Matt Slick Live

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

And if you want to give me a call, five open lines, 8772072276. Let's see. Well, I think we're back online with YouTube videos. They suspended my streaming ability for a while because of COVID comments and stuff like that. And it's motivated me to do a lot of serious study on COVID. And I have spent, by the way, hours and hours on the CDC website and other websites, cdc.gov, wonder.cdc.gov, ourworldindata.org. It does statistics, a-r-c-g-i-s.com. And I'll tell you, it's really interesting because a lot of times the stats they give you are in different formats, you know, per 1,000, per 1 million.

And so I developed a spreadsheet where I can put in numbers and it'll calculate equivalence, so I can convert everything to equivalence. And I've been doing research in different countries just to see what the stats are. And I've been doing that, so I got a lot more research to do. But I'm enjoying the research.

You know, it's kind of weird, you know. I enjoy that kind of a thing. And for me, it's fun.

For me, it's interesting. But I got a lot more research to do and I'll be releasing information. I've been working also on expanding my science outline, science evolution, things like that. Over the months, I have been expanding it. I develop outlines and I probably have 15 or 20 outlines right now on Islam and Bible interpretations, biblical apologetics, the case for objective morality, philosophy stuff, Catholicism, the canon, slavery. And what I do is I put information into these places because my job requires that I have a great deal of information at my fingertips.

And what I do is when I read books, like I go to bed and read for a half hour and read on my Kindle, and then I underline stuff and then I get up in the morning and I come on my desktop and I transfer information and comments fully documented into various outlines. And so I've been working on the evolution one lately. Well, I've also been working on the Eastern Orthodox one. And my Roman Catholicism outline is I think it's 170 or 180 pages right now. And evolution one, I don't know how big that one is. The science one, called Science and Evolution. And that one is only 34 pages.

This is eight and a half by 11. And it's probably about halfway done. And doing all kinds of stuff, radiometric dating, country dating results, river erosion rates, volcanic activity. And one of the things I've really been enjoying is studying the galaxies in the universe, the Big Bang and its problems, dark matter, dark energy.

I was reading about that last night. And to me it's, you know, I've got problems. But I enjoy reading that stuff. I enjoy it. I would much rather go to a lecture on the anthropic principle than go to a football game or basketball game.

If someone said, hey, look, here's tickets in the front row of the football this or basketball that. Or you can go to a lecture on the anthropic principle. There's no debate.

I'm going to the anthropic thing. And I know I've got issues. That's what my wife says. But then I ask her, well, what did you marry me for? And the reason is because she's got issues. She couldn't discern too much, I guess.

That's why, you know, love is blind. I bet you with the ladies. And when you are young and you have abs, then they, you know, my wife fell in love with my abs.

But now I just have an ab. Anyway, I'm rambling. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. We're doing apologetics. And tonight I'm teaching on Galatians Chapter 3. And I've been working on my outline notes for that as well. I've been working on it for a few days. And I teach usually at 930 Eastern Time is when it kind of works.

Because here in Idaho, it's two-hour difference. And so that's what I've been working on and stuff like that. One of the things I plan to talk about tonight, which I'm going to introduce here, is the differences between strict merit, condign merit, and congruent merit. I thought I would talk about that a little bit because it's soteriologically based. And what this means, soteriology is a doctrine of salvation. So how are we saved? Because as I'm going through Galatians Chapter 3, there's a lot of information there about the contrast between the law and faith.

Biblically speaking, we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. And the Roman Catholics deny that. The Eastern Orthodox deny that. The Mormons deny that. Those witnesses deny that.

And because of that, among other issues, all of those groups are false and teaching a false gospel, and they cannot be saved in their sins with a false gospel. So the issue here becomes what is justification? And one of the things I've found interesting lately is in Eastern Orthodoxy, they don't have a doctrine of imputation because they deny it, flat out deny its reality. To impute means to reckon to another's account. So if I wrote you a check for $10, you deposited it, then that check or that value is imputed.

