Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the following program. on the weekend sometime, and why it's interesting, I think, is that I go into different avenues of discussion. I go to Clubhouse, I go to Discord, I go to an Oculus, you know, Oculus, it's that 3D thing you put over your eyes, and I go to different places, and the goal is to find Christians to talk with and uplift and also to witness to unbelievers. And my goal mainly is to present the gospel to unbelievers, and so I'll go to different venues, different rooms, different this, different that, and I went to a place on something called Clubhouse, and I went into a Muslim room because it was a challenge, the title was A Challenge Against Christianity, and I went in there, and oh, you know, questions are easily answered and there are complaints, so I get on there, and I start saying, well, here's the answer to that, and I'll tell you, talk about rude, condescending, and insulting. The Muslims, and I went to different rooms, rude, I mean rude, if you don't answer exactly the way they want you to answer, they interrupt you and tell you to answer the question the way they want. And I say, no, I'm trying to answer, and then they interrupt. They don't care about just civil discourse, they don't care about, well, let me answer it according to how I think I need to answer.

No, they don't do that. And then what they do is they take a verse of scripture and they rip it out of its context and say that they know what it means, and therefore, Christianity's false. So when I go to answer them, they refuse to be taught. When they ask questions about Christ, and I start explaining his two natures, they say it's not true. I says, well, I'm just giving you the Christian position, and as I'm starting to do that, they interrupt and demand something else. And this is pretty much how Muslims are. The only group that's treated to be worse than them are basically the Universalists, but that's another topic.

Well, the Satanists, too, I guess. They tried to kill me, tried to, but they almost tried to. But at any rate, the thing is, I went to an Oculus, which is, they put the headset on and you go to different rooms and you have avatars, and I go to these rooms and they have, atheists are everywhere, and so I create, or I mean, I went into a room on atheism. I just sit there. And I try not to say too much. I wanna listen to what they're saying. Now, as you know, I have a bit of a distinctive voice.

And so when I'm talking, people notice my voice initially. And so I try not to say too much. I just go in and listen, and then they'll say something that just, I've gotta say something about it.

I gotta respond. They'll say something that's just not true about Christianity or God. And I'll just say, well, excuse me, can I respond to that? And they all stop talking, and, you know, because of my voice. And I get comments about that, and that's kind of an interesting thing.

You use what you can for the glory of God, and then I start to say, well, I can answer that. And they say, well, okay, and I start giving them answers. And one of the things I have learned is that at least those people in that venue, they can't think rationally. And I mean critical thinking is out the window. They are not able to think critically. I have to explain basic logic to them, basic logic when it comes to thinking, and then they argue with it.

And I mean basic stuff, and I have to go back to kindergarten level and go one step by a step. And the goal, of course, is to bring them, hopefully, and ultimately, to an understanding of who Christ is and what he's done. But I'll tell you, it's an uphill battle. And so I go to different venues, and Discord is another one I'll go into, and I go to Facebook, and there's, there are all kinds of obstreperous people out there who are insulting and demeaning, condescending, demanding, rude, interruptive. And on Discord, people know who I am there, so when I'm allowed to speak, people generally listen, and we have nice conversations for the most part.

But, for the most part. But, you know, there's a better, I think a better class of individuals as far as intellectual understanding and training goes that are on Discord and stuff. So here I am doing different things, different ways, and I go on to one venue, and I forgot the name of it, and I went in, and they were discussing Romans chapter nine. And so I'm listening, you know, this'll be interesting, and they're discussing Romans nine, and the gentleman who was discussing it was reading it, and then commented perfectly on it, what it said. And then he tied in some other verses about it, and brought those in, and I was like, wow. What a refreshing thing to hear, that someone take the word of God, believe the word of God, and then explain the word of God. And I got in there, and we were talking, and I just said, what a brush of fresh air it is. Because what I do so often is I go out into the deep end of the heresy pool, and I'm wading around with the unbelievers, trying to do my part to bring them to faith by God's grace, and it's very, very difficult.

