The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Karm.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick live.
Francis taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome to the show. It is me, Matt Slick, and you're listening to Matt Slick live. I hope that you're going to have a good time listening to the show.
We have nobody waiting right now. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. If you're a newbie, listen to the show. This is a Christian apologetics radio show. Apologetics is that branch of theology dealing with the defense and the establishment of the Christian faith. That's what I do.
I'd like to teach. In fact, I was just doing that literally minutes before I get on here. Another venue talking about the nature of the divine essence and how the attributes belong to Christ as well. And so I enjoy doing that kind of a thing and lend myself, so to speak, to answer questions and hopefully, by God's grace, I can do that. So if you are interested in asking a question about God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Bible, baptism, his works necessary for salvation, eschatology, UFOs, the occult, the Trinity, communicatio edumatsum, hypostatic union, distorianism, monophysitism, and a lot of other isms and istics. If, by any chance, you're saying, yeah, I was just wondering about those, well, you can give me a call and we can talk. Or if you have another question, it's no big deal. Just give me a call. Okay, there we go.
All right, got that. So we have three open lines now, 877-207-2276. And one more thing for the newbies, Matt Slick live, that's the show. My real name is Matt Slick, drum roll. There you go.
Wow, I grew up running because of that name. All right, let's get to, let's see, let's get to Mitchell from Charlotte, North Carolina. Mitchell, welcome.
You're on the air. Hey, Matt, how you doing? Doing all right, man. Hanging in there, buddy.
What do you got? I've heard you say, whenever you describe the Trinity, not to use people, but persons. And I'm just asking, what is the difference between people and person when describing the Trinity? People, we understand to be individuals like you and me. Persons, theologically, in the context of the Trinity, means something different.
It's similar, but it's different. Personhood means self-awareness, awareness of others, ability to contemplate, to have reciprocity, fellowship with people, can love, can hate, reason. These are attributes of personhood. So angels have personhood. God has personhood. We have personhood. And that's what we mean by it. When someone says there are three persons, excuse me, three people, now we're talking about individuals.
Now, when we talk theologically about three persons and the one Godhead, we're not talking about three beings as three individuals might imply, but one being in three simultaneous persons. And so person has to deal with the nature and the essence. And so by analogy, I try to get people to understand that if you had a human being who's a person and say he's in a really bad accident, he's got a disease or whatever, he had to amputate his legs, is he still a person? Yeah. If he had to amputate his arms, is he still a pure person? And the answer is yes.
Well, what if he's blind? Is he still a person? Yes. And he can't talk. Is he still a person?
Well, yes. Personhood is not dependent on the physical attributes. Personhood is something that's internal. And the physical aspects manifest out of personhood in the context what I was talking about by analogy in the physical sense in a human body. But biblically speaking, to be absent of the body is to be home of the Lord, 2 Corinthians 5, 8, and also Paul said that, you know, there was a man in the body or out of the body, I do not know such a one was caught up to the third heaven, 2 Corinthians 12, 2 through 4. And so he was able, he taught that there was an existence and self-awareness of a person apart from the physical body. So we understand personhood biblically to be that center of consciousness and that will which can exist apart from the physical body in the human sense, in the divine sense. God consists of three simultaneous persons, centers of awareness that have will and can speak and say you and yours and me and mine, yet there's only one God, not three, okay? Good stuff, that makes sense.
That help? Can I ask one more question? Sure, go ahead.
Well, I guess it really is just an opinion. Do you make anything of what's going on with Russia and Ukraine right now? Yeah, I don't trust the Democrats, I don't trust the leftist media, I personally don't understand why we're involved with Ukraine when the leftist whacko moronic media says that we have to protect the sovereignty of the borders and yet they open up our border and do the exact opposite. And when they are inconsistent like that, I don't like to bend the knee to hypocrisy, to lies, and it tells me that something else is going on and so why are they involved over there in Ukraine?
I don't see any necessity towards it. Biblically, a war is justified when we are to protect the helpless or self-defense. These are the two major categories and I don't know what the situation is with Ukraine.
