Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network Podcast.

I'm a Christian apologist, which means I defend the Christian faith. We talk about all kinds of stuff and do debates and other things like that. So, write books and blah, blah, blah. So, last night, I'm going to do a head twister here, maybe in a little bit, because we've got a caller coming in. But I've got some logic issues that I'm going to maybe be talking about here on the issue of infinite regression. Now, when I talk to atheists, I'm actually in demand to talk to them in chat rooms.

Come into our chat room and talk, answer questions. And so I do. Roman Catholics ask me to do that. Sometimes Eastern Orthodox people. Muslims, not that often. And the Muslims, not that often because Muslims are more obstreperous.

You know, you know nothing. You stupid men. And they just think that Islam is true and they're brainwashed and all that kind of stuff. And no matter what I say, they just automatically argue. They don't dialogue. They just argue. And so they don't like it when I ask them, could you please not just argue about everything, but actually dialogue with me? Isn't that what you're supposed to be doing?

You don't have to get conversation. And they'll go, okay, go ahead. And then I'll say something. Yeah, you stupid man.

You're wrong. And so it's always difficult for them. And that's what I want to do is be able to have conversations with them. And it's not that always easy. But most other people are pretty easy at having a dialogue with. Most, a couple nights ago, I really lost it. I lost my temper actually with a Roman Catholic guy, I think.

Or maybe Eastern Orthodox, I don't know. Just really annoying. And I should have just said, we're done talking.

But hey, I blow it every now and then. All right. So we have four open lines.

8772072276. Let's get to Gabriel from Iowa. Gabriel, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. How you doing, brother? Doing all right. Hanging in there. What do you got, buddy?

Yeah, for sure. So my question's pretty simple. In a time where cultural Christianity and topical sermon, when the Bible is kind of second fiddle to whatever the pastor's speaking about for himself, is there a good way to have a topical sermon series in a church?

And if so, how would you structure it? What would you say to a new Christian if that church is going through a topical series, if they say this isn't our normal diet? How can you tell if it's actually good doctrine or not? Well, you have to know your doctrine to be able to tell if it's good doctrine or not.

And what I do is I combine, generally speaking, I combine topical inside of expositional. So when I'm going through a text, I will notice, for example, I might be coming across a text where it talks about the resurrection of Christ. He was risen from the dead. And I might jump over to 1 Corinthians 15, 14, and verse 17, where it says, If Christ be not raised, our faith is in vain. And I'll talk about that topic of the necessity of the resurrection being an acceptance by the Father of the sacrifice of Christ. And I'll go back into the text.

So I will do snippets of topical studies inside of things. However, I have been asked to actually preach topically, like preach on the doctrine of the Trinity. So let's just say we're going through a text, you know, John 1, 1, In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. Well, that lends itself towards a topic of Trinitarianism, but not as much as the Great Commission. Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Well, now that is pretty Trinitarian. So at that point I might say, what we're going to do next week, we've read this text on the Great Commission, next week I'm going to give you a topical study of what the Trinity is through the entire Bible. That it's useful and it's worth it at that point. If topics is all that a person wants to preach, then you're going to run out of topics. But if you're teaching it positionally, then you won't run out of topics because you can't teach the entire Bible and reach its depths.

So, you know, it just depends. If you say, look, we're going to do a topical series on this for the next few weeks because we need to have a foundation in the systematic area. No problem. Paul even did that in Acts 17 when he gave a topical study about the gods and the true gods and this god. It was a topical. It was about this whole thing and he went on for quite a bit as he then laid the foundation from theological perspectives. So both are acceptable, but I think that the expositional one is the one that should be the mainstay, the meat of the sermon and not just topicals all the time.

Right? Totally agree, brother, because I think even people can try to look through texts, pull things out that aren't true to what the doctrine actually says. I think that a lot of people actually can fall onto that side of the fence, too. And that's probably more dangerous than teaching topically and then executing scripture to support that topic. This is why, just because of what you said, this is my opinion. If you disagree, that's okay. But this is why I believe that when you speak from a Reformed perspective that you will have less chance of going astray topically.

