation strategies when you come to the text, you would translate it in another language. How accurate do you want it to be? Do you want it to be as literal as possible? So, for example, it'll say, God will say, his way of showing anger is he clears his nostrils at you. It'll say in the Hebrew. Well, that means he's angry. Well, we don't use the idiom, clearing the nostrils. We say, you know, he's angry. And so they'll translate it instead of literally, he cleared his nostrils, they'll say, he was angry. And that's correct because it's an idiom. So some translations might translate the idiom literally.
You know, he cleared his nostrils at you. And some translations might say, well, this is what he's intending to say right there. We know that's what he said. So they do it that way. It depends to some degree on the intention of the translators, not to be deceptive, but to be literal, as much dynamic as possible. Does that make sense?
Uh-huh. But sometimes they say, some translation like the, it's functionable, but it's not, it's functionable, but it's not really, how do you say the word, it's not really, what do you say, the term you use? It's not readable or? Well, now, sir, you see, what you're doing is you're taking things and you're kind of quoting them from memory out of a text about certain things in regard to the text of the New Testament. And a lot of times those discussions are very precise about a very particular thing.
And it often is the case that you have to be able to remember and quote that in its specificity in order to get an accurate representation. You see, you can have a different, it's going to be different texts like the Codex Alexandrinus or the Syriac Coptic. You can have the Sinaiticus. You can have different manuscripts. And it might say, well, the Sinaitic version is older, but Erasmus used that for this.
And the Latin used it. And then if you don't remember all of those details when you're talking about it, it can easily misrepresent what the whole issue is. I'm not saying you're doing it.
You can be careful. All right? If I were you, I would go and just do some searches on historicity.
Look up the Trinitarian Bible Society and you can go through some of that on the issue of textual criticism and another way to look it up is biblical textual criticism. It's a very deep topic. It's a very deep topic. Okay, buddy? All right. Thank you. All right, man. God bless. All right. My pleasure.
All right. This is Alberto from Georgia. Let's get to Kim from Rural Hall, North Carolina. Kim, welcome. You're on the air.
Thank you, Matt. My question is coming from Matthew 5, verse 28, and Ephesians, chapter 5, verse 24 and 33. Now the question is, if you commit spiritual adultery, can that be grounds for divorce?
No. Well, first you've got to define what spiritual adultery is. So if a man and a wife are married and they're both Christians by profession, and then one of them falls away and says he or she was never a Christian to begin with, that's a spiritual adultery. He may become a Mormon, let's say. A true Christian then becomes a Mormon. Well, then that's spiritual adultery.
He's going after false gods. Okay? That's not grounds for divorce. Okay? Okay, so let's just say you have a man that's addicted to pornography and doesn't want to stop.
Okay. Can that be grounds for divorce? Now that's a different issue because that gets into the issue of physical adultery because the Bible talks about adultery being a grounds for divorce and is talking in the actual covenant of that.
In Matthew 5, verse 32, Jesus talks about it along with abandonment. So this issue has come up about the relationship between adultery and pornography, and it's an interesting issue worth discussing. So let me just say this, that if a man, let's just say a man, because they're more prone to it, looks at pornography, and this is what he's thinking of in his head and stuff, you know, and bad stuff.
Okay. Is that grounds for divorce? Well, he has imagined an adulterous situation, but he's not practiced it. It seems to be the grounds for divorce in the Bible is actual practicing it. All right, so I would say initially that's not grounds for divorce, but then we get into some gray area because let's just say this person continues to behave in a very ungodly way and is not repentant. Then the elders, of course, need to be involved with this, and then depending on the gravity, severity, frequency of this, then it might become grounds for divorce because I have actually known of a situation where this was the case and he was unrepentant and continued in it and he was trying to get his wife involved in it, and she wanted nothing to do with this. So at this point, he is breaking the marriage covenant for sure, and his desire to have her participate in this with his unrepentance. And if I remember correctly, after a while, the elders recommended or said it was okay for her to divorce him because he was unrepentant in direct sin that was sexual in nature, et cetera. So where does that line get drawn? That I can't tell you. In the instance where you have a wife who gets more honor and reverence to another man other than a husband, wouldn't that be considered spiritual adultery?