If we have contracts or covenants with them, I don't know all that stuff, but if America wants to be consistent, then be consistent and guard our own borders along with the issue of everyone's supposed to wear COVID masks yet they open the borders up and then let non-COVID masks or non-mask people come in and yet they have COVID and then they say, but we have to make sure we guard everybody, get shots, but then they let people come in without shots. Something's wrong. There's another agenda going on. Personally, this is just my opinion, I think they want another war for people in power to make money off of at the expense of human lives and our economy and things like that. I think there's a lot of evil people in control of a lot of stuff. That's my opinion.
Okay. Yeah, I just, I didn't know, like I said, biblically speaking, if they're involved in some kind of prophecy, I mean, I don't know, like the Ezekiel war or something like that, if this was like a precursor or something like that to it, I just, you know, I was asking you. Well, everything, everything ultimately is a precursor because everything ultimately will lead to the end of days. When Russia and China start gathering forces to march into Israel, that's when to be afraid. These are the prophecies that are talking about their 200 million man army marches along the dried up Euphrates River that logically must be China and Magog, they think is Moscow, that derivation of the word comes down from the north to take spoil out of Israel. So these are the precursors to war, the actual war of the tribulation period, which a lot of people just don't talk about.
When they talk about pre-tribulation rapture, we get out because we serve the blondes, you're black, Caucasian, surfer dude, dress a woman's nightgown, and we're Americans, so we don't have to go through anything. And so let's just escape. And so I have a problem with that, obviously, and I think that's what's going on. I think there's problems. Okay. All right. Well, that's all I got.
I was hoping for your opinion, so thank you for clarifying the people in personhood. I appreciate it. You're welcome, man. God bless.
All right. Two open lines, 8772072276. Let's get to Gloria from Ohio. Gloria, welcome. You're on the air.
Thank you. My question, I do not understand in Genesis, it says, God, he did a certain work, and then the evening and the morning was the first or the second, you know, it's gone. When does it get to be daylight? I mean, we have morning to evening, and that's a day, or we call that a day, but I don't see where, I don't understand how they count, how God... I'm not sure I understand your question.
You do not understand my question? I'm not sure I understand, because God called the light day and the darkness he called night, and there was evening and there was morning one day, that's Genesis 1.5. So each day after that, he says, and that was evening and morning, and that was the second day, evening and morning, that was the third day, it just seems strange. And the fourth day. And the fifth day.
And the sixth day. Every day he says, and the evening and the morning, and then there was another day. I'm not sure what the confusion is, I'm just not quite seeing the confusion yet, because what I see is there was evening and morning, that's what it says, that's what I believe it is, that's what it was, there was evening and morning, there was night and day. Oh, so that's what you're saying? There was the evening brought on night and the morning brought on day, is that what you're saying? That's how you understand it? Yeah, he says in verse 5, let me read what it says, so we can deal with what it says. God called the light day and the darkness he called night, and there was evening and there was morning, so from the very beginning there was light and dark. He called it evening and morning.
Okay, we'll just accept that. Well, what do you think it means, or it talks about that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. That seems strange to me, too. Well, let me just tell you officially, after studying 42 years of scripture, answering questions, I don't know what that means. What I think it means is that the earth was formless and void, that there was darkness over the surface of the earth, and that the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. That's what I believe.
I don't understand all the nuances of it. That's what it says, so that's what I believe. I don't have to understand every detail. Although God is light and there's no darkness in him, in the universe, or whatever was there before he put the stars and the moon and the sun and everything, everything was darkness, and so he had to create day and night. Now, we don't know that. We can't say everything was darkness, because God dwells in unapproachable light who no man has seen or can see. That's 1 Timothy 6.16. So it appears that in God's nature, there's light. Yes, so that whatever he is, it's light.
Yes, that's one of his attributes. But as we would say, when he says, let there be light, it seems to designate that there was a creation effort, and he's talking about the universe itself, and it could be light, and that light was good, his great effort, and he separated life from the darkness. I think there's spiritual aspects of the light and the darkness there, ultimately.
