Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Your chosen Truth Network Podcast is playing now. Your chosen Truth Network Podcast is playing now.

You can email us at schools at karm.org and we'll take care of stuff. That's all you got to do. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Yeah, it is. And I want to thank Josh. He's been great. He's a web guy.

Been doing great working on stuff and a good godly man who loves the Lord. So, you know, I warned him about working with Karm. I said, yeah, the Karm curse, you know. And let's see, I'm typing him something here. There we go. Okay. So anyway, hey, look, five open lines. Give me a call.

877-207-2276. It's a nice Friday. And last night I taught a Bible study on the book of Ruth, chapter 2. And then next week, Lord, I'm going to teach a Bible study on Ruth, chapter 3. And we put that on the web.

If people are interested, they can check it out. It's a lot of fun as we do that. Okay. Oh, yeah. Let's see. Let's see. There we go.

Because we're doing live stuff here all the time. Just, there we go. So, oh, audio.

Audio's not working. Oh, yeah. Okay.

Got to do the audio. Got to swap that out. We've got so many things going on that I often forget to flip one or two switches. There's just a lot going on. In fact, when we have meetings, usually I'm doing two or three things simultaneously. That's some of the things that I do always.

I'm always working. And that reminds me, in two hours I'll be on Discord and I'll be doing what's called an AMA, Ask Me Anything. And so that's where I go into a room. I'm invited in by atheists and agnostics and others, and they join in. They just pile in there. And then they get in line and they ask me questions and all kinds of stuff.

Christianity, evolution, UFOs, whatever it is. And we talk. And speaking of all of that, we have five open lines. Give me a call, folks. Come on.

877-207-2276. And for those of you who are new, what this is, you maybe haven't heard about this before, this show. Well, it's a Christian apologetics show.

Apologetics is a branch of Christian theology that deals with the defense and the establishment of the Christian faith. And that's what I do. So I talk about all kinds of things. And if nobody calls, I know what I'm going to do because it's very rare that people don't call that I'm going to talk about. They don't talk about Catholicism and how bad it is. Oh, it's bad. And I don't know why I enjoy talking about Roman Catholicism. All the calls are coming in. And if you're a Roman Catholic, you can continue to listen, of course.

We hope that you do. But most Roman Catholics don't know how bad Catholicism is. They don't know what it really teaches down deep in some of its official doctrines and stuff.

And I've got documentation all over the place. And the Roman Catholic Church likes to say, it's the true church. And it was founded by Jesus. And they say all this stuff, but they can't prove that. And it's not biblical to say it. They just claim it. And then they take verses out of context and say, see, this is us.

You know, it doesn't work. And then they add all kinds of stuff. And some of the stuff they have added into Christian theology, oh, my goodness, it is so contradictory to the scripture.

It's just, what? So for some reason, it's one of my favorite things to talk about. And I also think equal to that, I love talking about atheism. And I love talking to atheists.

I don't know why. I just do. I get a kick out of it. Not that I'm mocking them or anything, not that. It's just I enjoy talking to atheists. I think that they have a real problem making sense of their worldview.

What, atheism is a worldview, even though they like to say it's not, but it is. And I talk about that with them. All right. Why don't we just get on the phone and just get to Anthony from Iowa. Anthony, welcome.

You're on the air. Hi, man. Professor.

Okay. Oh, that's right. Professor.

Professor. Yeah, you know me. Yeah. Yeah. How are you, brother?

Doing fine, doing fine. I've been working hard all day on meetings, and my day won't probably end until eight or nine tonight. I usually try and quit now early by nine. I'll tell you what. You put about 36 hours worth of work into a 24 hour a day. I can just imagine that.

Yeah. You know, I talked to my wife years ago about how much I work, and I said, I'm thinking 50, 60 hours a week. And she looked at me.

She goes, oh, no, at least 70. And I'm always working. Probably. Doing stuff.