It's transferred legally to your account. That's what imputation is. And the Eastern Orthodox, I've discovered, what they teach is that Adam's sin is not imputed to us, as Romans 5.19 says it is, but they deny that. They instead say that we lost that, our image of God in us was affected and lessened, and the fellowship with God, that relationship with God, was destroyed. And so what Jesus did on the cross is he enabled the re-establishing of that relationship, and that through works and your faith, you can be saved. You can become justified. Now, justification is a legal act where you are declared righteous according to the law. And that's found in Romans chapter 4, verse 5, to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly. His faith is credited as righteousness. That's exactly what it is.

I'm going to put that in there, too, into my notes. But that's what it means to be justified by faith. Now, all false religions add works to the finished work of Christ. All false religions do that.

Every false religion will say that your faith in God and or Christ, plus what you do, demonstrates the truth of your faith, and you have to do these good works to get that position earned with God, and that is demonic doctrine. The reason it is is because the Bible tells us, having therefore been justified by faith, and what does the scripture say? Abraham believes God who is credited to him as righteousness to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly. His faith is credited as righteousness. These verses like this go on.

So you've got to understand something. We cannot add anything to the finished work of who God is. When you have a faulty view of God, you're going to have a faulty view of Christ.

When you have a faulty view of Christ, you're going to have a faulty view of salvation. Now, that's the case with the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christian scientists, and the Muslims. Now, the difference here with Catholicism is they understand, and they do teach very well what the truth is about the Trinity and the person of Christ. And so what they have done is looked at their tradition as the EO does, Eastern Orthodox. They look at their tradition and then they judge scripture by tradition. Which tradition? The tradition of the church fathers, which is literally thousands and thousands and thousands of pages, literally thousands of pages of written material. And there are just, I don't know, maybe, I don't know how many church fathers there are. That's actually a good question.

I think there's less than a hundred. But they just pick and choose which ones are the authentic ones. What's the criteria they're picking and choosing? They're presuppositions about what they think the church is and is supposed to be.

So they are what's called solo ecclesia. The church is above scripture. And that's where we error. When you take your eyes off of God and you put them on tradition or councils, instead of the word of God as a final authority, you end up in error. And then just like Satan, who said to Eve, did God really say doubting the word of God? It reminds me of the eighth article of the Mormon Church, which says that the Bible is correct insofar as it's correctly translated. In other words, the authenticity and reliability of it is doubted, just like Satan caused that doubt in Eve. And then when you doubt the word of God, well, then you'll believe something else. And the implication is that God is not capable of ensuring that his word is accurately preserved and that mere mortals are able to thwart the work of God in his written form, which he wants everybody to have.

And the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, to my just utter amazement, they don't put the word of God as the final authority because it comes from God, but they put their own understanding of what they think church history says. And so they come up with things like strict merit, condign merit, and congruent merit. Strict merit is the reward due to an agreement or a contract. So if I were to say to you, hey, you can do so much work for me for $10 an hour and you do 10 hours work, then that's a strict merit issue. And there's a compensatory rate.

You get exactly what has been agreed upon. So $10 for 10 hours is $100. And the person, both the worker and the payer, the employer, are obligated. And the one who gives that reward of work is not really a reward. It's a wage, and it's obligated. It's strict merit.

Condign merit is something different. This is what they use to get around the idea of strict, of work's righteousness. It's reward for an action because of God's promise to reward good works to a person who's in God's grace. So it's a believer who is working with God, and God promises to reward that person with certain blessings if he or she does what he's supposed to do, or she does. And so God's obligated to give that. And a congruent merit, it's God's reward based on his kindness.

But it's not owed, and it's for those who are not in his grace. So he doesn't obligate himself to reward an unbeliever, but he obligates himself to reward a believer. And so condign merit's for the believer.

