Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at KARM.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick live.

Francis taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome to the show.

It is me, Matt Slick, and I hope you're having a good day. And I don't know. Yeah, that's right. Last night. So I'm eating some nachos and one of my teeth cracked in half. So I had to go today and go to the dentist and they, you know, the drilling and all that stuff.

So I got that taken care of mostly. What kind of cheese? Someone asks.

I don't know. It was just it was a four cheese. Now, my wife, when she makes nacho, she's a good cook. You know, she will heat up the oven, the broiler. She does a whole bit. She cuts up avocado. She puts in, I don't know what to do, but she different kinds of spiced meat. She she's awesome. And then the right kind of cheese. Me, I just throw chips into a paper plate, throw some cheese on it, nuke it.

And and so, you know, that's that's it. She does a good job. And you see, the thing is, if I start doing a good job, I start eating my food. She's going to want me to start doing it.

So wait a minute. I hope she's not listening to this. My secret's out. We'll find out later if she looks at me. And, you know, you know, that look wives give you, you know, they're tapping their foot with her hips on and hands on their hips. They're staring at you with the look and we'll see what happens. Hey, look, you're going to give me a call.

All you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. And if you're new to the show, this is a Christian apologetic show. We answer questions on theology and a whole bunch of stuff, all kinds of things, even on covid, which I've been doing a great deal of research. And what I'm doing right now, well, not at the moment, I'm on the air right now.

But what I was doing, I stopped in order to get on the air is I have found some sources. I must see if there's a relationship. I mean, if I found some sources of total populations, total covid cases, total covid deaths per population, and I'm doing I do Excel spreadsheets and I, you know, do formulas and figure out what percentage of this and that. And if I had another group and another website that tells how many people are vaccinated per percent, per population of the whole country. And I'm still developing that.

And then what I want to do is compare them and maybe graph them to see if there's a relationship between vaccinations and covid deaths. We're going to find out. I don't know yet. You know, just just I like to do stuff like that. I know I got issues. All right. Eight to open lines.

Eight, seven, seven, two, zero, seven, two, two, seven, six. Let's get to Nelson from Bakersfield. Nelson, welcome. You're on the air.

Doubliss, Matt. Yes. I was calling for I'll do some personal studies from James five. OK. I wonder if I wanted to see your your your thoughts on this verse.

Verse nine, chapter five of the James people. But I lost you. Keep going. Oh, sorry. Can you also can you can you pull up James five, verse nine?

Sure. Do not complain. Do not complain, brethren, against one another so that you yourselves may not be judged.

Behold, the judge is standing right at the door. Uh huh. So my question, I was thinking that to not be judged, what kind of judgment is that if if a person doesn't forgive another brother in Christ, a Christ, a person who is in Christ, doesn't forgive another person who is in Christ because there are judges standing at the door? Well, you're asking different questions. But what the text is saying is don't complain. Brethren, against one another. You're in a sense judging one another when you complain against them.

Now, there are legitimate complaints and there's illegitimate complaints. I think what he's doing here is talking because he says, Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the coming of our Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it until it gets and until it gets the early and late rains. There you go. You to be patient.

Strengthen your hearts for the coming of our Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another. So it's talking about, you know, it's a form of judgment when you complain against someone and there are different levels of judgment that you can give or levels of complaints.

You know, you can you can complain. I don't like that guy's shirt. That's different than I don't like that guy doctrine on, you know, the rapture, whatever it might be. Or this person hasn't been very nice. And so you continue to complain about that person, which becomes not gossip. But it's a it's a lack of forgiveness, a lack of love and humility. And so it says so that you yourself will not be judged. And so the idea of judgment here is not of of salvation because we pass out of judgment for in Christ, Romans eight one. But we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, period. We are all going to to and have our works judged. And these are works. So we're justified by faith alone in Christ alone. But everything we do is going to be judged.

So how are you talking to your wife or your friend? How do you know? Did you litter that day? And no one knew, but you threw something out the car window.

You know, things that you don't think are going to be an issue are going to be an issue. Everything we do is moral because God is the sovereign king of all areas of life. And I mentioned littering. Let's use that as a continued example. Even the trash that you throw away and how you dispose of it within a proper order is a part of the judge, the moral requirements of God. People don't realize this, but it's the truth. So but it doesn't mean we're going to be saved.