Yeah. I can't help it, you know. I mean, we've been watching TV, and I'll research stuff on my phone. And I get ideas. I go to bed, and I read. Lately, it's not so much, but I'll go read, and I'll highlight books. And then I transfer information to outlines. And even during the breaks here on the radio, I'm working on something.

So I'm just trying to do as much as I can. It's because you have an inquisitive mind. What do you mean by that? See, that's a joke. See, inquisitive mind. What do you mean by that? Okay.

Well, inquisitive mind means that you're always seeking more knowledge. Yes. You're seeking knowledge from God. Yeah. You're looking into the deeper thing. That's right. I do. In fact, last night at the Bible study, I spent some time talking about transcendentals and why atheism, as an example, cannot provide any terminus of logical foundation for presuppositions. So that was fun. I enjoyed that kind of stuff. Well, anyway, buddy, what do you got?

Well, the reason I called, I just needed a little bit of advice from you, because I can tell you a spiritual brother, really a mentor, I got. My wife's in prison. We've been separated for... She's in prison? A little over a year now. Wait. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

So she's in prison, right? You said? Yes, sir. What does she have to, if it's tellable?

Domestic abuse. Okay. Is she a Christian? Yes. Okay. All right. Go ahead. And I'm just, you know, I'm a Christian, man, and I always turn to Proverbs 3, 5, and 6, where it says, Trust in the Lord, and don't lean on your own and understand.

Don't try to figure it out, and in all your ways acknowledge Him, meaning that He's sovereign in all things, and He's going to show you which way to go, right? That's correct. That's correct. Yes. So what's your question?

Well, my question is, do you have any advice for me on how to get through this? Through what? I'm in my law. Okay.

So through the ID? I'm just missing my, I'm missing my wife a lot, and I'm praying for her, and that she'll be safe and be okay, and I've never been separated from my wife for this long of a time, man. How long, how much longer has she got?

About another six months. Okay. Is she going to go through anger management and domestic abuse management stuff after she gets out?

Yeah, she's going through that while she's there. Okay. Was her abuse against you? Yes. Okay.

It wasn't on my side, no. Okay. So what needs to happen is, you are going to church, right? Yes.

Right? Are you going to church? Yes.

Okay. So your elders need to be involved in this. You need to talk to them and have at least one elder that you talk to about this.

And then you keep records of who you talk to. There's nothing too detailed, just on this date, you talk to Matt's looking at the radio and he gave advice to contact the elders, you know, just things like that. And when you talk to the elders, you want to say, what do I do, and then the advice that they give you. And this is my advice, is for you to go to the elders because the elders are there, supposed to be able to teach truth and refute error and also do some measure of counseling. So with that, the things you need to be doing is praying for her deliverance from this problem. And there needs to be a boundary set that if this reoccurs, you will call the police. You will do what's necessary and she'll go back. And it needs to be very clear that this is not acceptable. And Matt, Matt, see that, see, that's been the situation because, uh, this last time was the fourth time that was actually recorded in, uh, police history, so to speak.

This had happened. We've been together for 12 years. We've been married for seven.

You've got to be staying to me and I'm not going to stay over the air, but you everything you're a dumb, but for marrying somebody that's abusive and all I can say is I love her. Okay. I love her and I've totally forgiven her. I've got, I've got a forgiving heart, brother.

Oh, okay. But I'm just trying to tell you that what you need to be doing is to be focusing on her repentance because if she's done this and she's got jail time to it, hopefully she's learning her lesson in jail, but if she's not, but if she's not, you're going to find out and you need to let her know the elders need to be involved so that when she gets out of church, gets out of there, it gets out of prison. And then, uh, we have to have a meeting with the elders and, uh, you know, when she gets out, you've got to give her a couple of three days, four days a week, whatever it is. And I'm going to let it or let her know, uh, ahead of time before she gets out, there's going to be a meeting and there's going to be stipulations. And then if she violates any of these, you're going to call the police again.

And she knows what that means and that she's required to be required to go through anger. What I was going to say, Matt is, um, what the problem has been in the past. And we've both been, okay, it's alcohol has always been involved.

