Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network Podcast. If you'd like to learn more about the Truth Network Podcast, please go to truthnetwork.com. and putting them up there so you can see what's going on with a link. When you click on it, the article opens up to the original source and you can go read it yourself. And so what I'm trying to do is summarize information for people so that they can go and find what they need very quickly.

And that's what I want to do. So there's a lot of side effects, autoimmune inflammatory syndrome, cerebral sinus, there's many accounts of death, eye problems, heart problems, menstrual cycle problems, myocarditis, other symptoms, respiratory problems, single patient events, there's a list of those, zoster, virus, and things like this. And there's more. And so I'm just giving a good list. And just so you guys know, I'm not against vaccines. I'm for them. I want my children to get vaccinated against measles and smallpox and polio and things like that.

I don't have a problem with it. I just don't trust the COVID vaccines because the death rate associated with them is too high. In fact, if you go to the CARM website, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, and it's forward slash COVID or go to the secular issues on the left hand side and look under COVID there, you'll see that I ran a report from the CDC. This is their data, not mine.

I did what they said. And this is where people go in, doctors go in, and they go in and they report what they have seen. The doctors go in and they report and it gets categorized. So if we can't trust the CDC data, what are we going to do? So what I did was I was able to run a vaccine death comparison. So all the deaths from 1968 through to the present of all vaccines, excluding COVID-19, all of them combined, excluding COVID-19 is 9,183 deaths. So that's from 1968 to today. And just the past basically two years of COVID vaccines, there's been over 13,000 deaths. So that's a low estimate because I could do COVID for all years. And then it goes up to like 17,000 or 14,000 or I think it's 17.

But I just did the last three years, 2019, 20, and 21. That's related to the vaccine because the vaccines were being tested and come out early in 19. So this is what it is, and it's scaring me. And I've even seen a document where a guy says he will get the vaccine with his company if they promise to, because they're forcing him to take a medical thing in order to keep his job. He says, yeah, and you agree then to foot the bill for any side effects, harms, hospitalizations or death and things like that.

I'm going to find that and reproduce it and put it up on CARM. So again, I'm not against vaccines. I'm against the government pushing and mandating what we put in our bodies. And I have a problem with that. And I do know that companies, some of them require getting a flu shot.

You know, and when I worked at a hospital, you know, I had a problem getting a tetanus shot. It's fair. Okay, we get exposed to stuff. But this is different. And the reason it's different is because there's so many associated deaths and adverse effects with these things. In fact, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Italy and Japan have restricted usage of Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines. And why would they do that?

And how come you don't hear it on the news here? Well, you know. So, yeah, there's some issues. All right, folks, let's get on the phone.

On the phone. Yeah, that's right. And let's get to Alexander from Mobile, Alabama. Hey, welcome. You're on the air. Hello. Hello. How are you doing? Doing all right, man. Hang in there.

What do you got, buddy? Yes, I've been talking to somebody about, you know, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. And of course, I'm against that. And this verse shows up, which is 1 Peter 3 21. And I believe the way that I interpret this, I've never heard anyone interpret it the same way.

But I want you to see this is a valid interpretation according to the original Greek language. So I believe I believe that when Peter was saying not the removal of dirt from the flesh in 1 Peter 3 21, a lot of people think that that's basically he's referring to the mere act of baptism. But for me, I believe Peter was intending to clarify what he meant by saved in verse 21. And he's saying that baptism is not the removal of your sins. So your sins is written as the build of the flesh here, but is an appeal to God as a good conscience. And so baptism saves us from having a bad conscience into getting a good conscience in contact with verse 14 to 17. And so what I believe is that this verse isn't talking about being saved from your sin at all, but it's talking about being saved from doing what is bad into doing what is good, despite of slander, the same way Noah built the ark, despite of the mocking. Again, that's according to verse 20. So I just wanted to see if that's a valid interpretation, especially if they use the word sarcos to read the flesh here in this verse.

Can you help me out? Yeah, it's sarcos. Yeah, I've not heard that before, and the commentaries I've read have not heard any of the commentaries. It's not what I've seen either, but it's something to think about. But it's always a concern when you're the only one who comes up with something in all of church history kind of thing. And so it doesn't mean it's not true, though, but it's something that needs to be examined. And so you're saying that baptism has helped in preventing you from sinning? Is that what you said?