I mean, or lose our salvation based on that. It just means that we're going to have our works going to be judged. OK. OK. Thank you very much. That makes more sense because I'm just taking my time reading it. And it's like, I wonder what this text really means. And I really use a concordance towards that verse.

But OK, that's getting more of a clarity because they're starting from from verse seven and on. All right. Well, I hope that helps me. Thank you. All right, buddy. OK, bye bye. God bless. All right. Hey, let's get to let's see. Jerry from North Carolina. Jerry, welcome.

You're on the air. Oh, yes, sir. Matt, I understand you may have taken offense to me last night on the questions I was asking concerning the trinity that I posted. And my question is, you know, I wasn't offended. OK, but you said you birthed yourself laughing. Yes, I did. Would Christ have would Christ have reacted in the same way?

I don't know. I have done some study. I have done some studying on this throughout the New Testament. And I started with Colossians three, 17. And I have a question on First Corinthians 10, 32. But I'm going to break off just a minute here and say I'm not offended by your reaction.

But what it says here is give none offense, neither to the Jews nor the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. And I was wondering why my disagreement with the Trinity would cause you to react that way. Well, you're causing me to laugh again, but it's not because of that. Hold on a second here. It's that I asked you, OK, you OK, I remember this. You you challenge me to a debate. Let me explain. You say I want to debate you.

Oh, debate on what? The trinity. OK, what's the trinity? You don't even know.

And it's funny why you should tell me. Well, why not take a person if the trinity is supposed to be the gospel? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The trinity is not the gospel. OK, you're making all kinds of mistakes.

The gospel truth. OK. No, no, no. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Stop, stop, stop, stop.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, come down. Yeah, OK. The thing is, when when people ask me to debate them, I want to know if they're qualified to debate me. That's not because I'm arrogant or prideful. Sometimes people want to debate me. They have no clue what the issue is.

I've done this for years. OK, so I have to ask them, oh, but you want to debate the trinity. Well, what is the trinity? And you said you didn't even know. Now, the question then becomes, how can you debate the trinity if you don't even know what it is? That's the question debate. You could explain what it is. I'm not doing that.

See, I don't see any. See, I started with Colossians 3.17. It said, whatever thy doest, doest thou in the name of Jesus Christ. OK, I was under the impression that that was baptism also. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

You were jumping on the blue place. So let me ask you, is Jesus God in flesh? Yes. OK. And are you a oneness person? Yes, definitely. OK. And so you teach that you have to be baptized to be saved, right?

Yes, in water, totally in mercy. OK, now I got a question for you. Do you know what justification is? And I'd be willing to tell you, you know what justification is?

No. Justification is the declaration of righteousness that's achieved by faith. Romans 4-5, to the one who does not work. Romans 4-5. Yes, the one who does not.

We're getting somewhere. The one who does not work, but believes his faith is credited as righteousness. His faith is credited as righteousness. Righteousness, according to the law, justification. Romans 5-1, having therefore been justified by faith. OK, you with me? I'm with you so far. You're doing good.

Oh, thank you. And so Romans 5-1 says, having therefore been justified by faith. That's what it said.

I just quoted it to you. So do you believe that we're justified by faith? Do you believe that we're justified by faith?

Yes, that's what it says. OK, Philippians 1-29 says that God grants that we have faith. Philippians 1-29, do you affirm that God grants that we have faith? I affirm that part. I'm with you so far. You affirm?

OK, good. So are we justified by faith when we have faith? According to the scripture, we are. Good, that you don't need to be baptized for salvation, do you?

Because you're justified by faith when you have faith, not when you get baptized. OK. OK, I didn't quite understand the question, so we're kind of getting off. Well, I'm just showing you.

The baptism was in Jesus' name. OK, well I'm with you so far. No, no, no, I'm just showing you. You're in a cult, OK? I'm just going to tell you, you're in a non-Christian cult.

The one that's Pentecostal goes to a non-Christian cult. No, it's a cult. It's a cult. It's a cult.

A non-Christian cult. You require baptism for salvation. You have to be good to keep yourself saved before God. You have to be baptized in Jesus' name, which he failed to understand. That in Jesus' name is a phrase used of authority. Go to Acts chapter 4 verse 7 for that. In what name are you doing these things? They said, in the name of Jesus we do this.