Didn't know I was a drug. You're going to get it all out of your house. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. That's right.

And you get it out of the house. Here's the thing. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. But, but here's the thing.

When we were, I went for three years without drinking and then like a dummy, uh, on our anniversary on that, we were riding by and I drank a beer and then there I went again. But I'm not a violent man. I'm not, I mean, okay. Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. And what you need to focus on this issue, you need to focus on one thing at a time.

And the alcohol's a problem. It should not be in the house anymore. Period. Yes, sir. I agree. Yes. Okay. Absolutely.

She has to understand that that's an issue too. It's gone. And you have to go to church. Yeah. It's gone. You have to go to church.

The elders need to be involved. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right.

I appreciate your advice my brother. All right buddy. All right. Thank you.

I love you. Okay, man. God bless.

God bless you. All right. We'll see you. All right. Hey folks, if you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. We'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. We have three open lines.

Let's get to weather from North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air. Hi. I'm actually on the car right now.

I pulled over to talk to you. I'm just going to ask you a question and listen to your answer, if that's okay. All right. I just wanted to hear you talk about the Odyssey and why God allows bad things to happen if he's perfect, like omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Yeah, thanks.

Because he desires to let things happen to us. Whoops. We lost her. Hold on. I got to hit that button. There we go off.

Maybe she'll call back, hopefully. We can talk about it. This is called theodicy. It's a category called the problem, the topic of evil. Why do bad things happen to people in the world? Well, they happen because, for one thing, it's God's desire to allow them to happen. Another thing is because sin is in the world, and sin, like trickle-down effect, sin results in various things. My wife has a genetic deformity.

I have Asperger's. We have people who drive fast and then get in a crash and kill someone else, and then someone else didn't do anything wrong. This kind of thing happens in the world. God permits it.

One of the reasons I suspect that he permits it is because we have what's called federal headship, or the males do, in the representation. We're made in the image of God, both male and female, Genesis 1 26 to 28. We are representatives of God on the earth. If we submit to God, things work out.

If we don't, things don't. Sin, by allowing sin to happen in the world and the consequences of sin to happen in the world, God can then demonstrate how bad sin is and how its effects on other people occur, why there's injustices, how things are unfair. And then also, one of the things is that he uses sin for his greater glory. The best example of this is dealing with the crucifixion of Christ.

The Jews lied, and the Romans executed him, and people bore false witness against him. These are all bad things. And yet, through the bad things, the atonement of Christ's work on the cross bought us salvation. So, God often uses bad things in the world to bring about greater good. A lot of times what we think is, no, God should not, or ought not, let bad things happen to, so to speak, good people.

There are no good people, but that's another topic. And when they say God ought to or ought not, then what they're saying is they understand a moral station that God himself does not and needs to abide in. And so people will often say, well, the God of the Bible can't be right or can't be wrong because, and they'll give me a moral reason.

They'll say, well, who are you to give such a standard that is universally applicable to all people and to God himself? So people, what they'll do a lot of time to submit God to their own preferences and say, well, this is a bad thing that shouldn't happen. Well, why shouldn't it happen? To ask why things happen, that's okay.

To say that they shouldn't happen, that's not okay. But to ask why they happen, then what we do, as I've already been saying, is we postulate ideas that God uses bad things to bring about greater good. Also, bad things are the effect of sin in the world and the trickle-down effect of sin in all kinds of areas. And God will often use those kinds of things, even though they're difficult to go through, to teach us and to mold us and to shape us. And one of the examples I use is my wife and I, about 27 years ago, buried our son, Jacob. And he was born with a birth defect and it killed him. And they discovered the birth defect in the womb. And so I remember being in the room when the doctor, nurse, whoever it was, came in and informed us that our son probably would not survive birth and gave us the option for abortion, right then and there. And I am so tickled.

I still remember this. I'm so proud of my wife. She's the one carrying this child. And she said, we will not do that.

Don't ever bring it up again. And I just, I'm so proud of her. And so in that bad thing that happened, I gained a new respect for my wife.