Congruent is for the unbeliever. And God will reward people not because he obligates them to the unbelievers, but because he does to the believers. And though it's not strictly earned by the believer, God obligates himself, and then they call this the kind of merit that brings salvation. And so it's just a fancy way of saying, well, you get salvation by what you do. People are so entrenched in the idea that they have to do something. It's an arrogant foolishness. Do you think that you are able in any way, shape, or form to be able to add to the finished work of Christ on the cross? He did everything that was necessary. This is why we're justified by faith, and not by faith and something we do.

This is how the true gospel is presented, and all false religions deny it. There's a break. We have three open lines. Give me a call if you want, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back after these messages. I have a couple of questions. Sure.

First off, do you agree with John 1, Jesus is God, and Jesus did all the creating of the heavens and earth? Yes. Okay.

Jesus also says, a wise man will build a house, will dig down to the rock to get a good foundation. Right? Yeah. Hello? Yes, I said yes.

I can barely hear you. Okay. Well, Jesus and God is all wise, right?

Yes. Doesn't that say that Jesus, when he created the heavens and earth, took the time to create a solid foundation for it, especially for earth, and so therefore he didn't do the creation in six 24-hour days. He took some length of time. I don't know how long. Only God knows. Okay, so do you have a question? The question is, don't you agree that the Bible is saying that Jesus took time, some long time, to create the heavens and earth?

I don't know how long it was. The Bible says so. I don't have any problem with it being 24-hour periods. But that would be a hypocrite. If he did it in 24-hour days and then tells us to dig down to rock to create a foundation, take the time to dig down to rock. Let me ask you, what does digging down to rock have to do with how long it took God to create? Well, because Jesus is saying if you're going to build a house, take the time to dig down to the rock.

You're not connecting. That statement necessitates an interpretation of scripture to require a longer period or a shorter period. You have to bridge that gap. Well, that's because Jesus did the creation of the heaven and earth. Why would he throw things together in 24-hour days?

Why wouldn't he? And then tell us to take the time to dig a solid foundation. Does it not take time, or did it not take time for God to create? Yeah. And it takes time to build a foundation. So there's nothing in your argument that necessitates any problem.

So far, nothing. The whole thing says Jesus says take the time to get a solid foundation. That says he would take the time to make it. Okay, hold on. So let me ask you, how old do you think the earth is? I don't know.

I'm just saying it's much older than I would say. Let me ask, do you believe that Jesus is God in flesh? Yes. Okay. Do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, one God in three distinct simultaneous persons? Yes, I do. Okay, good. I'm not arguing about those other things. I'm just verifying.

And do you also affirm that our salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone? Yes, yes. Okay, good.

Absolutely. Okay. Well, there's nothing in your logic that requires a coherence between one statement and another statement for a conclusion. Your syllogism is not founded and not logically necessary. A syllogism is two statements with a conclusion.

So an example of a proper syllogism would be all men are mortal. That's premise one. Premise two, Socrates was a man. That's premise two. And then conclusion would be therefore Socrates was mortal. This is a proper syllogism. But the statements have to be necessary. And so your syllogism is, is not necessary. Okay? No, it isn't necessarily necessary. I'm saying that Jesus being God tells us to take the time to do the job right.

Yes, and how much time does it take to do it right? Well, creating earth. Okay. And heaven. We're going to move along.

There's a whole lot there. So we're just going to move along. So if you want to give me a call, folks, 877-207-2276.

Simon from Norway. Welcome. You're on the air. Yeah. Hi, Matt. We spoke earlier this year on a Zoom meeting with Eli Ayala. Took a foundational apologetics course with him. Yeah. Well, Eli Ayala from Revealed Apologetics. Right. Yeah, I know Eli. You were. And I told you probably what I say is whenever you say his last name, it sounds like a Muslim call to war.

He gets a kick out of that. Yeah. Well, anyway, my question, you know, I'm in politics and I also want to be true to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and biblical authority in all areas of life. And sometimes I'm faced with this challenge that because the Bible can be interpreted in so many ways, therefore it's not authoritative. I guess the Constitution can be interpreted different ways and is not authoritative. I guess any law can be interpreted any way, so therefore that means that it doesn't have any authority.