And he called the light day and the darkness, he called night. Now, that would imply that the earth was already there, and it was evening and morning. Yes, yes, just that the earth was there, and without form and void, I don't know what, I know it wasn't a square, or I know it was sort of egg-shaped in a way. Personally, there's theories about this, and I don't have a problem with God forming the earth out of the material in space over a 24-hour period. I don't have a problem with that, I could certainly do that, formless and void, and then it came together, why can't God do it that way?
Well, it seemed like it was a solid because water covered it, so anyway, I have one more question. I guess I just have to accept what it says. That's a good idea.
It talks about Cain killed Abel, and then it says that Eve was able to conceive... Well, hold on, I don't know what the question is yet, we've got a break coming up, so hold on, we'll get back to you after the break, and you ask the question, and we'll see if we can answer it, okay? So hold on. Hey folks, two open lines are going to give me a call, 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, welcome back everybody, let's see, let's get back to Gloria from Ohio. Gloria, welcome, you're on the air. Okay, my last question, Cain killed Abel, and then it says that Eve was able to bear another son, says the Lord gave her another son, and she calls that God gave her another seed, so I'm guessing, being as the seed of the woman is where Christ came through the seed of the woman, that Seth, Abel had been the pick for the messianic line, and so then when he was killed, Seth was chosen to be the seed that Christ came from, is that... Where'd you get this, where'd you get this, I'm just curious. Okay, um, let's see, what was that? Are you listening to Shepherd's Chapel, just curious, are you listening to Shepherd's Chapel? On TV, are you listening to Shepherd's Chapel, because you should not, because what you're saying is reminiscent of what they're saying, I'm not sure what the question is. So what's your question again?
You know, it's, okay, I'm in, I think it's four, because this is where Cain... I know what it is, where it is, but what's, just curious, what's your question, though? Well, asking, when it talks about the seed of the woman, um... In Genesis 3, in Genesis 3 it's talking about the seed of the woman, there is no seed of the woman. Women don't have seed. Well isn't that where Christ came from, the seed of the woman? Okay, I'm trying to tell you, the seed of the woman doesn't make any sense.
There is no seed of a woman. So why is that phrase there? Because it's an allusion to the virgin birth and the future. That's what I'm saying, um, Christ, well God told Eve, I will put three, four, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.
Yes. So I was, I never noticed before that Eve said after Cain killed Abel, that she was able to bear again, and she said that God had given her a seed to replace Abel. So I was saying, that signified that he was where the messianic line was to come through.
There were other children as well, besides Cain and Abel, but obviously the one who couldn't go through Abel because he was killed, unless he had children beforehand. But nevertheless, so the issue out of Genesis 3.15, seed, the seed of the woman, is understood to be a prophetic thing dealing with the virginity of her birth and the seed of the woman, which is why it's a cryptic thing, and that's what's just going on, but I would not go with this too much with it, it goes down to a certain seed, like Cain or Abel, because the Shepherd's Chapel cult group teaches this kind of stuff, and I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but I'm, I'm uh, just a thing, a thing of interest, no, I don't know anything about the Shepherd's Chapel, or whatever, it's just that I had never noticed that, and I am sorry, being as I had you on the line, I thought I would ask that question, but I don't have right before me now, where that particular, um, where he, well, I'll tell you what, can you look it up and then call back another time and actually get the exact reference and the question related to it, and we can take a look, okay? Okay.
And that'll be good. Okay, well, uh, thank you, these, you know, none of what I asked was earth-shattering, it was just, as I am getting into, uh, Genesis, and I'm trying to look, see a little bit more, uh, than just the cursory reading, I noticed that she said she obtained a seed, another seed. Okay, I'll tell you what, if you could, if you could give me the exact reference and the question related to it another time, and then we can go over it, okay? Okay. All right, I appreciate your time then. All right. Thank you. Thanks a lot. All right, bye.