That's what that phrase means. So you're in a non-Christian cult. OK, do you baptize in the name of Jesus Christ as according to Acts 2.38 or according to Matthew 28.19? Well, you do what Jesus told you to do.

Right? He says, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's what they did. So to be baptized in the name of means by the authority of. I'll read you Acts 4. When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, by what power or in what name have you done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, told them, it says, in the name of Jesus. That Nazareth will be crucified by this name.

That's what it means in the culture. That's what it means in the context of the Bible. But you guys, in your cult, what you do is you deny the doctrine of the Trinity. You fully deny the true incarnation of Christ.

You deny justification by faith alone in Christ alone. And you add a formula for salvation. And then you go to Acts 2.38, which is not about getting saved. It's not about getting saved. It's not a formula for salvation because faith is not mentioned. And the gift of the Holy Spirit is this charismatic movement. The charismatic gifts, that's what he's talking about when you go to Acts 2. You read. Read the context.

And in Acts chapter 10, 44 through 48, they receive the Holy Spirit in tongues before they're baptized. You're in a non-Christian cult. Okay. You want to hold for the break?

After the break. Okay, Jerry. All right, we've got a break. And I'm sorry, folks, but it's what it is. It's one of the Pentecostals non-Christian cult. All right. And there's like a lot of groups that think they're Christian when they're not.

Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholicism, Christian Science, Unity, et cetera, et cetera. Hey, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody.

Welcome back to the show. Let's see. Was it? No. No. Jerry.

That's right. All right. Get back to Jerry. Anyway, there you go.

All right. Let's get on the phones with Herb from Raleigh, North Carolina. Herb, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt.

Hope you're doing well, buddy. Always good to hear you on the radio. Well, thank you.

I got a quick question. Yes, sir. One time in the past you said that Shepherd's Castle is not something you want to listen to.

That's correct. And I watched it for a long time. And I remember saying that. Today I came home, caught my wife watching it. And I said, what are you watching?

And I found out. I said, wait a minute. I got a call, Matt. Matt told us for some reason not to do that.

And I want to know what it is so I can back up my reason to tell her we don't watch it anymore. Okay. Yeah. Let's see.

Where's my stuff on Shepherd's Chapel? There we go. So I did a lot of research on them years ago. And I wrote these articles back in 2002. So they deny the Trinity. They deny the existence of eternal hell, deny the doctrine of the rapture.

Now, those are just two of the things. So here we go. So I'm looking at their statement of faith right now. And for example, it says we believe in the God of the Bible. That's what it says. That's a statement of faith.

We believe in the God of the Bible. That doesn't mean anything. Okay. It just doesn't mean anything. So let's see.

They're premillennial. That's not, you know, heretical. We believe. And then they quote John 3.16. We believe God loves the world. We believe in the Holy Spirit and his mission. Now, that implies the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but not necessarily. And it says we believe salvation is by grace through faith that the gift of God, not of works, must be preached and is necessary for all.

We believe that water baptism is ordained for God of all that belief, but they don't say what's, you know, it's just not very specific. And let's see. I'm looking through some more.

We believe the Bible with God's laws, statutes, and judgments was given to Israel and through Israel's prophets came. Okay, that doesn't really say much either. So there's a lot of stuff. They probably have changed things.

And I've had a challenge out. And I still would debate them and go on their TV saying, let's debate. So they did not have the physical direction of the believers. That's what it was. This is from their notes. I was given, someone gave me, if I remember correctly, a bunch of information from them, from inside their organization. And I downloaded a ton of their newsletters and I went through the newsletters. I found this information.

Now here's one of the things that's really important. Interracial marriage is wrong, they say. Now this is from my research back then. Hopefully they've changed their position. And, you know, interracial marriage is not wrong, okay?

Not a problem at all. And this is when it's really bad. The Kenites. Cain killed Abel and they teach that Cain is the offspring between the devil and Eve because they had relations and produced the offspring of Cain. Where do they get all this coming up with versus what it says in the Bible?

How do they come up with this? It's not biblical. Yeah, there's a process called stupidification. That's what I call it.