It's a lot of work, and it's very challenging. And so to hear people speak lovingly, patiently, kindly of the things of God, it's just, it was nice, and that happened this weekend. I got to meet some new brothers and sisters in Christ who love the Lord and aren't afraid of the word of God, or the sovereignty of God, or the majesty of God, and praised him for it, and it was a nice refresher. So that's what I was doing this weekend, among other things, as usual. Well, there you go. I just thought I would blab a little bit. We have four open lines if you wanna give me a call.

877-207-2276, Bruce from Utah. Welcome, you're on the air. Howdy, Matt. Thank you for being a constant inspiration for us trying to keep on, keep it on in the faith.

Appreciate it. Well, by God's grace. So praise God.

So what do you got? Yes. Well, so as believers, we believe that God has forgiven us, past, present, and future. Thank God for that. And we're also told to confess our sins daily, understandable for all screw-ups. I guess, I'm just curious on your thoughts, as we confess daily, that we also ask for forgiveness daily, or live with the assumption we've already been forgiven, and just thank him for that forgiveness. Yeah, there's something called a now and a not yet.

And so let me introduce a concept, and we'll talk about that a little bit. And it says here in Romans 8.29, it says, for those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren, and those who be predestined he also called, and those who be called he also justified, and these to be justified he also glorified. Now, all of these are in the past tense, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Glorification is a future event, but it's spoken of in the past tense. It's our glorified bodies, resurrection. And he's talking about justification.

They are justified. Now, this is future to, when this is written, it's future to me and to you. There is a sense in theology where it's called the now and the not yet. And so when Paul was writing this, that was now for him, but it was not yet for me, but it's true for me. And so me and others, you, we are considered glorified because of our place in Christ.

And so there's a condition when it's all taken care of, but it's not yet manifested, the now and the not yet. When we go to the issue of the forgiveness of sins, we go to Colossians 2.14, and we see there that Jesus canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and he's taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. So the certificate of debt deals with the sin debt because we break the law, the decrees.

They're against us. And so those decrees don't lie, don't steal. These things for us, the debt that's incurred by our breaking those laws is canceled at the cross. Well, that was done 2,000 years ago. You could also go to Romans chapter six, six, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him.

Oh, wait a minute. I wasn't alive when he was crucified, but our old self was crucified with him. And it says in verse eight, we have died with Christ. Well, when did he die?

2,000 years ago. Here's some more of what we see called the now and the not yet. So now we understand that our sins have been canceled at the cross, but we're justified when we believe. And therefore, when we go to 1 John 1, nine, if we confess our sins, he's faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins. Now in one sense, it means to the unbeliever, if you confess your sins, he'll forgive you.

But in another sense, it's for you and me. Because ultimately, back then, all of our sins are canceled and forgiven. And yet, daily, we walk and we fail, we sin and we ask for forgiveness of sins. So what we're doing is we're confessing our dependence and necessity for trust in Christ. Yet we're also realizing theologically, if we're astute enough, that the sin debt's already been canceled and paid for 2,000 years ago.

So there's this now and not yet. Ultimately, it's all taken care of and sin is removed. But for us in the now, what we do is go through those motions and the actuality of confessing our sins because it helps restore fellowship. It is a place of humility. It is a place of growth and dependence upon God.

And in these things, we manifest the now and the not, yet theologically and experientially. I don't know if that helps, but does it? It does, it does. I wish I had your kind of a memory, I really do. What'd you say? I've studied this God's word for a lot of years and I usually can't remember what I had for breakfast and I eat the same thing every day.

Same here, same here. But you see what I'd- I appreciate. I do something different than most- I understand what you're saying. Good, but I just want to let you know, people think that I'm really smart and it's not the case. So if you were to move to Argentina, do you think you'd be fluent in a year speaking Spanish in Argentina?

No. Yeah, you would. I don't know, I don't think I would be in a year, no. Okay, well, you never know, but it takes roughly six months of immersion, six to eight months for a person to learn the language.