Right? It's not logically showable. Okay. Well, you know, what they're trying to get at is, you know, well, because you can say such and such, you know, people interpret these scriptures differently. They don't apply to politics or to other areas, you know. That's ridiculous. At all.

That's ridiculous. People always ask for definitions, okay. What does it mean to interpret? And if they're going to say that this is the scriptures and they say everybody could interpret it differently, there's truth in that. Well, everybody could interpret it differently, but it doesn't mean that those interpretations are valid. For example, in John 11, oh, 1132, when it says Jesus wept, right? Well, what does it mean?

Okay. Let's see what it says. Jesus wept.

I've got to find that. Jesus wept. I hate it when I use a verse all the time, you know, and then I forget what the address is. So Jesus wept, right? And so, well, what does it mean? Let's interpret to mean something else. It means that he was actually looking into the heavens at a UFO. Well, is it a valid interpretation? No, it's not.

John 1135. Well, that's an interpretation. How about he was looking at the thermocline out in the ocean? Is that a valid interpretation? That's just an interpretation. How about, well, you know, he stubbed his foot climbing a rock looking at the grave.

That's why he was crying. Is that a valid one? See, just because people say it can be interpreted different ways doesn't mean that it can. So, also, when people say to me, oh, you know, I do this regularly. People will be discussing this with me. They'll say, well, the Bible can be interpreted any way you want. And I go, and I'll say to them, really? You think I'm handsome?

I didn't know that. I appreciate that. They say, what? And I say, well, what? And then they'll say, no, I was saying you can't interpret the Bible that way.

I go, oh, no, I don't have that much money, but thanks. And I, you know, they go, what are you talking about? And I say, well, if the Bible can be interpreted any way, then I could interpret your sentences any way, can't I? And they'll say, of course not.

Well, then why does the rule apply in our discussion, but not in Scripture? Hold on, I'll be right back. Okay, buddy. We have two open lines, 8772072276. We'll be right back, folks. Please stay tuned.

It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 8772072276, here's Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back to Simon from Norway. Simon, welcome.

You're on the air. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I'll be quick.

Sure, no problem. So what they'll do then is they'll say, well, what version of Christianity are you talking about? Yeah, I love that one. I love that one.

Yeah. I say the biblical one. And they'll look, and then if they say, if they say, well, how do you know? I say, well, how would you know?

Because I'm the, you know, I could say, I've been studying this for 41 years, and I've got a seminary degree. I mean, you can't say that, but I say, you know, where are you going to get off saying that how we understand the scriptures is not true? What standard do you have by which you can judge what is true or not? Just because people have different opinions of things doesn't mean there isn't a truth out there. What are they ultimately saying? Okay.

Yeah, thanks. It's shooting fish on a barrel. You know, which version of Christianity? And one of the things you can do is say, well, give me some examples of those versions. And they might say, well, there's Lutheran and Presbyterian, and I'll say, okay, so what are their differences? Because you're saying they're different versions, but I want to know if you understand what the essentials of the Christian faith are, and plus Romans 14, 1 through 12 says we can have differences of opinion on debatable issues, like we worship on Saturday or Sunday.

Well, that's okay. The Bible says both, and we might have a denomination based on that difference, but it doesn't mean they're not Christian. So the essentials of the faith are different. So I say, do you know what those essentials are by which we justify what is and is not Christian to begin with? Well, then what are you complaining about? If you don't know these things, don't make statements.

You can't back up. That's what I do with atheists all the time if people raise those arguments. Because what they're doing is, and sometimes I'll ask them this, I'll say, excuse me, I have a question. I'll say, what website are you reading these questions from, these statements? Because you're obviously not doing your own thinking.

And I'm not reading anything. And they say, well, I don't know. I don't know if you are or not. You call me a liar? I don't know.