Because, for example, let's say you talk about election. That's definitely a Reformed doctrine. It's taught all throughout the Bible at different levels and degrees from groups to individuals. Well, that would be worth discussing, and it has to be couched with God's sovereignty, but then we have to relate it to man's free will. Well, that's another topic.

How does that work? Then we get into Jesus' free will as it relates to being sent by the Father to do his will only. And so these things are interrelated, and I discovered over the years that Reformed theology doesn't answer all the questions. It certainly does not. But it certainly answers me more.

Yeah, no, it definitely does. And I'm only dipping my toe into the Reformed theology. Because I grew up unconverted in a charismatic church, and I've only been saved for three, four years. So it's wading through the ocean that is the Bible and seeing what's there and not adding anything to it, not saying that there's a second baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit indwells you when you are converted.

There isn't a second. It's terrifying. I'm so glad the Lord chose me. When you start talking about election, it's huge. It's humbling. I was going to say election is humbling. People sometimes think, no, it means you're full of pride, and they just don't get it.

No. Because you realize that there's no good reason for God to have chosen me, and I'm certainly not good enough to have figured it out on my own. I recognize my own sinfulness and my enslavement to sin. And God chose me, and granted that I believe, Philippians 1.29, granted that I have repentance, 2 Timothy 2.25, appointed me to eternal life, Acts 13.48 caused me to be born again, 1 Peter 1.30, born again not of my own will, John 1.13, imputed the righteousness of Christ to me.

John 6 as well. Oh, yeah. And so all this stuff is there, and you realize, you know, he chose me because of what's in him, nothing in me.

That humbles you, and you just become thankful. Yeah. Yeah, and that's at times why I don't, like, I can see why the Arminian position is attractive to our culture.

Like, I can totally see why that's the case. Like, there's something that I can offer. There's something that I can do. And that's actually the opposite of what Philippians said. Like, there's nothing that we've done. It's that he's chosen us. Like, it's even all the way into 1 Thessalonians, which is more about the second coming of Christ, right? But even in the second chapter, I don't know if it's back there, but Paul goes out of his way to explain the doctrine of election. Like, he chose us. 2 Thessalonians 2.13, he says that. It says, but we should always give thanks to God for you, beloved brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and faith of truth. Yeah.

And even in a letter that was to believers who were just kind of being lazy because they were like, oh, we didn't even do anything, Jesus Christ is coming back, like, all, even in that, chose to remind this church's decimal act as a no. Like, stay true to what God has done, and God has done for you. Right.

Yes. What I like to do is, when I'm teaching this in front of people, I have my hands left and right, and they're parallel and they're level. And my left hand is where God is, my right hand is where we are, and I say, what Reformed theology does, and I move my left hand way up and put the right hand where we are way down. It says, it shows the distinction and the separation between God and us on all levels. Arminianism, it lessens that gap because it says we have that ability in our own sinfully enslaved free will to be able to choose God.

We just need that proper information. And that's a form of arrogance. And that's even, like, an aspect of the struggle of, like, election and predestination that I don't even understand yet, right? Like, it's like, well, it isn't, but how does that will that I, like, I don't choose, God chose me, right? So, how did my sinfulness be washed away? Well, it was by the blood of Christ. And it was the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit convicting me of my sin and compressing me. Yeah, and he cancelled the sin debt at the cross, not when you believe. And that's a whole theological thing people are not aware of. Yeah. Yeah, because it wasn't, it wasn't my debt was cancelled then, I was acknowledging it, acknowledging that my sin was cancelled, but it was cancelled all the way back out. Yeah. Well, you're learning.

You're learning and you're growing, and I am too. And, in fact, in our discussion, just now, I saw a verse that I have to add to a repertoire of things that I discussed. And that was 2 Thessalonians 2.14. It was for this he called you through our gospel, which is synonymous with Ephesians 1.4, that he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. In him means the sacrifice of Christ and what Christ has done.