You and I were probably older, probably take eight to nine or ten. But the point is, we would learn it because that's what we would do. You're in it. And if someone said, oh, you're so smart for learning Spanish, you'd say, well, not really.

I really struggled and I failed, but here I- but I speak it because I was in it all the time. That's all it is for me. I just do it all the time and that's all it is. So, not a- Yeah, I understand. All right, okay, brother? Thank you so much, Matt.

I really appreciate your answers. All right, man. Well, God bless. Hey, we'll talk to you later, Ty. All right. Bye-bye. All right, everybody.

That was Bruce from Utah. Hey, we'll be right back. We have four open lines. Want to give me a call? 877-207-2276, please. Give me a call. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Just so you know, in the chat room, people talk during the break.

We have a good time, you know, the text. And someone said, I explain things well. I said, that's because I've got so many problems that finally the truth squeezes out among all of those. They brought up the issue of being cracked and are broken vessels. And I literally, right now, I'm holding up and putting it in the picture.

You can't see it because you're on radio, but on the live stream on StreamYard, that goes into Facebook and it goes into YouTube. I'm holding a legitimate ancient wine goblet. And it's from 330 BC, 330 BC.

And I got it years and years and years ago. And it's broken, has cracked and missing pieces. And for some reason, I love the way it looks.

And it reminds me of me. And as most of us are broken vessels, but it can surely be appreciated in the eye of the beholder. And our Lord is the one who loves us and sees us as broken vessels, but can certainly use us as broken vessels. So praise God and give glory to him. Let's get to Nicholas whom we lost and we have no callers waiting right now. And the question had something to do with either 1 John 3.9 or John 3.9.

So I'm not sure what, it didn't say 1 John, but John 3.9. So if anybody wants to talk about baptism, because I think it might be in the issue there of baptism, which reminds me of some other stuff to talk about with Ethan Orthodox and some stuff. But if you wanna give me a call, folks, five open lines, 877-207-2276. So if you want, if you wanna join us, I'm gonna go to actually the CARM website. If you wanna join us online and watch, not that it's a big deal. Let's see, I'm gonna try it right now. Let's see if all our notes are, we changed something recently. I'm gonna see if it's updated.

So watch Matt's look live. I'm clicking on it and let's see if it's working. And I don't think it is. Nope, it's not working. So I'm gonna have to see if I can fix that today. Someone said I'm hilarious when I read hate mail.

That's from the last week. I love doing hate mail, I do. I get such a kick out of it.

Hate mail, I love it. So at any rate, so if you wanna give me a call, folks, please do, 877-207-2276. So if you're interested in checking out the video part of this show, all you gotta do is go to Facebook. Go to CARM Facebook or Facebook, just type in CARM org and you'll see the video stuff and people can get in and they can chat or so.

Let's see, send 200 stars to see your comment here on Facebook. And I'm doing a lot of research on varying ways of outreach. TikTok and Instagram. If any of you are experts out there on those and you wanna kinda coach me through some stuff, give me some advice, please, you can contact me at info at CARM.org. I plan to try some videos this week and start doing something, some new stuff. I've also got a couple articles I'm gonna be working on too, thanks to some unbelievers and the way they were objecting to certain things in Christianity. I'm gonna be writing an article.

One of the things that the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics do is like to say that we don't have the right to interpret scripture on our own. And I was in a place listening to them talk about that and I love it when it happens. They would say certain things and I'd write out an answer, type it out, not for them, but for me. And then they'd say something else, I'd type in what they said and then I'd type in and it's helping me form an article and I love that.

So for me, it's a lot of fun, but we'll see. All right, 877-207-2276. We have four open lines, give me a call. Let's get to Anthony from Virginia. Anthony, welcome, you're on the air.

Hey, Matt. Last week, I heard you in a conversation say something that really baffled me, that a person cannot know truth unless the infinite God revealed it to them. Now, was that a misstatement or an inaccurate statement or is that what you meant to say? Truth can ultimately only be known if God reveals it to you. A person can accidentally know things that are true but would have no way, apart from the Christian God, did have no way of knowing if their truth was an ultimate actuality or reality, they couldn't justify it, okay? So, can I know the truth that two plus two is four? Yes.