No. No, it's disrespect. And a lot of women have no idea what it means to respect their husband. And you can hear very clearly in seminars and things like this on marriage, you'll hear a lot about what a man is supposed to do to love his wife.
Both parties can very easily provide lists of what's supposed to be done. But when it comes to women respecting their husband, they don't know. So, for example, a woman should not talk in a negative way about her husband behind his back. And even in front of him before others. Unless, basically, she has said, look, do you mind if I bring this up with a friend of mine that we're having a problem, I want to discuss it with somebody.
Okay. This kind of a thing. And disrespect is something that happens a lot within marriages. So it's not a disrespectful thing. I mean, it's not a divorce thing.
If she is showing more appreciation for someone else. For example, I'm not really good at house repairs. I do have a friend, Nathan, who can take out doors and windows and do everything. Well, he's better. That's his job. And so should my wife look down on me for not being able to do a job as well as him?
The answer is no. It's likely she should not look down on him or his wife should not look down on him because I know more theology than he does. So we don't want to compare ourselves to others. And we've got to be careful, and it works with husbands and wives, not to view our spouses in light of others that you think they ought to match to.
Because that causes resentment and it causes problems. And it means that the person then becomes judgmental. Instead of focusing on the good qualities that the person has, because everybody's got faults. The person can focus on your bad things. The idea is to uplift one another and focus on what is good in one another instead of what's negative. Now, if they do some bad things, like he's looking at pornography, it should be pointed out. Go to the elders of the church and talk about it, of course. But just because she might have more respect for another man doesn't mean that that's grounds for divorce. It does mean that there needs to be counseling and an issue, and she needs to recognize.
I need to do a thing on the theology of marriage. It really helps people, particularly women, in this issue of what respect really means. But I can go on for so long about this. I could teach on this for a few days on the radio show here.
There's just a lot. Anyway, am I helping you? I don't know if I'm helping you. Here you are, Matt, but one other example.
Let's just say that she doesn't want to have instructions on the word on her book. Kim, we have a break. Kim, we've got a break. So, hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned.
Welcome back to the show. Let's get to Kim from rural hall in North Carolina. Kim, are you still there? Yeah.
The example I was given was, if you have a wife who would rather get her spirit knowledge and understanding from another man other than her husband, wouldn't that be considered an adult student? No. No, it's time for counseling. Okay. Just time for counseling. All right?
Counseling. Okay. All right, buddy?
You there? Okay. All right, Kim. God bless, buddy. Okay.
Let's get to Oj who will be lost. And let's try Mary from North Carolina. Mary, welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt. How are you? I'm doing all right. How are you? Good.
Just fine. I enjoyed listening to you. I have a rather, I don't know, to me it's a perplexing question I want to answer. There's a particular person in my church who is by his occupation, I'll call it that, he's a Christian counselor, has been for years and years and years. And he frequently talks about when he's counseling people in his office, that a lot of times God will speak to him either during that counseling session or prior to the person coming in, in between the clients, and will actually, that God will actually tell him the dream that this person had the night before or a particular experience or an action that the client was involved in. And I said, well, when you say that God speaks to you, now do you mean audibly, audibly like I'm speaking to you now and everybody in the room could hear? I mean, audibly, aloud. He said, oh, yes, audibly, just like we are right now.
And he said, and that happens every day with me and God. My dilemma. Yes, my dilemma. I mean, I know what I think, and I'm very firm in what I believe, but I like to get someone's opinion. So does the Bible teach the charismatic gifts are done? And my opinion is, no, it does not.
It doesn't teach the charismatic gifts are done. And I can go into that and I would debate on it. Right. I've heard you, I've heard you a lot speak about that. Yes. Okay. Now, does it mean, though, that within that, that God audibly speaks to individuals?
I think it's possible. I know a man, I knew a man, I should say, we've lost contact. He, long story, he was involved in Hollywood and things got stolen, he's going to go to jail. And right before, he didn't do it, you know, it was, anyway. He had a gun to his head. And right before he pulled the trigger, he told me that he heard an audible voice in the room say, don't do it.