He called us through our gospel. And it just makes sense, oh yeah, of course, it's another verse that just shows it, and I love that stuff. Yeah. All right. Three destinations all over the Bible. It is. People don't like it because it means that you're not the sovereign.

Because it's a hard knock. Yeah, it means that you're not the sovereign, because if you look at Genesis chapter 3, here's something that a lot of people don't know about. In Genesis chapter 3, they were cursed. Adam and Eve were cursed. Adam was cursed in what he was supposed to do, which was to till the land, which requires a large amount of knowledge and intuition and understanding, but under the guideship of the Lord. So what he was doing was seeking independence from God. One of the ramifications of that, in a sinful sense, is that what we desire is that same kind of a knowledge independent from God. So we, therefore, then decide what is true for ourselves, instead of let God deciding what is true for us, and submitting our wills and understanding to the scriptures.

That's how it works. Yeah, Mike, it's the thing that our culture says all the time. That may be your truth, but it's not my truth. But, no. My truth is ice cream. Yeah, my truth is chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream.

That's relative, but there are absolute truths. Anyway, you got a break, buddy. So got to go, okay? All right, hey. God bless. Thank you, sir. Thank you for the conversation. Thanks for your mention. All right, man. God bless. Hey, folks.

White Open Lines. 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. All right, everyone.

Welcome back to the show. You got nobody waiting right now. So if you want to give me a call, now's a good time.

877-207-2276. Now, I'm going to try something here. And for the next few minutes, this is going to require a thinking cap. If you want to be intellectually challenged, now is the next few minutes. This is going to be something that's going to be difficult.

But hopefully, I can make it easy. Last night, I was on a chat system discussing with some atheists. And one of the things that I'll do sometimes is discuss varying evidences for God, logical ones, evidential ones, things like this. There is an argument called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and it deals with the issue of things that come into existence had to be caused, and can there be an infinite regression of uncaused causes? And that was a topic that we talked about, an infinite regression of causes. So think about this.

Is that possible? Picture an infinitely flat table, a white surface that you and I are standing on. In every direction we look, it's infinitely long, infinitely far.

It's all right. This is a thought experiment. And in front of us is a row of dominoes that goes infinitely to the left and infinitely to the right.

So to the left is past time, and to the right is future time. Now, when one domino hits another, it's just a single cause. But that's not really how it works in actuality.

So let me give you an example of something. If I were to step in mud, then loose soil and leave a footprint. Well, that footprint will affect wind flow at that very low level right there on the ground. Well, that wind flow might affect how a mosquito flies, which might affect where it lands, which might affect which person gets a disease or doesn't get a disease from that mosquito. So this is called the butterfly effect, how a butterfly can flap its wings in the Amazon jungle and it causes a tropical storm on the other side of the planet eventually. It's an analogy called the butterfly effect.

Okay, now, let's just assume that as you go back in time that there's an event, and you're moving forward in time, but there's a time, a period, where a certain event happens. Well, that means it's going to cause several other events, because events don't just lead to one single thing. Anything more than a footprint is only affecting just one thing.

Atoms are affected, and heat exchange, and wind patterns at that low level there, maybe even how bugs might crawl through it. There's all kinds of things that are affected by everything that we do. If you were to think about this, if we were to pick one of those dominoes, it doesn't matter where it is in the past, and we realize that if it falls down, that it branches over to other dominoes in different directions, because that's what has to happen.

It represents an event in the real world. And so, every one of those events that branch out left and right will also have branches. And so, as you move forward, the more time there is, the more branches are going to occur from left to right. Well, that would mean then, if we went back in time a lot further, and these things were always happening, then that means the further back you go, the more branches have already occurred, the more effects in different ways. If you keep going back, so to speak, infinitely, that would mean there's an infinite number of branches, an infinite number of occurrences that have already happened. And there's going to be another infinite number as we go to the right. In fact, there's going to be an infinite number of infinites.

Well, this gets mind-blowing. If that's the case, then doesn't that not mean that an infinite number of possibilities means that in one of those possibilities that there's the actual Christian God? If someone were to say, well, no, it's not possible, I'm going to ask, well, why is it not possible that an infinite number of potentialities branches, there isn't the actuality of a God existing? Because if the past time has occurred, then the actualities are actualized, or potentialities are actualized. For those of you who still follow me, great.