And she witnessed to her, the nurse lady, we kind of told no more Christians, we don't do this. And so there's some good there. Plus there was some other good that came out of it, so to speak.

And we could talk about the other thing, but you get the point. And so the issue is that the blend of why things happen in the world, the blending of the answer is it's really never just one thing. It's usually a mosaic of reasons. God allows it because he desires to. There's a greater good for his greater glory. It shapes us, molds us and breaks us so that we're more dependent upon him. God can use such bad things for his greater glory, for example, the crucifixion and things like that.

And what we need to do is move through them. And as I had been teaching to the book of Ruth, for example, Elimelech, who was in Israel, took his sons during a famine and went to the land of Moabite. That was a pagan area. And then they married Moabite as women. And then what happened was Elimelech and his two sons died. And so three sons died and all of them died. And Naomi, the wife, came back to Israel with Ruth, who was one of the brides of one of the sons. And they came back and Ruth became one of the women in the genealogy of Jesus.

And so God is able to use famines and deaths and all kinds of things for a long term, down the road, greater good that we often don't even remember and aren't even aware of. So there you go. There's some of the stuff. Let's get on to Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, welcome. You're on the air. Hello, Matt, thank you very much for taking my call.

And thank you for inviting me to call. I have a question about Matthew 22. Starting in verse 17, it reads, Tell us therefore what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt me, ye hypocrites?

Show me the tribute, money, and they brought him a penny. He said, Whose image and inscription, subscription? They said, Caesar's. He said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God things which are God's. I've heard you say a couple of times over the last couple of weeks, that everything is under the Lordship of Christ. Isn't this verse a clear demarcation that there are some things that are not?

No, everything is. Did he not say give to Caesar what is Caesar's? That means the Lordship of Christ is telling us what to do, even in that situation. Wow. Is it not true? Did Jesus give?

Did you just give instruction on what to do in that category? Absolutely. The demonstration of his Lordship. He made a clear demarcation of the kingdom of Caesar and the kingdom of God. So you mean Jesus is not Lord over even the secular realm? Well, according to the scripture, I think it's a pretty clear demarcation. Okay, so you think it's a demarcation when he says give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

He's talking the context of the lawfulness which God has himself set up all governmental systems, which demonstrates his sovereignty over them as well. So hold on, we've got a break coming up. We'll get back to it. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned.

877-207-2276. 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. If you want to give me a call, three open lines, 877-207-2276. Let's get back to Ryan from Pennsylvania.

Welcome, you're on the air. Thank you. Yeah, like you say, we were looking at Matthew 22, and I think it's pretty clear that Jesus is showing a demarcation between the things that are Caesar's and things that are God's. Things are God's, you said? Yeah, that's what it says in the verse. Jesus is God. Right.

So, yeah. Yeah, so you keep talking about the lordship of Christ is over everything. This verse seems to show that there is a clear demarcation between the things that are of God and the things that are Caesar's. Oh, the things of God and the things of Caesar's. So the things of Caesar's has to do with the government, right?

Right. Okay, and in Romans 13.1, there's no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. So did God establish those governmental systems? Okay, so you're once again taking something from Romans and imposing it upon Matthew? No, I didn't impose it upon Matthew. I said, does Romans teach that God establishes the governmental systems?

Sure. Okay, so is God Lord over what he establishes? Well, according to this, there is a clear demarcation between what is Caesar's and what is God's. So is God Lord over all that he creates?

Well, according to this, there is a clear demarcation between the two. Okay, here's a question. It's a different question. Is God Lord of all that he creates? That's the question. Either yes or no.

Sure. And the answer is yes, and since he created the government that is under his lordship and Jesus is God, so is lordship. And so he's not saying that he's not Lord over Caesar. He just says render the Caesar what Caesar's and things that are God that are God. And there is a division between the secular and the sacred.