No, no, it's not. So what I believe is that Peter is trying to say, you know, the reason why he had to clarify himself in there and add a parenthesis in there or a dash in there, because he used the word saved, and he had to explain himself. What I mean by saved, it's not saved in the sense of removing your sin, but it's saving you by getting you a good conscience and not getting a bad conscience. Because in verse 14 to 17, he was talking about you, Christians, get a good conscience and do what is right and not doing what's wrong, even when you suffer.

So it's saving you from that and not saving you from your sin. I think you were talking about that. Why don't you write that up and send it to me, because I want to examine that and see. Yes, please. I believe there's a lot of indications that show, and the context just shows that's what it means according to my interpretation, but I haven't seen anyone really think about it that way.

I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, well, you know, send it to me. I'm not leaning towards your interpretation, but it's worth, because sometimes people have a different view of something, they're seeing something in the text that may or may not be there, and I want to check it out. But here's something.

It is info at karm.org, info at karm.org. And also, here's something a lot of people miss in 1 Peter 3.21, and that is when it says, corresponding to that baptism now saves you. And it's corresponding to what? Well, when you look into the previous text, the things in verse 9, it's when during the construction of the ark in which eight persons were brought safely through the water. Well, the issue is what saved Noah? Well, it wasn't the water.

It was the ark and the end of the ark by faith. And so when it says corresponding to that baptism now saves you, it says, not the rule of the drip in the flesh, but an appeal. I think what he's talking about is, because it doesn't say baptism here is water baptism, because you can have different kinds of baptism. Now, the implication could be made that the water, corresponding to that baptism and baptism relates to the water, but not always. You can be baptized in the Holy Spirit, you can be baptized in tribulation. But not necessarily, but anyway, I think the context kind of leans towards the idea of baptism as a possibility of water immersion or sprinkling or pouring. I think all of those are permittable in scripture.

That's another topic altogether. But the eight people went into the ark, and the ark represents Christ, who says he's the door, and there's only one door in the ark, and God closed it. And so they entered in. And the word Iesous in Greek is 888 in the gematria, when you add up the letters, because letters are also numbers. And if so, 888 is Iesous, Jesus, and yet eight persons went into the ark, and people are circumcised on the eighth day, and Jesus raised on the eighth day, which is the first day of the week.

So eight has an issue of new beginnings and new this and new that. And so, you know, most commentators I've read say that the baptism corresponds to the water. I just don't think it's exegetically sound, because baptism can't relate to the destruction of sinful people, because it says it saves you. But what saved Noah was the ark. So I think Peter's saying that baptism relates to the ark. You enter into it by faith. And it's not the removal of dirt, it's not the issue of the water and the body, but the issue of faith.

And that in that, you're saved, but it's not the baptism that saves. That's what I think is going on. Right, right. Yeah. Sure. Yeah, thank you for your explanation.

I'll send to you what I got in the email you sent. Okay. Okay.

Thank you very much for answering the phone call. I'm a big fan. Oh, good. That means you're highly intelligent.

That's why. Good. Glad to hear that. All right, man. God bless, Alexander. Thanks a lot. All right. Let's get to AC from Illinois.

AC, welcome. You're on the air. Hello, Matt. Pastor Matt, how are you? I'm okay. How are you doing, buddy?

I'm doing well. So long story short is that I've been debating the faith of God. Yeah, you're hard to understand.

You're hard to understand. Let's try it again. So I've been, long story short is that I've been debating this Catholic guy on transubstantiation. Okay. And his argument is that there are some Greek words that got switched.

He said, he that he that is pro-Gon. Well, we'll have to take a look after the break, okay? Hold on and we'll check it out, okay?

I want to see what you have to say. Folks, we'll be right back after these messages. We have two open lines. All you gotta do is give me a call. Two open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. Two open lines, 877-207-2276.

AC from Illinois. Welcome, you're on the air. Hello. So my question is about transubstantiation. And this person, this staunch Catholic guy, he pointed out the Greek word from John 6, 50 to 51. John 6, you're hard to understand. Wait, wait, wait. I have to know what verse, then I have to look up the verse.

So if you say it and just go really fast, I don't have time to look it up. So it's John 6 what? 50 to 51.

50? John 6, 50. All right. And okay, I'm looking at it.

He said the more general Greek word for gay, I don't know how to pronounce it. And then later on. For what?