I've heard of it. Stupidification. And so what more commonly known as eisegesis, they'll read into the text. And the kind of thing that they will do is take a word in the original and break it down.

And then they'll imply things about it being broken down. And the illustration I use is there was a butterfly out in my yard. Okay, we'll take the word butterfly, let's break it down. Butter and a fly.

That means that really someone had dropped off butter in my yard and there were flies on it. And so it's this kind of eisegesis that they'll do. And it's just like, no, you're wrong. It's not what it stands for. They do this with the issue of Cain and some other stuff. So they teach that. And I think America and Britain are the lost tribes of Israel. And the people were alive in a preexistence.

It's all whacked. Now, I probably should update and see if I can find the most current stuff. But what I need is to be able to interview some people. I have a bunch of questions and interview them.

But they don't respond. Yeah, the father, the older gray-haired man, he passed away at the end of the night. And the son, I understand, is taking it over, though.

I saw the old man today on the recording. I knew it was something you had said before because I listen to you almost every day I can. And I remember that and I said, I've got to go. I knew it was something I'd do at the time.

Yes. As a matter of fact, I'm remembering something I'd forgotten about for quite a while. Shepherd's Chapel. Let's see, Arnold Murray. I don't know if I still even have this recording.

But they teach what looks like the Christian identity movement. But there's a... I have a recording or had a recording.

We moved the site. We've done stuff. Anyway, the recording is where there's somebody who's on the set and who raises an objection in the audience or something like that. And you hear a bit of a scuffle, but not much. And Arnold Murray says, here, take this gun to that boy. It's like that. You hear it.

There's a lot of old films I've seen of the father and son and the older man when he was younger. I knew there was something about right there. And I said I just could not think of what it was. But I knew it was pretty severe. So my wife, she's agreed. She wanted to watch it. But I said only Matt.

Matt wanted to know the answer if anybody would. And he came through again. Well, praise God. Thanks. In fact, you can go YouTube.

Arnold Murray pulls a gun. And in fact, I'm looking to see if I can get it to play. I could probably do that. And it's a minute forty-nine. I'd have to go through it and stuff like that to see. Oh, yeah. At any rate. Well, let me know if they have a satellite or whatever.

Yeah, you can find it. Yeah, he's bad news. Okay. All right. Thanks for the enlightenment, Adam. God bless you and your family.

And I think the world, I really appreciate all you do for America and for the Lord. Praise God. Praise God now. All right, buddy. Okay, God bless. Okay. Thank you, sir.

All right. All right, let's get to Craig from Kentucky. Hey, Craig, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt Slick. My name is Craig Westbrook. I am a member at Unity of Louisville. And I would like to set up a time for us to debate oneness versus eternity. Okay. I've got a debate coming up on October 1st.

And are you qualified? I believe so. All right. Well, here's the thing. If you want to debate me, this is what I'm doing now. I've released it.

You have to go to harm. I want to do a formal debate, not just a – That's fine. That's fine.

Either way. And so if you go to karm.org forward slash debates, D-E-B-A-T-E-S, it will forward you to a page called Debates. And I have debates from different people and listed.

And there's one there for questions for oneness. Now, hold on, because you have to answer them. Okay. And I'll explain that after the break. Okay. Hold on. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after the break.

Oh, man, so much heresy, so little time. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show.

Let's come back to Craig from Kentucky. Are you still there? Yep. Okay, so you're a oneness person, right? Right. Well, so I'm looking at your 66 questions now.

Uh-huh. And certainly go ahead and answer those for you in order to qualify or meet a criteria. But the one thing that I would say is I don't believe in inerrancy.

And a lot of those questions presuppose inerrancy. Then you would say, no, you deny. Okay. So let me ask you, so is the Bible the final authority then?

No. Well, what is the final authority? Truth is, whatever that may be, whether we can or cannot discern it at any given moment in time or any place. Can you define what truth is? Truth is the actual or real state of a matter. And how do you know that definition's accurate? Just as well as you know that the Bible is inherent.

No, no, no. I'll ask you this question. I'll ask you a question. How do you know that definition is the right one, how you know it's proper? Because what you're saying is a universal truth principle about truth. You've offered a definition of truth. You're able to defend that that definition of truth is the right one. Sure, I'll give you an argument from the impossibility to the contrary. If that wasn't the right answer, then truth wouldn't actually have any meaning.