Absolutely there is, but it doesn't mean the secular is excluded from the Christian's obligation to live properly in the secular realm and submit even the secular authorities to the word of God. Well, if you are correct in your interpretation of Romans 13, that means that God has also established communism, socialism, dictatorship, fascism, and a whole variety of other governmental systems that have been highly destructive over human history. Well, what we're saying here is that God is the one who institutes all systems.

Everything is under his lordship. What is done in them and with them and through them is the failure and responsibility of the individuals. The biblical pattern of government is of representation and private property, self-defense, things like that. This is the biblical position. Communism, as an example, which negates that, works against scripture, but God certainly allows these things to work in his sovereignty and he is Lord over all of them. And even those inside of the communist rule are to subject what they do inside of communism to the lordship of Jesus Christ. According to the Bill of Rights, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights establishes freedom of religion and freedom of speech, correct? Yes.

Okay. Is that not an explicit contradiction to the first three of the Ten Commandments, that you shall have no other gods before you and she shall not take the Lord's name in vain? You mean having freedom of speech and freedom of religion? And freedom of religion, yeah. We don't have freedom of religion according to the Ten Commandments.

We don't have freedom of speech because we can't take the Lord's name in vain and we can't worship any other god other than him. You're making a mistake of thinking that what God prescribes is also what he ordains in the same sense. Because what he's doing in Exodus 20 in the Ten Commandments is talking about the moral obligation of all people and specifically talking to the covenant Israel, not having any other gods before him. The Constitution, however, is a secular document and says that you can worship whoever and whatever you want. God even allows that in the Old Testament. He allows people to worship false gods.

That's their choice. Haven't you said before that the Constitution is based upon the Bible? A lot of it was, yes. Well, so the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is an explicit contradiction of the Ten Commandments and that still comes from the Bible? The context of the Bill of Rights or the freedom of religion was in contradiction and standing against the oppressive rule of a state church from a pagan governmental system out of England. That's why it was established like that. We have the right of our own free religious expression. It's not a perfect expression of the biblical truth.

Nothing ever is. Well, my point is still the same. All people ought to worship the true and living God, but he certainly allows them not to, as is well evidenced and documented in the Old Testament. Well, but my point is still the same. We have the freedom of religion and freedom of speech according to the Constitution, but we don't have the option of freedom of speech and freedom of religion according to the Ten Commandments.

They're explicitly not today. Where does it say the Ten Commandments that you're to stop anybody from worshiping a false god? Thou shall have no other gods before me. Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain. It's the moral statement of moral truth. That's right.

That's what you should be doing. It's called prescriptive will. Are you familiar with the decorative, prescriptive, and permissive will of God?

Yes, I am. And, of course, they're explicitly contradictory. Okay.

We've had discussions before and you think you're logical in a lot of areas and you're not. And the decorative, prescriptive, and permissive wills of God are not contradictory. It's in the Trinitarian context. While eternal decrees of God, he certainly permits certain things to occur, just like he permitted the crucifixion to occur, which was a violation of Levitical law. Well, according to the Canons of Dorit and the Westminster Confession of Faith, everything that occurs occurs because God has willed it to occur.

Absolutely. Because we have the decorative will, the prescriptive will, and the permissive will. Nothing occurs unless it's by the will of God. If that is true, then all evil, all sin, and all suffering is because God is responsible for it. No, no, no. Now you need to study the difference between ultimate causation, proximate causation, and efficient causation. It doesn't matter.

If everything occurs, it occurs according to the will of God. Do you understand what the differences are between those three things? Yes, I do. Okay. Can you explain what the difference between the proximate and the efficient cause is right now? Well, as I said, I understand them, but I'm not going to describe it. My point is still the same. Okay. So apparently you don't know what they are, and you have to understand these.

The difference between the efficient and the proximate causation is one of culpability. So you need to study this. It's an issue that we discuss in Christian theology and apologetics, and it's a level. You're intelligent, and I'm not mocking you.