In 56, 57, 57, and 58. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I need to, you can't go so fast. I had to look at things, so you gotta be a little bit slower, okay? So he eats my flesh. The word flesh is what you're talking about in the Greek? No, the word eat my flesh, and then this is what I get. You said eat my flesh are three different words. So which word is it that we're talking about? I'm talking about eat.

Eat, the verb to eat. Okay, trogon, okay. Okay, trogon, yeah. So, okay, got that.

Now what? So he's arguing that the Jews responded by, they were under the impression that he was talking about literally eating his flesh. So they used the word trogon, which means to chew. And then apparently Jesus used the word trogon. And he's arguing that this word, this change of the word, somehow supports the actual eating of his flesh.

That's what his argument is. That it does mean or does not mean, because you're hard to understand, sorry for me, does mean or does not mean that it's actually his blood and flesh? He's saying that the use of the word trogon, the changing of the word to trogon is supporting the notion that he's actually speaking to eating his flesh which is the Catholic Greek. Okay, but I'm going to just tell you, I'm having a real hard time understanding you. I need to understand every single word others can understand better because I have a hearing loss and I have 80 decibel ringing in my ears. So I have you turned up max on my equipment. I can't even turn you up any louder. So I'm missing a word or two so I have to say this again. I apologize, but that's just what it is. And so I don't understand what the argument is yet. And I can't respond to it if I don't understand.

So try it one more time. Okay, so let me say it a bit louder. So he's saying the word, the change of the word to trogon, right?

What change? He changed from the word phage to trogon. Okay. Verse 51.

And then after the Jews used the word trogon, he said, he was said trogon. Okay, gotcha. And that is his argument, that he's actually referring to eating his flesh literally. That's his argument. Okay. Oh, interesting. Gotcha. Thank you for saying it like that. Yeah, so verse 51, trogon, no, okay, I get you. Okay, trogon and then trogon.

And it is actually eating his flesh. Okay. Then what you do, instead of arguing with the Greek, because a lot of times people who think they know Greek don't know Greek and they'll say things. And then what they'll do, often they can say that, well, the Greek word means this over there and that over here and therefore it's what it means here.

And so I find that it's really not as profitable to get through that. Now his argument, it's interesting. I'll look at it again later when I have more time to think through it because I need to look at exactly how each word is used theoretically in every instance of the New Testament. So, for example, in 57, the word eat, this is an example, is trogon is 51, 76, and I can go into the Greek, the lexicon thing, and I can find out that it occurs only six times. And so I can look at every single instance and I can compare and see.

So this is the kind of analysis I need to do to check this argument out because it's interesting. But here's the thing that a lot of these guys miss. You ask them. There are several questions you can say. So Jesus instituted the supper, and they want to say that it's actually his flesh and blood. And so I'll ask them questions, and I did this literally three nights ago on an Internet chat system, and I heard, when I asked the question, I heard one guy in the background go, whoa, he hadn't even thought about it. And there were several questions, but I said to my Catholic opponent, it was a very polite conversation, I said, so that's actually his flesh and blood Jesus instituted when he was with the disciples, right? And they said, yes.

Is it his sacrificed flesh and blood? And they said, yes. And I said, well, how could it be that when he hadn't been crucified yet?

A real simple question. Then they have to get into some mystical stuff. But the response to their mystical stuff, well, God's outside of time. Well, what does that mean? They don't know what it means, so what they're doing is grasping at straws and there's comebacks. Another thing is in Leviticus 17 and 14, it says, the Bible, God tells us, do not drink the blood of any flesh.

Don't do it. And so if they were still under Levitical law because the new covenant's not instituted until Jesus died, that's Hebrews 9, 15, and 16. If it's not instituted until he died, then they're still under Levitical law and Jesus would never be asking the disciples to actually drink blood. So that's Leviticus 17, 14. And so if they're going to say that it was, he was doing it, but it was only in reference to animal sacrifices, that's what they want to come back, then you say, oh, so it is okay to drink human blood then because it's only in reference to animals? Is that what you're saying?

And then they have a problem. So there's that. And one more argument I give to them is I say, is it not true that by definition a human being in his flesh is only at one place at a time?

Yes. Then how could he have broken the bread and said it's actually his fleshly body and distributed it around a room? And yet if he's still a man, and he is still a man, and by definition a man can only be at one place at a time, how is that possible?