It wouldn't be true all the time, and therefore everything would be relative, which is itself logically inconsistent, as you well know. Yeah, you begged the question there. So do you believe God exists? Do you believe that God exists? Let me ask you a question. Is that the definition of truth?

I'll show you. Do you believe God exists? Yes, I do believe God exists. Does he know everything?

Absolutely, all the time. Then wouldn't truth be that which corresponds to the mind of God? Were those two things mutually exclusive? Was the definition that I gave and the definition that you gave mutually exclusive because they are not? My definition rests in the heart and mind of God. Yours is in philosophy.

But philosophy, a true philosophy and a true theology that are included in truth are not mutually exclusive, but rather one in the same, explicated in two different disciplines. How would you know? You're not listening. How would you know which is true? Because your ultimate authority is not the word of God. Your ultimate authority ultimately is you. Yeah, but I can disprove inerrancy. I can disprove inerrancy.

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. So your ultimate truth is not God's word, but the ultimate truth then rests with yourself. You're going to be the one who's going to define what truth is.

Let me finish, let me finish, let me finish, let me finish, let me finish. Because your truth is not resting in God's character, God's mind, God's knowledge, God himself, you're a humanist. You have humanistic philosophy that you impose.

You deny the authority and sufficiency and inerrancy of the word of God. And so what you do is when I ask you what truth is, you give me a philosophical, human-based idea. Do you want to try again with what truth is? Define it again. It's exactly what you said, but what you said and what I said are not mutually exclusive.

There are two different ways of saying the same thing. Define truth again. Define truth again. Truth is the actual or real state of a matter as well as that which is in the mind of God rooted.

Okay, so now you change it. So let me ask you, which statement was... Craig. And just because I chose a philosophical definition as well as a theological definition does not make it any more or less true.

Craig. So you have two definitions that you offered, so you negate the first one because that wasn't true, right? Your first statement about truth wasn't true, was it? I didn't ask you if they're mutually exclusive. I didn't ask you about that.

I know about mutualism. Craig, calm down, Craig. You offered a definition of truth, then what you did was you corrected it. So are you saying your first definition of what truth is? No, I didn't correct it. Craig, are you saying your first definition was wrong?

No, not at all. Then why was it not resting in the heart and mind of God? Is truth not the real or actual state of a matter? No, truth is what corresponds to the mind of God.

You can't know what your statement is. No, no, no, it's not divine command theory. No, it's not divine command theory. I mean, you would say that God doesn't do a thing because it's good, but rather a thing is good because God does it. Are you serious?

Craig, Craig, Craig, Craig, Craig, you need to slow down. You just gave me the Euthyphro Dilemma. Do you know that it's a false dilemma?

What's a false dilemma? The Euthyphro Dilemma. You have been trying to cite a little bit of philosophy, then you went into what's called the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Does God do something because it's good, or does he do something arbitrarily that's good? The Euthyphro Dilemma. It's used by atheists. Do you know that it's a false dichotomy?

Sure. So what's false about it? There's a third option. It's not the way that John MacArthur, it's the way that John MacArthur, a theologian, explains it. You're reforming, correct? No, I'm asking the question. I'm answering any of my questions, brother. Craig, the false dilemma is, because you asked me what's false. This is why we should debate, because there's too much to extricate or discuss on a television show or a radio show. Craig, you asked me. That is John MacArthur's definition. Craig, Craig. You asked me why it was a false dilemma, and I was starting to tell you when you interrupted.

You asked me a question, and you said, I don't want to answer your questions, and I was doing that, and then you interrupt me and say you don't answer. It's a false dichotomy, because the third option is that it rests in the mind of God. It's a revelation of God. That's what it is. You go to my website, look up the Euthyphro Dilemma.

E-U-T-H, Euthyphro Dilemma. Look it up. So, Craig.

My question is, are you saying that John MacArthur is falling into that chair when he appreciates volunteerism or divine command theory as being that? Craig, Craig. The reason I'm doing this with you on the air is to show people that you don't know how to debate. You don't know how to put... Let me finish. Craig, Craig. Craig. Hey, watch this.

Ready? Three, two, one. Oh, silence is so golden.