I don't know what you're doing, because unbelievers aren't bound by truth. So I don't know what you are or aren't doing. But I'm going to ask you this. If you're going to make these statements, can you back them up?

I'll tell you. You start talking like this with them. They will back away, because they will implode they can't back up what they say.

It's a simple apologetic, all right? So the first thing is you want them to define their terms. Have them clarify what they're saying. The second thing you do is use logic and scripture to validate or invalidate those statements. That's what you do.

Definitions. Indeed. And then use scripture. Okay.

Scripture. Yeah. I do this all day. Right.

I do this all day and do this with atheists and liberals and people who don't know how to think clearly and properly, and then they just resort to agenda and emotionalism. Okay. Yeah. I also have the additional challenge of reading the apologetic literature in English and then having to apply it in my mother tongue Norwegian, but that's another hurdle. Well, you know what?

By God's grace, it's fine. We could always use translations into Norwegian. So you know.

And people who do translations learn a great deal in the process. Indeed. Yeah. Keep calling. All right. Keep talking, man.

I'll give you some more pointers and stuff like that. Sure. All right. Sure.

I hope it's a benefit to the listeners. Oh, I'm sure it is. Well, God bless, buddy. Yeah. Call again. All right. Bye-bye. All right. Sure. Okay. Let's get to Roger from North Carolina. Roger, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey. How we doing? Doing all right. How you doing, buddy?

Pretty good. Quick question. Who is the law sheep of Israel? I'm assuming from Romans 2 that that would be anybody that's, you know, born with the Spirit.

Is that correct? It looks like the law sheep of the house of Israel. House of Israel deals with the national aspect. The sheep are the people of God. And so Jesus said he was sent only to the law sheep of the house of Israel. And I've always wondered about that.

What exactly does that mean? Now, the house of Israel means the nation of Israel under a covenant requirement and aspect. The law sheep, sheep are, as Jesus says in John 10, his sheep hear his voice. So it could be that he was sent in a two-fold way, one covenantally to the house of Israel, but it looks like he was sent to those people in the house of Israel who are ultimately the sheep of God who do not yet know him. Yeah, I was just looking at Romans 2.

And that's, and you know, it says, you know, a Jew is not one outwardly, but is one inwardly circumcised with the heart. Yep. Yep. I'll be talking about those very verses tonight in my Bible study. Absolutely.

Yep. And also in Romans, excuse me, Matthew 10, 6, where Jesus sent them out, he says, don't go in the way the Gentiles do not enter any city of the Samaritans, but rather go to the law sheep of the house of Israel. Well, people are saying, well, wait a minute, I thought Jesus, the blond haired, black Caucasian surfer dude, you know, he loves everybody. He says, he would say to the disciples, go out to everybody. No, he says, not the Gentiles and not the Samaritans, only to Israel because it's the covenant requirement. And then when they broke the covenant, then we, the Gentiles are grafted in.

So I think the law sheep are those people who God is calling, who God has given because he said, give it to Christ because Jesus says in John 10, 27, my sheep hear my voice and I know them. So I think this was going on, but I could be wrong. Okay.

That's what I thought. I was just want to make sure. All right. Right now.

Well, God bless buddy. I got a quick question. Sure. Have you watched the, the music video from brainwashed? I know, uh, politics is, you know, it's getting kind of crazy out there. That's a lot of propaganda out there. No.

Email me the link to info at karm.org. My wife showed me last night, you know, you know who Abbott and Costello were? Oh yeah. All right. So, you know, who's on first. Someone did that and took the dialogue and about face masks and vaccinations and it was really good dialogue.

It shows a ridiculousness. Wait a minute. You mean you can go in there?

Who's been vaccinated? Yes. But they don't have a mask. The mask works.

Yes. Why do they need the vaccination? Because they need it.

You know, it's just ill logic and it goes on and on and uh, I enjoyed it. So yeah, it's, it's, it's crazy out there. I see they're overseas. You're not allowing people in supermarkets are not vaccinated and you know what's going on for the worst.