If you can't, keep driving or whatever you're doing, and you need to talk a little later. But this is what I'm talking about. And so I was using this last night, and I said, if you hold to the idea of an infinite regression of causes, then you're actually also holding to an infinite number of actual existences and potential existences that have already occurred, which necessitates the idea of, I believe, a Trinitarian God.

And then why Trinitarian? We get into the issue of the one and the many and how we can have universals that have particular instances, and we'll get into all that stuff. So that is some of the stuff I was talking about last night. And I don't know if you guys followed me.

If you want to call me up and comment about it, that's great. But it dawned on me last night. I've never heard anybody else mention that in all my studies. And it shut an atheist down as far as the idea of an infinite regression of causes.

Because it wouldn't make any sense to have that. So anyway, what do you think? Give me a call. 877-207-2276. Let's get on the air with Jason from North Carolina. Jason, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, Matt. My question is, between the apostle Paul and Jesus, are there any differences in what they had mentioned in the Bible?

For instance, I believe Jesus said to call no man father, and Paul said, you know, something about calling him father. Another one would be... Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait. Paul said...

Wait, wait, wait. Whenever someone says that, and I'm not familiar with that call people father, Paul's saying that, I'm not aware of that any place. You'd have to show me a scripture for that to take a look at it. Okay. All right.

I'll have to get back with you on that. The second one you'll probably be familiar with is Paul said we are delivered from the law, and Jesus said to follow my commandments. Is there a difference in that? If not, why not?

It always is contextual. We're delivered from the obligation of following the law for salvation. That's what Paul talks about in Romans 3.28, Romans 4.5, Romans 5.1, Galatians 2.16, 2.21. But when Jesus says in Matthew 5.14, he came to fulfill the law, he's talking about the prophecies and things that the law points to him, he came to fulfill them. He's not come to abolish that, but to fulfill what it is. But the law has certain requirements.

It's not just the commandments, but it's also the predictions, the covenant promises of God, to who the Messiah is going to be, because Jesus says in Luke 5.39, Luke 5.39, he says you search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life, but it is these that bear witness of me. So that's what he's talking about in the issue of fulfillment. But Paul's talking about it in a different context. Okay.

Because I went on your website after I was kind of looking into this, and there were many, many, many similarities between what Paul said and what Jesus said. Absolutely. I find no difference.

I find no differences at all. Okay. And that was, that's great to know. And, you know, I studied the Bible, but obviously not as much as someone like you who this is your job.

But it's, you know, someone brought that up to me, and I kind of looked into it passively, and at face value it does seem like there are differences, but as you said, you've got to state the context of the scriptures. Right. And there's not. In fact, if you want to hold on after the break, I could show you some things that Jesus teaches that most people are not aware of, if you want. Okay. Hold on buddy.

Okay. Hey folks, four open lines. Give me a call. 877-207-2276. Give me a call. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Hey buddy, welcome to, I'm reading the text. Welcome back to the show. All right. Let's get back on with Jason. Jason, are you still there?

Yes. All right, so a lot of times people think that what Jesus is teaching is very easy and that Paul's teachings are very difficult. And what Paul does is expand on what Jesus has already stated.

And people will say, well Jesus didn't teach justification by faith alone, and yes he did. And you can go to Luke 18, 9 through 14, where he talked about the Pharisee and the tax gatherer. The Pharisee boasted in what he did, you know, I do this, I don't do that, I'm a good guy. But the tax gatherer said, Lord be merciful to me, the sinner.

And Jesus says, this man went down justified. So Jesus was teaching no works and justification by faith right there. In another place in Mark 4, 10 through 12, Jesus says he speaks in parables so people will not be saved.

He specifically says that. That's why he speaks in parables, so they will not be forgiven of their sins. That can't be, Jesus is the blonde haired blue-eyed Caucasian surfer dude dressed in a woman's nightgown asking permission for you to let him into your heart because he wants everyone to be saved. If that's the case, then why does he say he speaks in parables so they will not be saved.