You have the power of the button. So, folks, let's see if he's still on when I come back on here in a little sec, but this is what I deal with a lot of times. It's pretty typical. It's where someone who pontificates but doesn't have the understanding in the area that they pontificate about, and this is a good example. So he changed his definition, and this is how I debate with people. I say, okay, so your first definition was this, then you altered it.

Are you saying your first one was incorrect? If they say it's incorrect, then how do they know what truth is? Because what standard do they have? I wish they could judge what is universally true and have a standard of truth. They don't have an ultimate standard because it's not in God's word, so it has the rest of themselves ultimately. So it's just like shooting fish in a barrel. Not that I'm smart or anything.

It's just that when someone doesn't have a Christian worldview, then it's really bad. So there you go. Let's try one more time. Craig, are you still there? Oh, absolutely.

Okay, Craig, you're not winning any points with me to be able to beat a worthy opponent. Sure. Could I ask one question then? You just did.

Ask another. Could we change our debate topic then from oneness and Trinitarian to your initial presupposition of inerrancy? Because if we destroy inerrancy, then you two would be just as disabled as I am, which is relying on your own subjective feedism. Can you, uh, subjective feedism?

That's awesome. Can you define what inerrancy is? Can you define what inerrancy is right now? Well, I know that what you will define it as is the divine inspiration of the Word of God ultimately in the autograph. You won't even say that what we have right now is inerrant, but you'll push it back to the autograph.

But, yeah, it's the divine, inspired, perfect Word of God. In the autographs. So how would you be able to argue against the autographs if we don't have them?

Because I would question your epistemological certainty as to having anything that's even remotely close to the autograph since you've never seen the autograph. What I would do if I were you, I would study presuppositionalism because I would just go precip on you and, you know, just knock the legs off from underneath your rationality. Let's do presuppositional paradigmatic. Let's argue on a paradigmatic level.

Paradigmatic? By unity, theology versus your reformed theology. You want to argue by reformed theology, but you don't believe in the authority of the Scripture.

So why? Because the reformed theology is based on Scripture. If you don't believe in the... Hey, Craig, hold on a sec.

Craig, Craig, Craig, Craig. If you don't believe the Bible is inspired and authoritative, why should I quote it to you? You're not going to believe it, right? You're just going to reject it. I don't believe that verse, right?

No, but I could certainly use it to demonstrate how you're incorrect. Wow. Well, answer the questions and we'll see what happens.

I would like to have it paid on an agency, brother. I know that's a no, brother. We haven't even been intellectually honest in this entire conversation that we've had.

The two definitions I gave... You just lost the opportunity. I just hung up on them. Whenever someone starts attacking my character, that's done, okay? You're not even intellectually honest. Okay, well, you know, we're just done.

They're going to attack me personally. I'm sorry. You can say I don't agree with you. That's fine. You think I'm wrong because... That's fine.

Don't attack my person because it's just called mentality. Hey, I hope you guys enjoyed that as much as I did. Hey, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

All right. Welcome back, everybody. Let's get to Ryan from California.

Waiting a long time. Hey, Ryan. Welcome. You're on the air.

Hi, Matt. I have a question about Luke 16-16. Oh, law of the prophets. Uh-huh. Yeah, I've heard you use this against Mormons.

Yeah, I agree with that. But you know how in Acts 11 it says, Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them was named Agatha.

Right. Who are these New Testament prophets if all the prophets ended at John the Baptist? Well, actually, there are New Testament prophets as well in 1 Corinthians 13. But the kind of prophet that it is is a charismatic kind of a thing where they tell the future and the interpretation of it. And the elders would be the ones who would judge these things. When it's talked about Luke 16-16, the law and the prophets, what he's talking about is the Old Testament.

The Old Testament divisions, the law, the first five books, and everything else. It's just saying the law and the prophets. And it says we're until John. Now, the NASB says we're proclaimed until John. And if I look at other translations, there's no verb there.

That's why it's an issue. What it says in, let's see, the ESV, we're until, which I think I like that a little bit better than the NASB in that particular case. It says we're until, we're until. But there is no verb there.

The law and the prophets until, that's all it says, until John. So what's the right verb to put in there? Were, that's fine. We're proclaimed, that's fine too.