You are. You should be able easily to understand these things and then see where the issue lies. And you also should look up on Carm the issue of who numbered Israel because David numbered Israel. Satan moved him to number Israel. The anger of the Lord moved him to number Israel, and yet David was the one responsible who sinned. Well, nonetheless, if the Westminster Confession of Faith is correct in saying that all things occur according to God's will, then God is responsible for all evil, all suffering, and all sin. Well, the Bible says that God works all things after the counsel of his will. Do you agree with that verse in Ephesians 1-11? God works all things after the counsel of his will?

Well, if that is true, then there is an explicit contradiction. Do you agree with that statement, that God works all things after the counsel of his will? Do you agree or disagree with that statement in Scripture? Does the Scripture say that?

Yes, it does. Then you have to admit that God works all things, even evil things, according to the counsel of his will, correct? Well, again, if you're going to talk about logic, which is what I'm talking about, then that is logic.

Logic is what I just asked you, and I'm asking you to answer it. Also, having been obtained in inheritance, having been predestined according to its purpose, he works all things after the counsel of his will. Does all things include evil things? Sure, of course. Okay, so then he works even evil things after the counsel of his will.

So the problem you have is not understanding the difference between the ultimate cause, the proximate cause, and the efficient cause, as well as the decretive will, prescriptive will, and the permissive will. This is where you study these, the problems will become evident, and you need to study them. And we need to move along because we've got a break coming up, okay?

So Ryan, study those, that's what you need to do. All right, let's get on to CJ from Boise. Hey, welcome, you're on the air. Yeah, thanks for taking my call. Sure, man.

Where you go? So I wanted to actually ask about middle knowledge because I am a compatibilist myself, so I am reformed. Good. But I kind of, I don't understand what the big hubbub is about with the idea of middle knowledge to kind of explain. It seems to me like I will form it. Let's get back after the break. Formulate your question, we'll tackle it.

We'll talk about middle knowledge, okay? All right. Hey, folks, 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. Three open lines, 877-207-2276. Let's get to CJ.

You still there? Yes, sir. All right.

All right, we got the break there. So middle knowledge, okay, so what's the issue with it? So my kind of question is, so I am also, like I said, reformed and also an apologist, so I talk to you about it quite a lot. And a lot of apologists I hear who are also reformed kind of seem to have, like, this huge issue with, like, the idea that God could possibly know the counterfactual. But it seems to me like I almost just grant, sure, Molinism could totally exist, because I feel like it only works on a reformed model.

Molinism has problems, because it uses libertarian free will and imposes that into the foreknowledge of God, and that's a problem, because it denies total depravity. Well, and so I do understand that there is issues there, right? But to kind of illustrate what part of my problem is, like, could you, well, are you familiar with the genre of, like, alternate history? Yeah, you mean fiction, yeah, like an alien group comes in and takes over Nazi Germany and, yeah, there's a novel about that, it's supposed to be really good, yeah.

Yeah, I'm actually quite a fan, and some of them, right, they'll, you know, just be kind of, you know, regular, like, they just want to ask a question, like, you know, what if Napoleon didn't follow Waterloo or something like that, and they just make a fiction out of it, right? And the, you know, point is that these guys really good at history and all that, they can speculate on this counterfactual. It seems to me like, as man could speculate on that counterfactual, that God would know that counterfactual.

Well, let's back up, let's back up. So, before the creation of the universe, God has existed, and he has all knowledge, there's no place where he can gain knowledge under any condition. And the condition includes any possibility of existence, which ultimately couldn't exist unless God decided to bring it into existence. So, before anything was made, breathing in the phone or something, before God made anything, he knew all things that were potential. The only thing actual at that time was himself, and so he would know in the interscenitarian eternal communion all things about himself exhaustively. He would therefore also know all things potential that could exist if he were to bring it into existence.

He brought then, let's just say, one of those eternal threads into existence. So, out of an infinite number, potentially an infinite number of possible existences, he actualized one of them. But he would know all potential existences because that's his requirement inside of his omniscience. Middle knowledge or counterfactuals would then fall into this category. They're natural to God, because the natural knowledge of God says that he knows all things that are possible and logically necessary. And if he knows all things possible, then he knows all the counterfactuals as well. Right, exactly. And then my point there with that is, if we could affirm that God definitively knows the counterfactuals, wouldn't it be a better argument just to say, I can grant middle knowledge exists, but it only works on a reformed model rather than think middle knowledge doesn't exist? I would say it's not because of a reformed model, but middle knowledge exists because, biblically speaking, God knows all things actual as potential. That's all.