That's Mark 4, 10 through 12. Jesus calls people hypocrites, blind guides, you fools, whitewashed tombs, serpents, brood of vipers. He says foolish ones, concealed tombs.

He really insults some people. He goes into the temple and he overturned the temple tables. And in Luke 22, 36, Jesus said to the disciples as he's sending them out, he's going to say, do you have a sword? No, we have two cloaks.

He says, sell one cloak and buy a sword. Jesus said this. Luke 22, 36. Right. Jesus said.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut you off, but I have a quick question based on what you said. And I'm not denying it, but it's confusing. So I know Jesus said that about the parables. But also it says that it is not God's will that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life.

What is the context between the difference between the two? The all is most probably the elect given by the Father to the Son. But Jesus said in John 6, 37, all that the Father gives me will come to me.

And who's that all? Well, in 1 Corinthians 15, 22, in Adam all die, in Christ all shall be made alive. Romans 5, 18, Part B, the result of justification of life to all men.

And justification can only mean to the elect. That's who the all are. I can take you through a study on that where it says in 2 Corinthians 5, 14, it says that the love of Christ controls us. Have you concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died? Well, the all who died can't be everybody because the phrase all died is tied to the Scriptures, which teach us that those are only believers. And so we can make the case that the all is in reference to the ones given by the Father to the Son. We could also make the case that God can desire one thing and arrange another because of the varying degrees of his will to accomplish certain things.

In one area he can have a heart that everyone be saved but not arrange it. And that's not a conflict. And there's ways to deal with that as well.

These are things I've had to deal with for years. Would that be based on... I'm sorry, go ahead.

Right, and I know you're very good at what you do. So do you think it would be based off of their own personal, what they've conducted themselves and what their mindset is on what, you know, he doesn't... I don't know, I guess I'm kind of tripping over my words here because I wasn't prepared for this question. It's all right, it's all right. Let me give you a couple of other things that Jesus says that are surprising. He says in John 6, 65, he says, You cannot come to me unless it's been granted to you from the Father. Whoa, you mean it's not just up to my free will? Nope. You can't come to me unless it's been granted to you from my Father. Jesus says... That brings a question for me.

Yeah. So it says, He that knocks, the door will be opened. Search and you will find, you know, so forth and so on. Matthew 7. Do you believe it could be in context of that? If someone's not searching, someone's not knocking, someone's not searching for the truth, therefore God has not granted them the access to his salvation.

That's right. John 6, 44 says, You cannot come to me unless the Father draws you. You've got to be drawn. Matthew 7, what you're talking about, He who asks, he who seeks, he who knocks. The context is if you asked God the Father for... You know, you ask someone for bread, he won't give you a stone. If you ask for a fish, he won't give you a snake. If you ask for an egg, he won't give you a scorpion. That's because in the culture of the time, geographically, in the Sea of Galilee, there was a skinny fish that looked like a snake. Bread, when it was baked, resembled a stone from that area.

And a scorpion that they have there, when you threaten it, it curls up in the shape of an egg, in a little kind of an egg shape for self-defense. The point is God will not fake you out. Whatever you ask, you'll receive. And so he's talking about that in that context. Of course, we have to ask according to the will of God. 1 John 5 talks about that. So here's something else that Jesus says. In John 10, 11, I'm the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays his life down for the sheep. John 10, 26. But you do not believe because you're not of my sheep. In Matthew 25, 32, he will separate the sheep from the goats. Wait a minute. If he lays his life down for the sheep, he says, but you're not my sheep. Then what does that mean? There's all kinds of stuff that Jesus teaches that people are just, he says that? Are you kidding me? I didn't know he would talk like that.

Yep. And this is the problem that people are surprised when they've been at church years and they are unfamiliar with these concepts taught by Christ. And I think the reason might be because the preachers are avoiding things that are difficult and kind of jumping around. Or when they do read it, they say, we don't understand it, let's move on.