And these are the questions to ask him. Yes, but then he would say with God all things are possible. Well, you say, well, that's a nice little statement. It's also possible with God that he's allowed you to be deceived by Satan when you're saying this, so I guess that's true too, isn't it? Just because when they come back with this, all things are possible, therefore that's what it is, that's not the case. What they're essentially doing is arguing from silence.

It doesn't say what I want it to say, so I'm going to jump to a generic verse, all things are possible, and therefore that's what it means. But it's a horrible way to do exegesis. It's a horrible way to look at the Bible. It is absolutely horrible.

You just don't do it that way. And that's what they do. These people in cults and in Catholicism, and they will continue to misuse the word of God like this. Okay?

They do. Yeah, it's horrible. Yeah, it is, and the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, teaches a false gospel, and teaches and promotes idolatry. Yes, and the other counterargument that he brought up was he said that he did not correct them. He said, like, the flesh is not available. He didn't say my flesh is not available, like the flesh. Yeah, he's just an idolater who's trying to make the scriptures fit what he wants so that he can sit there.

And then we had a monstrance, which is what they worship, which is a piece of the body of Christ, and they have it up in an idol thing, and then they worship it. Oh, that's bad news. Hey, buddy, call back, okay? We've got callers waiting.

We've got a break. So, hey, folks, two open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live. Taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Okay, interesting. Okay, sorry, I just got distracted right when I was clicking a button. Let's get to Robert from Iowa. Robert, welcome. You're on the air.

Good afternoon, Matt. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yes, I can. Yeah, what's up?

All right. Well, I just wanted to get your wisdom and knowledge on Revelation 12, like verse 7, where it references about the dragon and the fall of Satan. Now, Satan still, is he in heaven and his fallen angels, or are they cast down, as the text talks about? So I just kind of wanted to get your whole take on how that... Well, it's a difficult one to answer because... Because I've heard it both ways.

Yeah, there's different senses in which we can understand it. If you go to Job 1-6, it says, Now there was a day when the sons of man, excuse me, sons of man, sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. And the sons of God seemed to be the angels, and so Job, which is written well after the fall, certainly seemed to imply that Satan can get into heaven in the presence of God. It implies that.

So we're not sure when this occurs. Now, in verse 7, then there was a war in heaven, Michael and the angels waging war with the dragon, the dragon and his angels waged war. So Michael is the warrior angel, Gabriel is the messenger angel. That's just how it works.

That's their role. And the dragon apparently is Satan and his angels, the fallen angels. So there's a war that looks like it's going to happen. It's going to be a spiritual war. That's what I think so far. Okay. So we don't think that war referenced in verse 7 there has happened yet? I think it hasn't happened yet.

That's just my opinion. But you see, I am not an expert on eschatology or the book of Revelation. And yet what it says here is 1,260 days. It looks like half of the tribulation period. And so this is why some people think it's during a seven-year tribulation, that this is when it's going to happen, which makes sense.

I think there's support for that there. So is it that it? I don't know.

Yeah, I just struggle with, okay, so what's the fall look like? Is Lucifer still up in heaven with his fallen angels? Or have they been cast down to the earth, as many of the times say? You know what I'm saying? Yeah. You just cause me to remember. You cause me to remember about seven years ago I wrote a novel called The Influence. And in there I'd forgotten. I have a description of the fall from a distance where someone's watching it. Lights near a gloried light. And some of these lights turn dark and they separated from the other ones as the symbol of the fall. Interesting. I forgot about that.

But you said, what does the fall look like? And that's what brought that back. So we know that a third of the angels fell with Satan and that he was lifted up from pride. Right. So are they still roaming around and are demons in heaven right now?

I don't know. They can't be in the very place of heaven because the dwelling place of God they can't be in because of his holiness. And some say that they're in the lower heaven, which is the realm of space. And then some say the lowest heaven is the clouds and the wind area. So at the very least the demonic forces have access at least to where we are. So in this realm, and it's called the third heaven.

It's called the first heaven, the lower heaven. So it looks like that is the case. It looks like it is the case. We just can't see them. I'm just thinking. So when I die and I enter heaven do I have to bump into a demon? No, I don't believe so.

I don't believe that's the case. But I hear you. The only thing that's going to happen is that we just go straight to be with the presence of the Lord. Because the Bible says in 2 Corinthians 5 to be absent from the body is to be home with the Lord.