Yes, you can. Okay, so I can know truth if God... Yes, they can know those things. That's why I said ultimately they can't justify the truth. See, absolute truth, like, for example, moral truths can only be known if God reveals them to us. And two plus two is four is based on the transcendental laws of logic. And the ultimate foundation for those is the very nature and existence of God. And so, ultimately, nobody can lay a basis for truth apart from the Christian theological perspective. That's called... As a Christian, I don't even believe that's true because...

Okay, that's right. That's true because there are things we can know that are logically true based on everything we know about the universe and reality and have nothing to do with God's revelation. So, there are some truths that humans can know outside of God's revelation. Well, I didn't say only through that revelation. So, let's use two plus two is four, all right? It's true, right? Yes.

Okay. Can you define for me what the number two is? Two objects. Two objects is the number two? So, if I have two objects on my desk, is that the number two? It is the concept of two whatevers, the numbers. So, if you have two whatevers, that's what two...

So, two only comes into existence when there are two whatevers there? Two is a concept. It is a mental concept. It's a concept.

All right, now, you're good. So, the concept exists. Do we create the concept or do we come in contact with the concept? We create the concept. So, if we create the concept, then two-ness disappears when we die, right? Because it's dependent upon our mind, we create it. Therefore, there is no actuality of the number two in a transcendental sense.

That means when we die, it ceases to have actuality. Right? From your perspective so far. You see the problem?

Do you see the problem so far? Well, yeah, the laws of logic do not depend on human... There you go.

Very good. So, the number two, we recognize it by the law of identity, which is something is what it is, is not what it is not. We recognize there's a concept called two, just as there's a concept called three. We don't take two-ness and take a picture of it or weigh it. It's an abstraction, and you're right, it's in the mind.

Good. Is it the product of your mind and my mind or is it the product of your mind or my mind? In other words, is it dependent upon human minds for its actuality? If it's dependent upon human minds for actuality, how then does it have transcendent qualities?

If it has a universal aspect of two-ness, then it exists whether or not you and I exist. And we'll get to the break. I'll continue with this. All right.

We'll show you. All right, buddy, hold on, man. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages, and hopefully I can mess your brains up some more right after these messages.

Please do, too. All right, buddy, welcome back to the show. Anthony, are you still there? Yes. All right, you with me so far about the issue of what the abstract concept of two is? Yeah, okay, I don't see their concepts. All right, how is that related to, we can only know them if God reveals them to us?

Well, because, well, for one thing, God is revealing it to all people. This is a lot of, well, I'll just do it this way. So two-ness is an abstraction that is universal, and it does not change. All right, agreed. Abstractions require a mind. Right. Since the nature of the abstractions are logical, they are universal, they're invariant, then it implies a mind that's abstract, universal, and invariant, right? Okay, well, not necessarily. Yes, otherwise you have an abstract entity that exists apart from God.

How is that possible? And this is where the atheists stub their intellectual toes. The function of the human mind is to create concepts. So these concepts are things that we created our minds by observing the universe around us and forming these concepts in our mind, so.

But your problem with that is? At no juncture is it necessary to postulate that God revealed any of this information to us. You're not listening, you're not hearing what I'm saying, though, ultimately, okay? And so we only observe what is actual. They're not dependent upon our minds. So even the atheists can observe the idea of numbers, but these numbers are not dependent upon the physical universe, because if they were, they'd be properties of the physical universe. But properties are measurable.

Heat, mass, volume, color, refraction. Properties are measurable. The laws of logic, laws of numbers, are not measurable. There are no machines to measure them, no spectrographs.

No scales, all right. So they're not the same thing or properties of the universe. They're independent of it, and yet they are universal and abstract.