And they continue. And so I'm finding more and more Christians are just ignorant of biblical issues and themes and theology and stuff like that. Particularly the issue of covenant. It's really becoming an issue that I'm finding out that Christians just don't understand covenant. And yet it's all over the Bible.

So I'm having problems with the way things are right now, let's just say. I could do a whole seminar. The difficult sayings of Jesus. And I could even go into the parable, get this, and someone wants to call me and ask me to explain it, I will. But remember there's a parable where Jesus gives a parable where the unrighteous steward is deceptive and yet he's praised by the landowner. He's praised by the, why would Jesus teach that?

And I can tell you the answer. But you see, there's a lot of things that people are just not aware of that Christ actually teaches. When you go to church, don't just open your mouth like a fish and drink whatever's given. Be discerning. Examine. And go to churches where they open the Bible and go verse by verse and dig into it. That's what we've got to find.

Because the salt is losing its saltiness. All right, Jason, we've got people waiting, so we're going to move along. All right? All right, thank you, Matt.

Hope that was challenging. OK. Hey, folks, let's get on the air here with Bob from Clinton, Utah. Hey, Bob, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt, my brother in the Lord, how are you? Oh, my brother in the Lord, praise God. I'm good. Hope you are too.

So what do you got? Doing good. Well, I have a question that I've been thinking about. So this is dealing with, my question's dealing with the book of Corinthians. Now, Paul, when he was teaching or preaching at the Church of Corinth, he mentioned something that I don't quite understand. What he was saying in part was, brothers, we can finish the race strong. What was he talking about? Was he teaching or preaching to the elderly, or what was that all about, finishing the race strong? Well, what he's doing is talking about, in fact, I just was reading up on that.

Where's my document? There it is. Oh, yeah. 1 Corinthians 9, do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives a prize run in such a way that you may win? Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore, I run in such a way as not without aim.

I box in such a way as not beating the air. But I discipline my body and make it my slave so that after I preach to others, I myself may not be disqualified. What he's doing is speaking metaphorically. He's using the imagery of the games, which people were familiar with. And he's speaking to the Corinthians, among whom were many unbelievers. So he's urging them to be more involved in their Christian walk. He talks also in the context. He talks about running the race and not failing the test.

And that's right before I think it is. And the test is not specified. And since it isn't, we cannot say that the test is about salvation, rewards, or whatever. But since Jesus said he will lose none from the Father who must have been given him, then it cannot mean that Paul is actually teaching you lose your salvation. So he's teaching metaphorically, urging the Corinthians as a whole, run that race, you're not disqualified.

He's not saying you can lose your salvation, but he's giving us a generic statement to people, a group, where unbelievers and believers are mixed. You want to hold? We've got a break. Okay, that's a good answer, Matt. Thank you.

That clears it up. Okay, Betty. God bless. Hey, folks, three open lines, 877-207-2276. Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show. We have a few open lines if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276.

All right, Micah from Richmond, Virginia. Welcome. You're on the air. Thank you. I appreciate you having me.

Sure. I'm not going to lie to you. I kind of just stumbled upon your station by accident and I was hearing the thought experiment. Now, I myself am not a Christian, and it's not really within my practice to try and dissuade anybody from their beliefs this way or that. I believe everybody has their own path, kind of like what you were mentioning earlier about not everybody is a part of the flock, but just specifically with the thought experiment, being on the flat surface, dominoes going both in the past and the future. So if we are to acknowledge that, you know, one domino can branch off into one possibility and that branches off into another and then another to eventually form infinite possibilities, right?

Mm-hmm. So if there are infinite abilities, I will certainly give you credit in saying that would be a well-versed argument for the existence of a Christian God. I would say, however, that the rebuttal of that would be, if we are to acknowledge that, then per the thought experiment, wouldn't that also mean that there are an infinite number of variations of the Christian God? No.