Let me just tell you what's going on. This is something that's happening in our country. It's called totalitarianism. It's a system of government where the state has the authority and the power over the people and the power rests either in a single individual or a small group of people. Opposition parties in that state are not allowed. This is why the Democrats are trying to flood our country with illegals from all over the place against the law in order to get them to, because they'll vote socialistic. They know that an individual opposition is not allowed either.

State issued identification is needed for travel. Political oppression is practiced along with censorship of contrary ideas, confiscation of weapons, mass surveillance, and often with secret police. There's state led indoctrination in the media and the schools along with severe restrictions on religious freedom. That's totalitarianism and that's what's happening here in America. Yeah, I was about to say, that sounds familiar to me. Yep.

Yep. All right, Matt. Well, God bless you and have a good day. You too, man. God bless. All right. Here we go.

Let's get to, let's see, that would be Alberto from Georgia. Hilderoy, welcome. You're on the air. Yes.

Good evening, Matt Slick. My question is, you know, a lot of scholars and pastors in Minnesota, they say they don't find the United States in an anti-prophecy in the Bible, you know, eschatology and all that. So my understanding, probably, the United States will be overthrown by foreign nations like China or Islam and will completely eradicate any historical evidence of the United States, you know, and completely eliminate anything related to the United States in the past.

So we'll probably name this country for the communist or Islamic name for this country in the future, maybe another 50, 60 years from now. So that's my understanding. Wait, wait, wait. Do you have a question? Do you have a question, though? That's my question.

Will the United States be overthrown in another 60 years with an Islamic or communist country and rename this country either a communist name or an Islamic name? Well, the rate is going, yeah, it's being overthrown now. This is not the same country I've known. So we had freedom to get vaccinated or not get vaccinated, freedom to put what medicines you want in your body.

Now they're penalizing you if you don't do that. We have people in government who are full of lies, who are not upholding our laws. So this kind of thing that means that you can't trust the government anymore, and personally, my opinion, I don't trust election results. There's too many issues that I'm having problems with.

I don't trust it. So how is this going to go? I'll tell you what, when we get back, I'll tell you, I believe the United States is mentioned in the Bible, and I'll show you where after the break. Hey, hold on, folks. We'll be right back after these messages. Welcome back to the show. We'll get back on the air with Alberto from Georgia. Alberto, are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Yes, sir.

All right. So I do believe the United States is mentioned in the Bible, and it's in Zechariah 12.3, where God says, it will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will be severely injured, and all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

The United States is included in all the nations of the earth. This means that the United States is going to fall into ungodliness even further than it is, and it's going to turn its back on the people of God and God himself. And when this happens, God's judgment will come upon the nation, as is predicted in Scripture, that when nations turn their back on God and war against him and his people, that God curses those nations.

Okay. You know, I heard some minister one time, I don't know if it's true, what he's saying, he said that there will be sheep nations and goat nations, not all nations will align with the antichrist, that will go against Israel, and I heard other ministers like yourself. You're not sure what they mean by sheep nations, goat nations, things like that, but you know, it's just some of the stuff you have to deal with. So anyway, the, you know, we're in trouble, okay, the United States is in trouble, and the prophecy is that. We don't know when, we don't know to what extent, because it can be that people inside of a nation are godly, and God blesses them, but the leaders of the nation are ungodly, and then they gather against Israel. So it doesn't mean that every individual in the United States will be evil or apostate, but it does mean that the nation itself will come against God and his people.

And we who are alive inside that nation during that time, we may or may not face persecution, we may or may not. I just don't know. Okay? Okay. Thank you. God bless you. All right, man. God bless you. All right, let's get to Bruce from North Carolina. Bruce, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, Matt, I'm a day late and the dollar's short, but a day or two ago you were talking about the Trinity, and I meant to call, but I didn't get to it. What I wanted to mention to you is a great book I read a few years ago called Delighting in the Trinity, and I forget the guy's first name, his last name is Moore, M-O-O-R-E, he's a British fellow. You may have read that book if you have, forget I called, but it's just a great book that really blessed my life about understanding more about the Trinity.