The necessary precondition for that is a universal mind. Now, I won't get into this now. We could get into one of the many, now we could get into the one of the many and the particular instance and manifestations of particular instances of the number two versus its universal concept. I won't get into that, because it's too much for here. But that ultimately has answered only the Trinitarian foundation.

I won't get into that either right now, it's too much. So the thing is that though an atheist can know accidentally that two plus two is four, he can't ground that knowledge in his atheistic presuppositions. It can only be grounded in the Trinitarian Christian worldview.

So I'm not saying that- I actually disagree with that, and- Well, you're incorrect then. Well, I'm not, because if an atheist can determine that two plus two is four, then it doesn't have to be grounded in anything. It's just grounded in the truth of what it is. What you're saying is that people can have things that they affirm that's not grounded. In other words, it's not for any reason.

All right, well, okay, so let me ask you- Anthony, Anthony, Anthony, Anthony, hold on. You said there's not to be grounded in anything. If something is not grounded in anything, then it means it's arbitrary. No.

Yes? Well, yes, yes, that's true, but- Okay. Yes, that is a true statement, but- So, so let me ask you, Anthony.

Anthony, can an atheist ground the, or provide any necessary preconditions that would account for the universality of the laws of logic and new numbers? The answer is no, they can't. I think they kind of can, because- No, they kind of can't.

No, they can't. Because what they will do is beg the question. They will assume the validity of the laws and say they're related to our mind and or to the properties of the universe, or that they're universal abstractions that just have a quality of existence.

Then what they do is they get into what's called propositions. The propositions are truth-bearing entities that have no properties. But yet they're- I think the only thing you have to do is possibly the existence of a mind. So if humans have minds, however you define that, then there's no need to go beyond that. Yes, there is a need to go beyond it because your mind and my mind are not the foundations for the laws of logic. Something beyond our minds is. So therefore, we have to have some other source. We don't determine what truth is, we discover what truth is. Okay, well, something else you said I disagree with is the Christian Trinitarian God. Okay, the pagans were able to determine mathematical truths and they never conceived of the Christian- I understand.

Trinitarian God. You're not hearing me. You are not listening to me.

I'll say it again. They can discover these things. They can't ultimately ground them outside the Trinitarian God.

There's a big difference. It does not mean they can't discover trigonometry or understand certain moral absolutes, but defending them as universals and providing a necessary precondition for intelligibility, they cannot do. I've had countless discussions over the decades on this topic, which is why it sounds odd, why I can talk like this, and I'm not even getting deep, because I have gotten very deep with people. I just want to do that in the radio. But you have to understand there's a concept or an issue called the one and the many.

For example, we'll do this to the break and then we'll move on. So I used like the word chair. You can have multiple chairs in a building, in an office, but there's one concept called chair and there's particular manifestations of chairness. So which one is ultimate? The particular manifestations or the one concept?

Which is the ultimate? Which means it is the ultimate source of the other. So if chairness is the ultimate source, then how do you unite it to the particular manifestations?

If the particular manifestations are the ultimate, how do you unite it with the concept of universal chairness? In the Christian Trinitarian presupposition, the one and the many exists naturally in God himself, one being in three distinct simultaneous persons. So the one and the many concepts are there and we can answer the question where the unbelievers cannot because the atheists don't have a universal mind to which they can appeal and those who hold to a certain God concepts can appeal to a God, but then they can't solve the one and the many thing apart from the Trinitarian presupposition. How would you respond to a Muslim saying, well, you can't note ground two plus two unless you believe in Allah. So how are you different from the Muslim who makes that argument? Well, then we get into the issue.

There's two ways to do that, but I'll get into the simple one. Then I will ask about the one and the many issue, which is ultimate in their theological perspective as it relates to their false God, Allah. What's ultimate? The thing that unites or the particulars of that thing?

What is it the ultimate? This is sophisticated discussion and the average Joe's not ready for it and the average Muslim is not ready for it. Well, I think you're just arbitrarily defining the ground of being as your conceptualization of God instead of just saying, well, you are because there's no rational link between the ground of two plus two is four is the Trinitarian Christian God. Yes, there is. Because two, I'll explain.