It's just part of his essence. We have to further discuss with the doctrine of and the depth of the nature of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, I know that you're there in Boise. I don't know if you go to Josh's church or where you go to the well or whatever. But I'd be willing to meet with you guys, and we can just have a big discussion about this.

Sit someplace, have coffee, and talk about it. But the idea here is that we have to understand the difference between actuality and potentiality, but all actualities were potential. And God acted upon the potentiality to bring it into existence. And so, therefore, all middle knowledge, all counterfactuals are part of God's eternal knowledge.

But God has actualized only one. The problem with middle knowledge, or what's going to be with Mullenism, is it affirms libertarian free will. And therefore, it says part of God's knowledge in the future is what free will creatures will do, whether they'll receive Christ or not.

Well, we know, as Reformed people, that's never going to happen. So it cannot be part of the potential possible knowledge of God or potential knowledge of God in a realm where He knows all possible events. It cannot be a possibility where the knowledge would include that which is impossible. The impossible is that unbelievers of their own free will without the assistance of God would believe in God, because this is not possible.

We know that from the script for Revelation, the total depravity. So, Mullenists error in that side saying that that's why they assume libertarian free will and not compatibilist free will, and that's where the problem is. The main problem. Make sense? So would it be, absolutely, and I actually think that it sounds like we largely agree here, so would it be safe to say when debating with a Mullenist that while I accept the philosophical premise of middle knowledge, I do not accept the philosophical idea that is Mullenism? Right. What I do with Mullenists is I say, look, I don't accept your libertarian position. That's what it comes down to.

They want to presuppose the validity of human free will that works in concert with the sovereignty of God, but in a libertarian sense, which is non-restricted by total depravity. That's unbiblical. That's why Mullenism falls apart. And I totally agree with you on that one. We should definitely meet up for a conversation, actually, at some point.

That would be cool. You're always looking to go over to the Bible study here on Thursdays, too. I'll meet up there.

I don't know what church you go to. Have we met before? Well, we have talked before. I've called in on the program. I've also emailed before.

I don't know if you've read it yet, just because I know you get a million at a time. But I was talking about potentially, because I want to get a return to formal in-person debates, because I think they're much more edifying. And so I actually had an email asking if you would be interested in a debate on whether or not crititarians and modalists are brothers. They're not. Because I do believe that they are. No, they're not.

They can be brothers incidentally through their ignorance, but not when you get to the level of knowledge where the Trinitarian view is denied and the true incarnation is also denied, because they get into the Nestorian error. I don't know if you know what that is, but we can talk about that. Well, if you are interested, and don't get me wrong, I don't want to bring it on you in the middle of a radio show, but if you're interested, I would be interested in doing a formal debate on it. Number one, to get a return to in-person debate, but also number two, I do think it's an important issue, and I do quite respect your ministry. Sure. Well, I think instead of just a formal debate, we should just sit and talk sometime and explain to you that in-depth necessity, the Trinitarian covenant, the covenantal aspect and the redemptive work, and also why the oneness position actually denies the atonement.

Well, yeah, I'd certainly be interested in that as well. Now, that's not to say that every oneness person understands this, because I believe people can be saved in different levels of understanding. So what I do is I say, theologically speaking, if anyone holds this theological perspective, they can't be a true believer. Because we could get into the issue of, if you know what Nestorianism is, you know, the two persons in the one body of Christ. Well, and then the divine person was talking to the human person. Well, then if Jesus is incarnate, then how is he incarnate in light of the hypostatic union that was called the communicatio idiomatum? And then who's talking to who, and how is it a true incarnation? And it gets more complicated, but it then weakens the idea of the incarnation and the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice. And I'll be debating this, the Trinity, with the oneness guy in a couple of weeks. I've been debating a lot of them on oneness. And we need to do the necessary ramifications soteriologically also.