I love you. It's all you heard. It was audible, just as though someone else was sitting in the room with him and said it. And he went to jail for two years and he got out and he does missionary work. Okay. And the judge, you know, he told me the interesting story, but the judge said, what's this guy doing?
He shouldn't be in jail. And he got it out. Anyway. So, okay.
I don't have any reason to doubt that. When I hear something about a guy who's hearing God every day, hey, you know, by the way, God just told me this. Oh, yeah. We say, hey, buddy. That causes red flags to come up. And I would want to know more about this individual.
Well, can I throw one more thing in there? And it's not just that he hears God. It sounds kind of, and I'm just going to say this, if you beat me, I'm sorry.
Very Beth Morris to me, not only does he hear God, but they carry on a very lengthy conversation frequently. I mean, I mean, let me ask. Like God will tell you to do something. He'll say, I'll do it God, but you're paying for it this time, not me.
I'm like, that was my, that's when I said, okay, I'm done. All right. So, uh, if God were to, I can't tell you my experience. Okay. Cause the Bible certainly tell us too much about this, except to say that when God speaks to people, uh, they're usually on their knees because it's on their face, on their knees, be gone from me.
I'm a man of unclean lips. So Beth Moore, I'm glad you brought that in because it gives you better context. You know, God and I were talking and blah, blah, blah. Yeah, right.
Give me a break. So if this guy's, if this guy's saying the same thing, then you know, I'm not buying it. If he just has this casual conversation with the almighty of the universe. No, no, I don't.
And wouldn't it be almighty of the universe? I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. No, it's okay. Go ahead.
I don't know. And I believe now I'm not trying to put God in the box. God can do anything he wants to do above and beyond. I understand that. And I believe that wholeheartedly. I believe in the inerrancy and full sufficiency of scripture. I mean, I believe all of this with all of my heart and then some. Um, but I just have an issue with God is telling him other people's dreams and what they do and what they've been and what they've done. I mean, I just lump all that together with more skepticism. Well, here's the thing. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
I know you're frustrated, but here's the thing. Can God communicate like that to people? Always got to look at the scripture.
Of course he can tell people their dreams. He did it with Joseph in the Old Testament. So it's not unbiblical.
All right. What is so problematic is his flippant attitude about having conversations with the holy God of the universe. That's a problem. And it could be there's a demonic connection because, uh, in the presence of God, you don't come out casual and, Hey, yeah, we're just talking.
You know, it was really cool. No, it doesn't happen like that. So it, I would be very wary of this individual.
He might be getting demonic context, just like I believe Beth Moore is and others who had these so called conversations with God and they just flippantly talk about it as, Oh, it's okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm, I'm really glad I called you because since you've said that he was for years involved in a cult. He said a very dark cult.
He's never revealed. Now all these conversations I've had with him have actually been in church in our evening meetings before or after, but a lot of people around, not just the one-on-one. All right. Um, Mary, Mary, what I would recommend that you contact the elders and talk to the elders of the church about it. Okay. Okay.
They need to be involved with this. Thank you. Thank you.
I appreciate your help, Matt. Thank you very much. Okay.
Well, God bless Mary. Thank you. God bless you. Okay. Bye. Bye.
All right. Let's get to John from someplace. Hey John, welcome. You're on the air.
Hey man, how are you? Appreciate you. Appreciate you being in salt and light in this world.
As far as that last caller, I'll tell her to run. Well, I'm trying to be fair, but the elders need to be involved and, uh, yeah, this is casual stuff. Yeah, God told me. Because I do know of instances recorded in history from the presbyterian divines where actual, so to speak, discussions with God have gone on. Agreed. Recorded, but they're by people who pray six to eight hours a day for years and have an incredible fellowship with the Lord and they don't ever speak about God in a flippant casual way.
This is to be determined whether these are accurate, but yeah, we just have to go with what the Bible says. Yeah, I agree, God. There's no fear and trembling there. Like you said, when you said casual, I agree.