It doesn't mean there's not a Christian God. I'll explain. Two is a simple concept. Sorry, my dinner's ready, I gotta go. Sorry, Matt, I'll call the motor time. Wow, okay.

So this often happens when it gets tough for people. So let me explain before the break. Two is a single concept that people all over the world can simultaneously conceive of. Two is a single concept, but it has particular manifestations in different minds all over the planet at the same time.

So which is ultimate? Which is the final thing beyond which and upon which the concept of two-ness rests? Is it in the particular number two? But then how do you justify and relate the occurrences of the concept two-ness in different minds? If two-ness in different minds is ultimate, then how do you unify them across multiple minds? This is a philosophical conundrum.

It's been discussed for a couple 3,000 years. And the philosophers can't answer it. Enter Trinitarianism, the one and the many. The one concept of God with three simultaneous distinct persons in his essence and in his nature is the universality and the multiplicity of existence. The one and the many issue can exist in God who is ubiquitous. So the concept of two, for example, exists in the mind of God and he reveals it in creation and to us being made in his image. We can think God's thoughts after him. Therefore, God is the ultimate and not a concept. So God is the ultimate and he's the source of two-ness. And since he's transcendent and we are made in his image, we can then apprehend, comprehend and use the concept of two in different places at different times simultaneously. If you go with just a Muslim God, the one being, you can't differentiate between the quality of two and the particular manifestations beyond or of them, of that concept.

And that gets into more complicated stuff. I know this is pretty heady for a lot of people who I don't get to it very often on radio, but these are the kinds of discussions I have on a semi-regular basis with atheists and others working this kind of stuff and I enjoy it. Hey, we'll be right back after these messages. Three open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking a call at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show. I hope what I said with the other guy wasn't too tough, but hey, these are part of the nature of some of the debates I will get into.

I particularly enjoy them, but there you go. Let's get to Braden from Idaho. Hey, Braden, buddy, how you doing, man? Doing far better than I deserve. How are you doing, Matt? Doing all right.

Hey, I was thinking about you, about driving out there and having dinner with you sometime. You absolutely need to do that. I don't know why you haven't done that.

Because I'm lazy and it's a two-hour drive and it's been snowy, so that's why. Fair enough, fair enough. Now, I have a very important question for you, though. Prior to my biblical question, I'm watching you on Facebook Live right now, and I saw your, is that a children's mug that you're drinking out of right there? This right here, this little coffee thing? This low? Yep. Yeah, it's low because we can put it under our espresso machine.

It has to be low, and so it's espresso, that's why. Yeah, I got a battery-operated mug over there, too, and I can control the heat temperature on my phone. I'm a tech geek, so at any rate. So what do you got, buddy? Well, you know, I was, while I was doing evangelism out at the Pocatello Temple months back, I had a lady bring up a text that I had never been, well, never had an LDS person bring up to me about how the Father has a body of flesh and bones. And looking at it now, I now know how I would go about answering it, but I wanted to get your opinion over this text. It's found in John chapter 8, verses 12 through, really 12 through 19. And the gist of it is it talks about how Jesus says that I am the light, that the Jews are this darkness. They walk in the darkness, and the Pharisees say, how is your witness true, since you don't have two witnesses, you only have yourself? And Jesus says, and the portion that this lady brought up was in verse 17. It says, even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am he who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me. And so the lady's rationality was that there's two men referenced in verse 17. And therefore, when Jesus says that he himself, who is a man, and his Father bears witness, that means that the Father, therefore, is a man. Yeah, so what I would do, something like this, is I'd say, so the Father is a man, according to what Jesus said, yes. So your God is a man.

That's right. So how then is he everywhere, since the Bible says he's everywhere? If he's a man, how is that possible?

Just ask him. Because the Bible says, Psalm 139, wherever I go, there you are. So how is his physical body everywhere all the time?