So anyway, what's going on? Since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached. And he brought up the Mormons. So the Mormons will say that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And they say he's a prophet in the Old Testament kind of sense. Because they're going to say that as they quote Amos 3.7, God will do nothing unless he reveals his counsel to the prophets.

So they'll quote that. And they'll say Joseph Smith was the latter day prophet. And that he saw God, which is impossible, but that's another thing. And so how I will use this, I'll say Joseph Smith, according to their own theology, was a prophet in the Old Testament style. He could write scripture, perform miracles, spoke as a spokesman for God. And that's who Joseph Smith was. But the law and the prophets were, that's Old Testament style, that's done. Because when Jesus Christ came, now he speaks to us through his Bible says.

So that's what's going on there. The New Testament kind of prophets are those who were in the church context. And it could be more than one. You could have different prophets in different provinces, areas, churches. People who would speak in tongues. People who could have discernment of spirits. Someone who had gifts of services. And others who were prophetic. And then the church was to judge these things. 1 Corinthians 14.

That's what's going on. They're different, okay? Okay, so the answer, if a Mormon said, but what about the prophets in the New Testament? You would just say it's a different kind of prophet, right? Yeah, it's a different kind of prophet.

Just read the context. And go to 1 Corinthians 14 for that. If someone prophesies, and here's the thing.

You go to 1 Corinthians 14, and let me find a verse for you. I'll do that. I'll show you how to use this. Let's see. Prophesy. Come on.

We're going to spell right here. That helps first. And there we go. And it says in 1 Corinthians 14, 1. Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

Now wait a minute. So now what Paul is saying to the church, hey, we want you to pursue the issue of prophecy. So why would they do that? If prophets like Joseph Smith were in, you know, back in the 1800s, then why is it that Paul is saying to the whole people of the church that you prophesy? That's what he's saying there. He wants people to do it. But in verse 3, but one who prophesies speaks for the edification, and exaltation, and consolation. And one who prophesies edifies the church. And now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. So we say now he wants it all of you would prophesy. Greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues. So this is a charismatic gift issue, a movement in the Christian church. And so this is what the New Testament prophets were spoken of, not in the Old Testament style and sense, writing scripture, seeing God, as Joseph Smith said he did, but the Bible denies is even possible.

God the Father, that is. So that help? Yeah, that's a good answer. Thank you very much. You're welcome very much. All right, Ryan, God bless, buddy.

All right. All right, let's get to Chuck from Burlington, North Carolina. Chuck, welcome. You're on the air. Thank you, Matt.

I appreciate it. I was curious to, well, I don't know if that's possible, to kind of a simple explanation about, I don't mean simple. I mean, you know, it has to be kind of short for a program at all, you know, because it's really a, well, to me it's kind of like a mystery. I don't know how it works. Okay, so which question then? Yes, sir. Could you explain the hypostatic union of Christ a little?

Oh, sure. Sure, the doctrine teaches that in the one person of Christ are two distinct and simultaneous natures, that Jesus is both divine and human. They're not mixed into a new third thing that would be called monophysitism.

That's not it. Nor are they mixed so much that you can't distinguish them. That's called eutychianism. Nor is it the case that the two natures are two persons, a divine person and a human person in the body. That's Nestorianism. But instead, the hypostatic union is that there's one person and there's two natures, and the attributes of those natures are claimed by the one person. So Jesus said, I am thirsty. I will be with you always even to the end of the earth.

The same I is speaking. So he's the one person. So when we say that the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person, that's called the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, the communication of the properties. The properties of both natures are communicated to the single person. That's why Jesus would say, I am thirsty.

I'll be with you always. So the hypostatic union relates to the communicatio idiomatum, and if Christians can learn those doctrines, it's just basic, if they can learn those doctrines, then they can answer probably 80, 98% of all the questions that might be raised against the person or Christ. So Jesus would say, for example, the Father is greater than I. Well, that's in the other 10% or so, because he was incarnate under the law, Galatians 4. So that's another verse that's helpful, is being made under the law.

And so when I teach about this, I say, if you understand the hypostatic union, communication of the properties, and being made under the law, you've got 98% basically of all the issues that you have to address can be answered by understanding those doctrines and using them. Okay? Right. Wonderful answer, Matt. Praise the Lord. Thanks a lot. That was great teaching you all, brother. Thank you. Okay, brother. All right, well, God bless, man. All right.