And so we are to be home with the Lord Jesus. And I don't believe there's any demonic thing going on and there's a struggle. And I don't think we're going to see them at all. I think if they have access to heaven it's only when God summons them and commands that they are to come. As it seems to be the case in Job 1.6. But even when it says, present themselves before the Lord, it doesn't say where that presentation was.

So we've got to be careful. So there's some unanswerable questions that you can ask about this and we can just say, Well, not sure. Here's a possibility.

Here's a possibility. And then we move on from there. Yeah, I kind of, based on the context of everything there, I kind of see that battle of Michael and Lucifer having taken place before Lucifer attempted, was in the garden. Yeah, I think so. In Eden. Yeah.

Then, and of course obviously the whole war is still, they're still taking this point of battle until the end. But I think that casting out, yes, Satan does have access to the throne. Well, I don't know. I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that. All right. I wouldn't say that.

No, no, no. You've got to be careful. You've got to be careful. Don't say he does.

You say, we don't know if he does for sure, but there's a possibility under these certain conditions. We have to qualify what we say because so many people don't do that, and then doctrines get made out of things that are just opinions. So you've got to be careful. But yeah, I hear you. So what is that gathering in Job 1?

Exactly. Where did it occur? We don't know if it was in heaven. We don't know if it was the third heaven, second or first. It doesn't tell us. I haven't looked at the context lately that it will tell you. But those are the kinds of questions you have to ask and you've got to look at.

Don't assume anything. We do know angels are present on earth. Yes, yes they are. Absolutely. The gathering could be on earth. Could be, maybe.

I don't think so, but you never know. All right, buddy. Sounds good. Well, I think that's much. Keep up the good work. Thank you very much, Matt.

Hey, Robert. No problem, man. Call back anytime.

All right. Let's get to Charlie from North Carolina. Hey, Charlie.

Welcome. You're on the air. Hello, Matthew. I have to listen to the Bible and I don't retain a lot of it. And Ruth? Was Ruth or Naomi in the genealogical line of Jesus?

Ruth was. In fact, I was just teaching on the book of Ruth last night. So I'm familiar with it in Matthew 1.5. It says, Solomon was a father of Boaz by Rahab. Boaz was a father of Obed by Ruth. And Obed was a father of Jesse. Jesse was a father of King David. So, yep.

Right. She was a Moabitess. Naomi, in that book, Naomi, God closed her wound. Did he open it back up in the end of the book? We haven't gotten there yet.

So we're still working through it. But, you know, he lost Elimelech, Naomi's husband. And, I forget the name of the other two sons died. And so Orpah left, but Ruth stayed. And Ruth became, even though she's a Moabitess, she became a Jew.

And is in the lineage of Jesus. Yep, it's Matthew 1.5 for the proof of that. Okay. Appreciate it. All right, man. Have a good one. You too, man. God bless. God bless. All right.

Hey, folks. You want to give me a call? 877-207-2276.

We actually have four open lines. So give me a call. All right.

Logan from Burlington, North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Hi. Hey, I'm kind of depressed right now. I just got a quick question, maybe some encouragement, if you can help me.

Sure. Yeah, so my family claims to be Christian, but they just completely live, you know, not Christian lifestyles. It just really makes me, you know, depressed.

And I'm just not sure what to do. Are you living with them? Yes, sir. And are they into big sin? They're just drinkers, and I don't know, it's just a question I got, maybe some encouragement, I don't know. I'm asking questions, though, but do they go to church? Yeah. They do? So they drink, because drinking is not a sin. So are they getting drunk repeatedly?

Yeah, just, you know, cussing a lot and just doing things that aren't Christian, you know, in the Christian lifestyle. All right. So you want to know what to do, how to survive it? Yeah. Okay. How to, I don't know how to help them, I don't know. I'm just in a kind of bad place right now, kind of trying to get some advice. So this is what you do.

You live as a light wherever you are. I'm going to break, and we'll continue with this, and I'll talk about what you can do. Okay?

All right. Hey, folks, we have four open lines for the last segment. Why don't you give me a call?

877-207-2276. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show.

I'm going to continue on, maybe just lost or lost connection or had to, you know, get off the phone. The things to do when we're in a situation where we're surrounded by unbelievers is, first of all, to pray and ask God for strength and to keep your eyes on him and not on your surrounding or circumstance. It's difficult, but that's what you need to do. And you also need to live as a light.