Can you explain that? Because the concept here is by two witnesses or two men, a truth is established. What he's talking about is the right of establishment of truth. So I'd ask him. I'd also ask, even in your law, it is written that the testimony of two men is true. What if it was two women? Then the testimony is not true.

Just ask. So if it's two women talking, obviously, it can't be true, right? But they both agree on something. So is this talking about men only, or is it giving us the concept about two witnesses? And obviously, it's about two witnesses. Men are just being used in the context here.

So that's all that's going on. And then he says to the Father, but if you want to say that the Father is a man, then you have problems. Because we know that God is everywhere all the time. How then can a man, in a physical sense, be everywhere? And at this point, you won't be able to answer. Then they have to get into the idea the Holy Spirit is the presence of God who's everywhere.

But that's not a man, is it? And I know you know how to talk about that stuff. That's one of the ways.

What would you come up with? No, so I didn't even think about going into how, by nature, a man is not omnipresent, but present. How does that rationale work with God being omnipresent?

I didn't even think about that. I came to the same conclusion that you did in the second portion there, that Christ is showing the concept. He first says that my witness is true just by itself, is what he gets out in verse 14. And he then goes on to say, I think what he's saying is bringing up the concept of two witnesses and saying, look, if you would trust two men to put to death someone, that's quoting from Deuteronomy chapter 17, verse 6, I believe, the two witnesses of men is that good. Well, my witness and the witness of the Father are far, far superior than the witness of just two men. So he's drawing from the Old Testament law to validate who he is. And then that's why, afterwards, he thinks, say, unless you believe I am, you shall die in your sins. Amen.

John 8.24. Good stuff. Amen. Oh, yeah. See, you are.

What's that? I want to see if you had the same idea that I had on that. Well, you see, we have different ideas, a little bit, and cross-pollinate, kind of. And I think a little bit more logically than most do, and those kinds of things. But Rancher is fine, and that's what he's doing.

But I like to go, one of the things I've learned in apologetics is take what they say, what they mean, and carry it out. Two men, what about two women? Because in Mormonism, you and I both know, God's about six feet tall. And he has a body, flesh, and bones. So does that man exist everywhere? Well, no. And is man a god? Am I a god right now? Or is your husband a god because he's a man? No. Well, then, so not all men are gods, but your god is a man.

Right? So are man and god the same thing, or are they different? Because if your husband is a man and he's not god, then there's a difference between being god and being a man.

What's the difference? That's when they don't want to talk to you anymore and you ask these questions. And then when they're walking away, I say, was it something I said? That's why I say that all the time. I say something to Nick, and she just looks at me, rubs her forehead, walks away. Was it something I said? I'll ask her, and she just keeps walking.

Poor woman. So that's great. Well, brother, I'll let you go. I appreciate the answer. And thank you for your time. And thank you for praising God and advancing his kingdom. Amen.

Praise God. And maybe I'll come out and listen to you preach sometime. I want to do that.

Maybe you can go out and do lunch afterwards or something. And I'd like to go by your church sometime, too, if I'm going to be out there and do some speaking or teaching if they're interested. Brother, you tell me the time and when we'd work with you, and we can definitely make that happen. That would be an absolute blessing. In fact, maybe I'll send you a text after your Catholic.

Say that again. I'll be there in three hours. Hey, I'm headed to church now. Well, let me know what works if they're interested.

All right. I would love that. It would be a pleasure to have you come preach at Valley Baptist. Yeah, I'd love to preach. I haven't preached in a long time.

I'm missing it. But at any rate, OK, brother, you're awesome, man. God bless. God bless. Thanks. OK. All right, we'll see you. All right, let's get to Reverend RV.

Boy, that's a good, like that RV. Welcome. You're on the air.

Thank you for letting me ask you the question. I'm a regular poster on your CARM forums. And my username is ReverendRV. And we've been having a conversation over there for maybe a month now.