Yep. Okay, let's get to Dave from Salt Lake City, which was waiting 41 minutes. I think I skipped him accidentally. Sorry about that, Dave, if you're listening. Call back. We'll get you right up to the top. Dylan from Cleveland. Dylan, welcome. You're on the air. Hello. Hello. Yes. You can hear me all right.

Yes, I can. I have a question about Romans 1, 18.32. My question isn't really about the interpretation. That's basically saying, well, this is the correct one, of course. It says homosexual behavior is immoral.

That's not really my question here. But how would you respond to people that use this passage that basically says that members of the LGBTQ community just can't get saved? So reprobate. They've been given over to praise mine.

It says that three times. And basically, people like Stephen Henderson, the KGB almost, a lot of people have been influenced by him, unfortunately, have been using this particular passage to basically say, well, if God gives them a little bit of reprobate, then they can never get saved, ever. So if they apparently look like they're saved right now, they're just lying. They're not saved at all.

They're just destined at all, basically. And usually what I do is I respond with 1 Corinthians 6, 9 to 11. Wait, wait, stay here. Stay here in this pericope, okay? You always want to look at the text first instead of going to another verse.

You always want to stay where you're at initially. So we're in Romans 1, 18, and they're saying, what about this text? That it means the homosexuals cannot be saved because they're given over to the depraved mind? Yeah, they just be given over, their hearts have been hardened, and they won't repent. God will never allow them to repent, basically. Well, there's more to it than that because if you read it, it says they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer. Now, these people are saying that they do acknowledge God. Well, they're not acknowledging the true God in the true way, but they're filled with unrighteousness, wicked evil, et cetera, and it goes on, and this applies to them. So what we have here in Romans 1, 18 to 32, is a basic description of the judgment of God upon those whom he has given over to the depravity of their heart and their minds. Not that all who are in that are given over, but the ones that are given over, that's why he gives them over.

That's the mistake that a lot of people make. They say, oh, this is a formula that if you do this and this, you'll be given over, and therefore, that's not what it's saying. It doesn't say it's a formula for being given over, but they did this and God chose to give them over. But it doesn't mean that he chooses to give all people who are committing varying degrees of sins like this. It doesn't mean he's given all over. So that's a fundamental logic error that they're making right there.

I'm sorry? Specific individuals that are given over, not like in total. Right, God will give individuals over to it, absolutely. We don't know who they all are because you could have someone who's in the homosexual community and he could be a flamer and get saved.

That would only be by God's grace. Yeah, that's what I always like to point out because I've been seeing them, people like this, like all over on YouTube, they've been attacking Dr. Michael Brown a whole lot in his life. I keep hearing people bringing up this issue and they're basically saying that's like a masochistic because he actually teaches homosexuals in the states. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Who teaches homosexuals could be saved? Who teaches them?

Dr. Michael Brown. And does he say they can be saved in repentance, they come to faith, but they leave their homosexuality? Yeah, yeah, that's what he thinks. Yeah, I would agree with that. Yeah, okay, I would agree with that too. But these people that follow Stephen Anderson seem to think that's just not even possible.

They've just gone over, as I would say. Yeah, Stephen Anderson, let's just say, doesn't have all his theological pause in the litter box. Yeah, this is one of the things I've been trying to learn how to interpret my Bible better because I'll remember what you said earlier about staying within the text and actually thinking it through there for a moment because I've always wanted to say, hey, this doesn't mean that it's applying to people as a total infertility. It's talking about specific individuals that God gives that are like Pharaoh. Right, and that's in Romans 9, but it does not say here that everybody who does this is given over.

That's what they're reading into it and saying, see, that's the formula, and that's wrong. Okay? All right. All right.

We're out of time now. Thank you. All right, well, God bless.

Great question, good stuff. Okay, all right. Okay, hey, folks, sorry about that.

We're out of time. May the Lord bless you. We'll talk Monday about the music thing.

Oh, that'd be a good question. And I hope you all have a great weekend. May the Lord bless you. We'll talk to you Monday, by God's grace. Talk to you later. Bye. Bye.