Don't compromise, but be strong. And you need to surround yourself with Christians. You need to find Christian friends you can talk to about it and be encouraged by. And you need to read the word, and you need to be in that word and read and, of course, go to church. It's just very common things. If you look at your surroundings and say, my Christianity depends on my surroundings, you've got a problem.

So when I was in different jobs, I would work as computer tech in different places. And there were two situations where the unbelievers around me noticed after a while that I didn't cuss. And I didn't participate in bad jokes and off-color jokes. And after a while, they asked me, and I told them because I'm a Christian and don't participate in those things. I didn't judge them. But the point is that the light shined, and they noticed it because they compared it to their darkness.

I never put anything on them. I told them this is where I am, and that was it. And I noticed that their behavior changed slightly when I was around, and so in a good way. So I'm just saying these kinds of things are what's needed, and so that's what you've got to do. So pray for them. Be a light. Don't participate in their ungodliness. Surround yourselves with Christians. Go to church, okay, and read the word. And that's what you've got to do.

You've got to stay strong in that, and you'll do okay. All right, Four Open Lines, if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Ray from Oak Ridge, North Carolina, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for what you do. Oh, thank you.

I am a, yes, praise God for you. I am a public school teacher, and so I've learned how to kind of love your enemies, and I've been trained by public school. And I have a question for you here, and it's where the three branches of government come from.

I've always been taught Montesquieu, the Enlightenment, but I just wanted kind of your view on this because it became very late in my career. It actually comes from somewhere else, and I trust you a lot, and I want to use you as a source actually in a public school if I don't get arrested for that. But I just wanted to see what you thought of the three branches. Wait a second. Get arrested for what? No, I'm just kidding. Are you joking? I don't think I would get arrested. I hope I'm joking.

I hope I am, but I'm just saying I want to love my enemy. I'm talking basic in the atheist-type school system. And I teach history in the Constitution, and so I've always talked about Montesquieu and Locke, but I found out from, I can't remember the guy's name, and it just right away, he said Isaiah 33, 22, about the idea of the judge and the lawgiver and the king. It's kind of like Congress the lawgiver and the judge is the court and the king is the president. And I had never heard that, and I'm now teaching the Constitution, and I want to tell the kids the real source of this is not the Enlightenment. The real source goes all the way back to Isaiah 33, 22, and I'm just wondering, is that it?

Is that what you would say about that? Well, I'm a theologian, not a historian, so I can't comment too much on it. However, I do know that you can go on the web and look up videos on the Puritans who founded this country and how they asked the ministers to go to the Scriptures and develop a form of government for the states. And they went to the Scriptures and found these things in the Scriptures. And so the three forms of government are, I believe, a response in part to the issue of the knowledge of man's depravity, because the Puritans were Calvinists, and they believed in the depravity of man and that there needed to be a means to counterbalance the depravity of man, the sinfulness, the propensity to sin. And so what they discovered in the Scriptures among many things was, let's see, where is it? Look at some of my notes. Yeah, here we go. And I got them here, but I don't want to read all the verses, but a representative form of government, that's out of Acts 21-22, so I got them like that. A representative form of government, self-governance, private property rights, the principle of liberty and freedom, capitalist principles, witnessing, fair trial, self-defense. And I'm going to look at this Isaiah 33-22.

That's very interesting. Our judge, lawgiver, and king. I don't know to what extent the pastors went through the Scriptures to find what they did, but the people who wrote the Constitution were heavily influenced by Christianity. And what the secularists want to do is strip our country and its history of its religious roots. And I think what's appropriate here at this point is the novel 1984, which I recommend people read, has to tell you that it's got sexuality in there, and the movie does, too, with full frontal and everything like that.

But if you can find a place and you can speed through stuff, whatever, I'm just warning people. But something is said in the book, and I think I'm paraphrasing it just very slightly, but he who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future. So if you're in control now, you can rewrite history, and you can make it say whatever you want in order to control people for the future. And that's what's going on. So we have liars.

We have absolute liars in the educational system and in our government. And so we have a major problem. I believe our country is going to fail. I'm a pessimist. I believe it's going to fail. I believe there's going to be Great Depression. I believe that there are going to be shortages. I believe there's going to be more and more mayhem. That's my position.

And I just hope I'm wrong, because I'd love to be wrong. But I know what depravity is, and I know what's happening. And if you've heard Biden, for example, and the absolute stupidity, the astounding stupidity, of him and his Gestapo regime is that they want to now give hundreds of thousands of dollars to illegal aliens and their families.