And I wrote it down so I could say it better. But as I said, on CARM forums, there's a conversation between Calvinists and Christians over there, over the penal substitutionary attainment. Some are for it, and some are against it. Would you say that penal substitutionary atonement is within the gospel? No, I would not say that you have to affirm it specifically in order to be saved.

No. Neither would I. I've been wondering if, because I write gospel tracts, and I usually include the absentmindedly, even unknowingly, I would include the penal substitutionary atonement in it. Yeah, so that's why I was asking if indeed the penal substitutionary. You accidentally absentmindedly put it in there because you're quoting scripture. He bore our sin in his body on the cross, right?

First Peter 2.24. So how is that possible if it's not legal and substitutionary? He bore our sins in his body.

Isaiah 53 took our place. That's substitutionary. We know it's legal, penal.

Penal law, people don't understand that means legal. And so it's right there. And I would be glad to come into the forum there and invite people to a live discussion where we can go through it. And I'll show the penal substitutionary atonement as being biblical and stuff, if you want, if you're interested.

Obviously, you're welcome to do that. There's a few threads on it at the moment. And one of the Calvinists, he is against. He's for penal substitutionary atonement, but he's against God forsaking Jesus and God pouring wrath out on Jesus. Well, we have to understand what does that mean by forsake and pour wrath out. So these are always the issue of what it means. Because when God forsakes, we can't say that in any way there was a disruption of the Trinitarian essence. We can't say that. So that's the ontological trinity is the issue.

The economic trinity is the only area where we could talk about any effect, but it would never be ontologically. So what does he mean by that? And then to forsake could be understood, because it's in Psalm 22, verse 1, it could be understood as a sense in which the father, because of the son's position having borne sin, there was a disruption. And I didn't even know any other word to really use. And I'm not even sure how to define it, because the Bible doesn't tell us what happened.

So that's why I get upset with people in a mean way. But you can't say what you're saying, because the Bible doesn't tell us. Make sense? Right. The word that he uses, the wrath, would affect the trinity by fracturing it.

No, it's an impossibility. No Calvinist should ever say that, that the wrath would do that. But remember, Jesus made it under the law, Galatians 4, 4, and he became sin, 2 Corinthians 5, 21. So he became sin on our behalf. And he, therefore, he said, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? It could be in the relationship of just the trauma of the crucifixion under that law, that there's a sense in which God the Father said, you're here. You're going through this.

Because Jesus said in Luke 22, 42, he didn't want to go through it. So this is all conjecture at this point. We've got to be very, very careful. OK. Yes, I understand. Well, we're more than glad to have you join us and however you wanted to. I'll tell you what, email me. Email me at info at karme.org, which forum it is.

And I'll go in, because I'm an admin there. And of course, I can do what I want. Maybe you can set up a little discussion sometime, OK? Yeah, history at Calvinist has started. It's nearing 10,000 posts.

And we haven't had any of that long in a long time. All right, I'll go ahead and take a look. I'll do that. All right, buddy? All right, man. All right. OK, God bless. OK. All right, let's see. Dave from Charlotte, can Christians do yoga?

You want to know the answer really fast? Do it. They can do stretches. They can't do the meditation stuff, because that's occultic. No energy or chakra balancing or transfer, but stretching isn't going to hurt. Unfortunately, yoga is tied in. Yoga officially is tied in with the energy balancing and light consciousness and things like that. That's yoga.

But if you take all that crud away and you just do stretching exercises, not a problem, OK? OK, because somebody was saying that after church, they had holy yoga, and I didn't really know what they meant. They said that they read scripture and whatnot while they, I guess, do yoga or stretches or whatever. I didn't really know if that was safe or not. Yeah, it's safe if they're just doing stretching. If you just sit there and do a stretch, it's not occultic. It's what yoga does with it and associates with it that's bad. So can Christians do a bunch of stretching?

Of course they can. Not a big deal, OK? All right, thank you, buddy. All right, man, God bless. All right, folks, I'm out of here. May the Lord bless you and by his grace, we're back on air tomorrow, and we'll talk to you then. God bless. Bye. Another program powered by the Truth Network.