Well, I haven't heard of it, and I'm looking at it right now, at least Michael Reeves, it's Delighting in the Trinity, Introduction to the Trinity. Reeves, I'm sorry, I had it wrong, yeah. That's all right. A good friend of mine. Mm-hmm.

He is? I was going to say, a good friend of mine, I live in Winston-Salem, his name is Stu, first name's initials E, he's one that gave it to me, and he gives me some good books every now and then. I really enjoyed it, and the fact it emphasized there was such great fellowship among the Trinity that God created us to expand that fellowship.

Yes, and I know who exactly you're talking about, and he's a great guy, Stu, with the last initial E. We've met and talked many times. Yeah, in fact, I'm actually doing a series I just started on Tuesday on my Patreon account where I'm going through the doctrine of the Trinity, and I'll be discussing the nature of the Trinity and the eternal intertrinitarian communion that necessitates, only through the Trinitarian, I hope I say this the right way, only through the doctrine of the Trinity can you abandon or you can refute or answer the objections of the nature of personhood. Duality in personhood doesn't work, has to be Trinitarian, I'm going to explain that, and also the eternal nature of fellowship and why marriage reflects the Trinity, why everything ultimately reflects the Trinity, and only in the Trinity can the issue of the one in the mini be realized. What that means is you have a table, and you can have a table in your house or my house or anybody else's house. There's one concept called table, but beneath it manifestations. What is it that unites the one concept in different particulars? This is a very serious discussion and has a lot of ramifications to it, and it is grounded only in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Other theological perspectives, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, can't account for it, along with other things. I'll be going into that very much. That's great, I just want to give you that reference, and I appreciate the joy hearing you when you talk, so I wish you the best, keep up the good work. Well you too man, God bless and thanks, appreciate it.

Thanks, same to you, take care. All right, now let's see, the next longest waiting is Paul from Tennessee. Paul, welcome, you are on the air. Hello brother, how are you Matt? Doing all right by God's grace, so what have you got man?

You know what I'm going to ask. I put in my question earlier concerning God's grace. How do you define God's grace given to man? When you say given to man, what do you mean by given, as if it's a substance or as if it's a movement of God upon someone?

Well if we go to Hebrews, and it says though that if you can only please God by faith, and those that do it, if they seek him by faith, they are rewarded, does that put an onus on the man and his will? Okay you're not answering my question. When you say what you did, given, grace given, is it a substance or is it a movement of God? Which way are you defining it? Well I'm asking you how do you define it?

Well you just made a statement, and I asked you to clarify your statement and you don't want to do that. I could define grace, but I'm assuming that you're Roman Catholic, is that the case? No, I'm not.

What are you? I'm a vital of Jesus Christ. Okay what church do you go to? I'm a believer, I'm a believer.

Right now I go to the independent fundamental Baptist. So grace is defined as the unmerited favor of God that is given to or worked upon a person in the sense that God's movement, God's action upon him is not deserved but is received by the individual in a beneficial way. Is it beneficial to what he says in his word? What do you mean is it beneficial to what he says in his word?

That's not a coherent question to me. Well you know if we hear the gospel and we believe, that would be beneficial to us right? Yeah but you're talking about the issue of grace, you have to be very specific when you talk like this you have to say well you know in grace God is gracious but God grants that we believe. Philippians 1 29 so wouldn't you then agree that that is a gracious movement of God upon the believer to grant that he believes? How does he grant it though?

Well it's by the preaching of the word of God, Galatians Romans 1 16 and also Romans 10 9 and 10 but the means of it is the preaching of the gospel but God grants the act of us believing. That's what actually God does to us and grants it to us. He grants what we believe. It's called the aorist passive indicative. You have been granted to believe means that God's performing the action upon us, Philippians 1 29.