And the stupidity. So the government's supposed to be in checks and balances to stop this kind of acidity. But because the liberals are in all forms, there's no checks and balances, because now they're all acting out their total depravity. So there's no godliness.

So without that, we're going to fall. And this is out of the book of Judges. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes, and then God punishes them for that.

And we're getting the punishment we deserve in this country. Biden, Pelosi, Harris, Obama, Clinton, things like that. And I don't believe Trump was a bad judgment. I believe he was one of our last hopes, believe it or not, to some degree. Not everybody.

Because he did do some gun restriction stuff. But at any rate, yeah. I'm very opinionated about this stuff.

No, that's great. Can I ask you just one other quick question? Sure. Because I will tell the kids this. We talk about the Great Awakening.

And I will kind of tell the kids, I said we're in the middle of this journey ourselves. You're part of this. It's part of We the People. And are we going through a Great Awakening right now, or are we becoming very secular like Europe? A great darkening. And you think it's more the European secular? Yes.

That's what I fear. We have French relatives on my wife's side, and I've been over in France. And we've had French people here as foreign exchange students. And I can tell you that the attitude of moral looseness is entrenched in their culture and their family life. It's nothing to live with somebody.

It's nothing to do that. I can't talk about Germany, and I can't talk about England. I've not been there, don't have relatives, don't have any first-hand experience. But I can tell you about the French side.

And it's very lax. When I was over there, they had full frontal nudity commercials of women. I'm like, what? And they looked at me, and they laughed at me because I was like, are you kidding me? And they laughed because I was so American.

And it just shows you how hard they are. Do you see that happening in our culture? Yes. Oh, it's going to get worse. In our culture, in the United States, it's going to start to look like Europe. Yeah, it is. In moral relativism, it's increasing.

They use the Lord's name in vain all the time. We have more and more movies that are soft point. We have stuff that's coming out where violence is just part of what you do along with sexuality. And think about this.

How's your own reaction when you see an animal shot on screen? Oh, my goodness, that's horrible. See, a person shot is not a big deal because we've been so hardened. And so this is the kind of thing that's happening to our people. And because secularism provides an excuse, not a good one, but an excuse to be sinful and to be your own God. Christianity is difficult because it means bowing the heart and hand to God.

And so it's a more difficult lifestyle, but it's a better one. But when the unbelievers start doing what's right in their own eyes, they turn against each other. And they start doing abhorrent things. And then they take everybody else with them. And so this is what's happening. We're getting what we deserve as Christians in this country because I believe that the Christians have been sitting on their hands for too long, not doing what needs to be done, being done going door to door and living for the Lord and not gaining power and money and having these stupid moron guys on TV with perfect hair saying, I have three jets now and all this stuff. They're fleecing the body of Christ. The unbelievers look at that and notice hypocrisy. And it's just another reason not to believe.

We've got to clean out our own eyes first. Well, I really thank you. I thank you for what you do. I know it's crazy, but I do appreciate it. I listen to you about every night.

I have for a long time. I think I'm going to call him. I'm too nervous. I'm going to call him. Oh, and one more thing.

I'm glad you are. Here's one more thing to think about, which is a strategic apologetic approach in logic and truth. What's the ultimate standard of governmental righteousness?

This is something to ask the children. You can talk about the ultimate standard. There can't be two ultimate standards. You have to have something that's universally applicable to be morally correct. But if it's not universally applicable to everybody, then it's just arbitrary in the human system based upon human desires, but that can fail, which is why the founding fathers gave us a Bill of Rights that they said came from God that could not be removed. That's the idea.

Secularism removes it and says the state gives it to you, and the state can take it away, and next thing you know, you have socialism, and then you turn into Venezuela. Exactly. Yeah, I guess you know all that. There you go. That's right, buddy. Glad it is. All right, man.

We are out of time. God bless. Have a great weekend. Hey, thank you so much. All right.

Hey, sorry, Joe, we didn't get to you from Des Moines, Iowa. Call back Monday, okay? And I hope everybody will have a great weekend, go to church, pray, and pray for this ministry as well. I just really do hope that the Lord just blesses you, and may He just bless you greatly. All right, by His grace, back on the air next week. We'll talk to you then. Have a great weekend, folks. God bless. Bye.