But let me get to my, I know you're almost ready to close it down. Um, I believe in the Holy Spirit without question. And, um, and I believe, I believe in the person and I believe in the Trinity, but I have been following some preachers and pastors, um, who don't believe in the Trinity. They believe in the Holy Spirit, but they don't give any Godhead to the Holy Spirit. And I personally don't pray to the Holy Spirit. I don't believe in praying to the Holy Spirit. I pray to my Lord Jesus Christ or the Father. That's just my perspective on it.
What's your take on that? You can pray to the Holy Spirit. Let me give you the definition of God. Let's talk about this. In fact, I was actually working on this today.
This could be a little bit heady, but I'm going to just do something here a little bit and I want to read a part of it. There's only one God. He is the one and only necessary Trinitarian being.
He's eternally consisting of three simultaneous and distinct persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Are you with me there? Yes. Okay. So, uh, okay. I'm going to do that in there. There's a note. I'm going to expand on this.
So what we're talking about here, and I could get into this. I could say, you know, there are three persons are of one simple substance, not parts. Neither person derives his substance from either or both of the other parts. So this is the definition is called basically for focusing on the ontological aspect of God, that the three persons have self awareness and yet are also aware of others and yet comprised a single God. Within this, we have what's called a parakerisis. This means that in the ontological Trinity, and what that means is that they all share the same divine single essence of Godness that within that single divine essence called divine simplicity, there is something called parakerisis, which means that each of the persons permeates and dwells is aware of and yet is distinct from the other two. This is heady stuff, but this is Trinitarianism.
Okay. On a deeper level. And so because of this, since the one being is the true God, you can pray to the one true God. You could say Lord Yahweh. And by doing so, you are in that conglomerate sense of the ontological Trinity praying to the one being who is God. And by definition to all the members, you can separate and differentiate just as Jesus did in Matthew six, Luke 11, we pray to the father, our father who art in heaven.
Well, this is because he was under the law. And yet in first Corinthians one, two, everyone everywhere calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus to call upon the name of the Lord. Jesus call upon the name of the Lord is a prayer to Yahweh.
And then it's applied to Christ. And Jesus has asked me to take in my name and I will do it for you. The Holy spirit, however, is never prayed to that I'm aware of in scripture. And the reason is because the Holy spirit bears witness of Christ, but we can, we pray to the Holy spirit.
Yes, we can. You can ask the Holy spirit to do those things that he does because in the economic Trinity, which is the relationship between the father, son, Holy spirit in there, so to speak, work, the father elects, the son redeems, the Holy spirit applies the redemptive work. So you could ask the Holy spirit to convict you, to make you more aware of and to bless you in the spiritual gifts, because this is where he works.
You can do that. You could ask the Lord God to do this just as we might pray corporately or singularly to God or the Trinitarian aspects. That's how is spoken of God as the one being and yet let us make men in our image.
We get this singularity and plurality in there because there's a nature of God and we're running out of time. I can't get into it too much more, but that makes sense, Matt. Okay. I appreciate you clarifying that for me. You have a great day. Okay, buddy. You too. All right. Well, God bless you.
Thanks, bud. Bye. All right. Let's see if we can get on here to the last second.
Matt from Knoxville. What do you got question on the resurrection? Let's see if we can do it. All right.
I'll try to be as fast as I can. Um, I am, uh, I guess an almalinist myself. And so I was talking to someone and I was quoting John 5 24 where Jesus says, whoever hears my word, believe me, sent me eternal life. He has passed, he's passed from death to life. So I consider that the first resurrection, so to speak. And I don't know if I'm in the wrong because my friend was debating me in Revelation 20. It says they came to life.
Am I in the wrong? I tell you what, call back tomorrow. Let's talk about it because that is one of the views within the almal position. Okay. Call back tomorrow. We'll talk about it. We're out of time. All right, buddy. All right. Hey, folks, we'll be right back. We'll be back tomorrow by God's grace. And I hope you listen to the Lord bless you. Have a great evening, everybody. Watch you later. Another program powered by the Truth Network.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-09-21 22:10:04 / 2023-09-21 22:28:17 / 18