Okay. Then how does that, let me ask you this, does God's will at all come to repentance? He commands everyone everywhere to repent Acts 17 30 but he does not grant that repentance to everyone because he does grant people repentance 2 Timothy 2 25 so he doesn't grant it to everybody.

How do you look at the guidelines on that? Like if we go to 2 Corinthians 4 4 and it says to those that the gospel did and to those that do not believe. Right, the God of this world has blinded the unbelievers, right. Yeah because they do not believe. Yeah they don't believe because it's consistent with their sinfulness. So Jesus says you cannot come to him unless it's been granted to you from the father, John 6 65. Do you think it's just up to the sinner's free will and he's perfectly capable of believing and God just needs the right info?

Is that what you believe? No, I believe there's a requirement in the beginning that you have hope in God. You have to, how can an unbeliever do that when the Bible says no one seeks for God, no one does good. 3, 10, 11 when no one understands the things of God, 1 Corinthians 2 14, how is that possible then?

That's very true, but what he's asking for is to put our hope in him and then of course he does. I'm asking you a question. How does an unbeliever do that?

I'm answering it. No you're not. How does an unbeliever do that?

No you're not. How does an unbeliever do that when the Bible says he can't? Where does it say the Bible says, where in the Bible does it say the man cannot hope in God? Every good and perfect gift comes from God, okay? That's what the Bible tells us. Now God grants that we believe, okay you've got to let me finish. God grants that we believe and he grants us repentance. This is the work of God.

To hope in God can only be because of God's grace upon us, okay? But this is the problem I have with this though, this is the only thing that I'm asking, that I'm trying to get clarity on your position. My position is biblical, it's not humanistic like yours is. Well, no mine's not humanistic.

Yes it is. No yours is humanistic. Yours is humanistic.

Let me ask you a question, I'll prove it. What's your final issue of salvation? Is it based upon the sinner's free will or God's sovereign act upon him?

Which is it? It's faith in God. So I asked you specifically, is it based upon man's free will as a sinner or in God's sovereign work upon that sinner?

Which one is the ultimate? I'm sorry, that narrow perspective doesn't answer it for me. I believe it's hope in God. You can't answer it. You're a humanist. No I am not. I'm answering it according to the word of God. No you're not.

You're a humanist. Paul said in Romans 8.22 we are saved by hope. Is that not mentioned? For we know that the whole creation ground us suffers from pain to childbirth till now that's Romans 8.22. I know God does the saving that we cannot save ourselves. I think this is a misunderstanding that's on your part that you think I don't believe that. I most certainly do believe that.

You're just not coherent. I believe we have a requirement. No, no, no you're not putting it all together. We have a requirement to have faith. We have a requirement to have faith. Yeah, God grants us faith. He gives us all a measure of faith. Does he?

Yes. Yes he does. He gives everyone a measure of faith but the saving faith that God grants to us. Does he give it to everybody?

When we put our, when man chooses to put his hope in God, yes he does. Here's a question. Here's a question. If it's up to the person's free will in their sinfulness why does Jesus say you cannot come to him unless it's granted to you from the Father?

Because it has to be, we live, because man lives by every word that proceeds out of it. You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question. That's Hebrews 2.4.

Yes I am. But you've got to understand, look, the issue is if it's up to the sinner's free will why is it that Jesus says you cannot come to him unless God grants it to you? John 6.65. Why is he saying that if it's up to a person's free will? But let me ask you this. Why do you say that I think it's up to man's free will?

We're out of time. Could you call back Paul tomorrow? I'd love to talk to you some more about this and correct you in your humanistic philosophy that you're using to interpret God's word.

Because you are. Give me a call back tomorrow. Hopefully we'll have a conversation.

And yes, folks, it was humanistic philosophy. May the Lord bless you by his grace. We're back on here tomorrow and we'll talk to you then. See you then. God bless you.