Why is that? Because by definition, the Christian God, which is revealed in Scripture, is the single Trinitarian necessary being who has always existed, who is immutable and transcendent. And if that's the case, that this occurs in one of those possibilities, then it necessitates his singularity as the only possible being. But that would have to be one possibility, right? Then there would have to be another one where, and let's say one possibility would be a Christian God who is not obligated to be truthful. That would not be the Christian God. And so we also have, there's other areas, I don't know how knowledgeable you are in philosophy, logic and discussions, but if we were to say that one of those universes, one of those possibilities is a round square, that's a non-sequitur, it's not possible.

No matter what kind of condition you can have, it's not a possibility. So what this means is that all potentialities can only occur potentially if they're not logically impossible. But then we get into the issue of why are these logical necessities the transcendent standard by which we can then say something can or cannot be? Then we get into the issue of the laws of logic, the foundations of the classical laws, which are universal abstractions. And how do we have those? Because then someone would be saying, well, this can't happen in that fragmentation of possibilities of the branches. But then that would mean that they are subject to a universal consistent standard of these laws.

But how are they justified? So this gets more complicated. I do have these discussions all the time with varying atheists. I'm not trying to get too deep here, but do you see what the issue is? So I do agree that what you're saying, that answer is being one possibility. And I do have to deal with that with being that possibility. For me, the problem becomes if we show that it is a possibility, but there's no limits to the other varying possibilities, because there can't also be a possibility that there are limits. Of course. You can't have round squares. You can't have something both exist and not exist at the same time.

Well, of course. Limiting barriers for those, but when it comes to reality and existence and when it comes to our belief system, if we are to say in one universe that is possible for a Christian God to exist as it is portrayed in the Bible truthfully, we also have to acknowledge that there is a possibility that there could be a Christian God that is not obligated to tell the truth. That would not be the Christian God. The Christian God by definition tells the truth. He cannot lie. So when people say, well, a Christian God who can lie, well, that wouldn't be the Christian God. What compels a Christian God to continuously or to perpetually be truthful? Well, he's not a Christian God.

He is the only true God revealed in Scripture. Whatever quality God possesses, he does not possess its opposite, because that would be the possession of opposite characteristics at the same time, in the same sense, in the same way. So here's an illustration. A bowling ball has spherical characteristics, but by having spherical characteristics, it also does not have square characteristics in its shape. So when something has an attribute, it negates certain potential other attributes associated with it. And in the case of the divine being, God, in revealed, he possesses a certain attribute and cannot also possess its opposite.

So if a ball possesses roundness, it cannot also possess not roundness. That's a logical impossibility. So if God is good, it cannot also be that he's not good, and not good isn't the concept of lying.

And then there's the problem. I could discuss it with people and atheists. I say, well, then how would you know what good is?

And you have to have a standard by which you can judge, by logic and standards, and it gets another fragment. But you see, this is the problem with positing something and then saying to the Christian God, who could do this? Well, that's not the Christian God, and logically it's not possible. Okay, that make sense? Okay, I feel what you're saying.

All right. Are you an atheist? I wouldn't consider myself an atheist per se. I mean, like I said, I believe everybody has their own spiritual path.

Well, what are you? I find myself to be more philosophical than anything. I guess Eastern teachings, I'm more so lean towards.

I find Buddhism, Taoism, and Buddhism attractive. Well, I could, if you want some time, you could spend time, you can call up, and I can shoot holes in those and tell you why they can't be true. Sure, we can engage in some future dialogue. Yeah, and I use a great deal of logic as a Christian. A lot of Christians don't do this, but I do. A great deal of logic and evidence, and I try and dialogue politely with atheists and other groups. If you're an atheist and you say, I'm an atheist, okay, let's talk. I don't get mad at you. Then we talk. All right. You can continue to listen to this show if you want.

I've been doing this for 41 years. It doesn't mean I'm right. Just so you know, my name is really Matt Slick. It's called Matt Slick Live. Slick's not a radio name. It's my real name.

How about that? Fair enough. Well, very nice to meet you, Matt Slick. I'll continue to listen to your show, and we'll keep talking, all right?

All right, Micah. Amen. Thanks for tuning in and calling up. Appreciate it. Okay. No problem. You have a good one. You too. All right. Now, that was Micah, and he's a non-Christian, and he's polite.