But if you want to get together, we can plan. Who are you debating this time, actually? I'm curious.

I don't know. Some bishop. And he's a bishop guy. He's supposed to be some bigwig.

Let me see if I can find out who it is with. Yeah, I saw your Stacey Tuberville one. And I thought you did an excellent job, but I thought Stacey Tuberville was, even for his own position, just awful. So I hope this was a lot better in that sense. Yeah, there's some other views I can bring against modalism. For example, the issue of the one and the many. And then the issue of the manifestation of the full personhood in an eternal sense. How does God manifest full personhood with one person existing for eternity in the past?

There is no full manifestation of it. And that's a problem. And then there's the issue of solitude, because if we're made the image of God, Genesis 1.26, and we are in torture if we're alone, that's it. I mean, they put you in a room with no light, no heat, no this, no that, just food. They put you in no fellowship.

It's torture. And is God like that when God has this? In that similar situation, who was he fellowshipping with eternally? The oneness people don't have answers for this. They can't solve these problems. And then there's the issue of the one and the many, which is more philosophical, which you can get into the nature of transcendentals and particulars, and how only the Trinitarian view can provide the necessary precondition for such intelligibility where oneness cannot.

This gets more complicated as stuff, but I can talk to you about it sometime if you want. Yeah, and I'll just end with this sort of one idea, because you did mention historianism, and this sort of hammers my big objection with whether or not certain folks are brothers or not brothers. And this is just one example, but if you look at the history of Christianity and persecutions, one of the most famous eras of Christian martyrdom and mass is actually Japan in the 1600s, where they were just going around slaughtering it in some of the most vicious ways that have ever been done. Like 70%. Like all the Christians who were there. They obliterated their own population. But the thing is, though, you start to look at those guys, right, and all of these, or at least an overwhelming majority of these Japanese Christians are historians, almost to a man.

It almost seems like the orthodox idea of the hypostatic union doesn't even exist on Japan, and also in China as well, although China doesn't get as much popularity because it's not quite as persecuted. There's a difference in the level of understanding in certain areas. You can be saved in varying levels of ignorance, and that's something I've always taught. But we'd have to get into that, okay? Oh, we don't have a call waiting, so it's just you and me, the rest of the show. Hi.

Okay. So I guess that'll be like a couple minutes, though, isn't it? See, could someone be saved not knowing the physical resurrection of Christ? I'd say, yeah, of course they could. It's possible. Once they come to understand it, they'll accept it because they're regenerate. Can you be saved without understanding the doctrine of the Trinity?

Yeah, of course you can. It's just that people come to a knowledge of this stuff. When you have official doctrines like oneness or modalism, modal monarchism, and this is an official position. This needs to be condemned as damnable heresy. It doesn't mean that every oneness person is going to hell. It means that the doctrine itself will lead to further errors. It leads to ultimately the deficiency in the person of the incarnation of Christ, and that affects the nature of the atoning work.

This is why it's so serious, and so that's why it on that level needs to be denounced. But if I meet a oneness person, I don't assume right away that they're going to hell. I just say maybe they still understand stuff.

Maybe they just don't know. All right? Another question I guess I would want to ask too, and I know it's a little bit too deep for me to pursue the other one, so I'd appreciate your answer and I'll leave it there, but just another quick question before your time's up. Sure.

So there's the issue of, I as a reformed person think that the libertarian free will position, if followed to its logical conclusion, goes so far as to completely change the very nature of God. Potentially, at the very least, it's eteriologically synergistic, but we've got to get going because there's a break. I mean, there's the end of the show. So email me, buddy, okay? Yeah, absolutely. All right, man, God bless.

Hey, that was CJ from Boise. I love talking like that. A lot of fun. We had fun on that last few minutes on Friday here. Hey, everybody, have a great weekend. May the Lord bless you. We'll talk to you on Monday.