I like having conversations with guys like that and girls like that, so hopefully he'll listen and folks pray for him, sneak some prayers in there for him. Let's get to Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina. Patrick, welcome.

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

Yeah, I hear you. Mm-hmm. Thanks for moving me on. Sure.

I have a question about John 6. 65. Okay. Yeah.

Isn't that him talking about God granting him the apostles? No. And the reason it's not, and it's a good question, though. Okay. It's a very good question, and no problem there. But when we look at the context, we see that, you know, go back to, you know, roughly 35.

I'll scan through, and you can read the whole context. In verse 32, he's talking about Moses, and the true bread comes out of heaven. Verse 35. He who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst. That's not just the apostles.

That's a universal statement. In verse 40, this is the will of my father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes will have eternal life. So that's not just the apostles either. And so the Jews are grumbling, and he said bread comes out from heaven, and the Jews didn't like that. And he says it's not written in the prophets. They should be taught of God, and he's talking to the Pharisees about that.

And he who believes has eternal life. Verse 47. And he says in verse 51, and the bread that came out of heaven. In 52, the Jews were grumbling. You know, give us our flesh to eat.

What are you talking about? And then he talks about he's the bread out of heaven. And then he says these things he said in the synagogue at Capernaum. Therefore, many of his disciples, when they heard this, said this is a difficult statement. So now he's talking to his disciples, or he's talking to a group among which are the disciples. We don't know for sure. And conscious that his disciples grumbled, he says, does this cause you to stumble?

Because remember, what's causing the stumble? That whoever believes will have eternal life. And you've got to understand, to the Jews, they understood the Messiah was only for Israel, and Jesus said so in Matthew 15, 24. I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He was not sent to everybody. The Jews understood the Messiah is coming for Israel. What do you mean, everyone who believes?

What are you talking about? Because they're having a grumbling. And he says, what if you see the Son of Man ascending to you where it was before? The Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing, but there are some of you who do not believe. Now, Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and that was, of course, Judas, because he was never saved to begin with. And then he goes on and he says, for the Jews knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and then he says in 65, for this reason I said to you, that no one can come to me unless it's been granted to him from the Father. No one. It's not just you disciples or the apostles. It's inclusively, no one can. What he's doing is he's shaking the apostles up, the disciples up.

You've got to understand this is really important. It's covenant theology. Jesus was not sent covenantally. He was not sent to the whole world. Now, he was prophesied that he would be the sin offering for the world because the Jews rejected him covenantally, and then we, the Gentiles, are grafted in.

They broke the covenant, okay? What about John 6, 67, where he actually says Jesus said to the 12? So he was talking about the 12 in John 6, 65, because it's sandwiched in between John 6, 65 and John 6, 70, where he's talking about the 12 apostles. Okay, so then when he says, no one can come to me unless it's been granted from the Father, that means only the disciples, only the apostles?

No, back in John 6, 40, he's talking about us today. Wait, wait a second. Wait, wait.

No, no, wait, wait. I just read 65. When you said 67, he's talking about his disciples. So I'm asking you, I'm asking you in the context, when he says no one can come to me, is that only the apostles? Yes, but that ain't going to end in John 6, 65. You're not answering my question, Patrick.

In John 65, 6, 65 is the no one. Okay, look, Patrick, if you don't, Patrick, if you don't answer my question, I'm asking the question. You just start talking over me and interrupt.

Why do you do that? I'm asking you a question. Because I'm going to show you some facts. I'm asking you a question.

All right, here we go, here we go, here we go. So I had to hang up on him, folks, because he just won't listen and he's not willing to have a dialogue. He just wants to interrupt and demand that his interpretation and understanding be the right one. I was going to ask, when it says no one can come to me, does it mean just the disciples? That's my question. And I ask him to justify that.

If it does, he can't from the context. Anyway, hey, folks, there you go. May the Lord bless you. And by his grace, we're back on there tomorrow and we'll talk to you then, all right? God bless, everyone. We'll see you. Bye. Another program powered by the Truth Network.