Okay, let's get to Rudolph from, um, North Pole, no, from Raleigh, North Carolina, welcome you're on the air. Yes, sir, um, my question is, what is the difference between wrath and tribulation? Well, they're spelled differently, what else do you want to know? I'm joking with you, buddy, um, so wrath is a judgment that comes upon someone because of something else, tribulation doesn't necessitate that, uh, so in the sense of the wrath of God is his, his judgment upon people for their evil doing, but tribulation can occur on both the good and the bad. So wrath is generally said to be a bonding upon the unrighteous, but tribulation can come upon both, okay? The reason, yes, the reason why I was asking is because the post, um, pre-tribbers always talk about the wrath of God and why we're not, there were children of wrath, I know when that, but when they always talk about it, they always talk about the wrath, but they're not, we're not going to get wrath, wrath is different than tribulation.
Right, and they'll say, we're appointed not to wrath but salvation, I forgot where the word is, I think it's, oh, I got to find it, but, uh, they'll quote that verse and they, uh, it's verse 5, 9, for God is not destined us for wrath but for obtaining salvation and they'll say, see, wrath is not going to be tribulation, but that's not what the word is, not tribulation, and they misapply because the word wrath there is orge, and tribulation is flipsis, they're different words, and plus notice the juxtaposition, for God is not destined us for wrath, but salvation, so wrath is the opposite of salvation being, on the day of judgment, salvation, the appointment or the destination is that we are not appointed for damnation but for salvation, that's what's going on, so it has nothing to do with the tribulation, it's misapplied when they apply it that way, okay? Okay. Alright.
Alright, thank you. You're welcome, God bless. Alright, let's get to Reverend R.V. from Georgia, welcome, you're on the air. Thank you for taking my call, Matt, I was just going to ask a question about the hypostatic union, and, uh, we were discussing the penal substitutionary atonement on your com forums and it led to a discussion about the hypostatic union and mainly the difference between Nestorianism and Apollinarianism is the people that were against God pouring wrath out on his Son were saying that we were Nestorian, thinking that Jesus is like two persons, so whenever you head to question earlier talking about persons of God, it brought that up. You know, people often, you know, well, hold on, we've got to break, we're not Nestorian obviously, particularly if you hold the hypostatic union, so usually people who will say that are bringing a false accusation, but hold on, we'll get to that. Hey folks, two open lines if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276, we'll be right back.
It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276, here's Matt Slick. Alright, welcome back everybody, let's get back on the line here with Reverend R.V. Alright, let's try this again. Okay, well the other side of the coin was once they started saying that we were Nestorians, one of the supporters of the Penile Substitutionary Atonement started calling them Neo-Apollinarians, because of the personhood of Jesus, you know, they kept on saying that only the divine personhood is the only person within Jesus in the hypostatic union, and that he doesn't exist of a human person.
Yeah, that's more, it could be Docetism, it could also be Apollinarianism, so you always have to define your terms, and what I would recommend is that you go to CARM, get the definitions of the hypostatic union, and copy it, put it in there, along with the communicatio idiomatum, and put it in there. Now if I can get myself into there, I'd be glad to join in, but I can't, and I don't know what happened. At any rate, long story short, can't do it yet, so what I would suggest is tell them that I'm willing to produce a live video discussion, or we can go over these things if they're interested in me, and I can teach them what the truth is, and correct their errors, don't say that, because they'll go, oh, he's going to correct your errors, which I will, because the hypostatic union is the truth, not Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and so what people who fail to understand PSA, penal substitutionary atonement, also fail to properly understand the communication of the properties of Christ's nature, and the necessary essence of the person, the attributes of divinity ascribed to the single person. So I'd be glad to go over it with them, if they're interested, you could ask them. Yeah, that would be great. You know, I enjoy watching you on Marlon Wilson's The Gospel Truth, too, and I was thinking that some of them would probably enjoy discussing with you on something like that if you couldn't get into CARM or whatever.
Yeah, I've got to figure that out. So what are they saying? Are they Trinitarians? Yeah, they're Trinitarians.
Do they hold to the, do they hold to the hypostatic union? Yes, and the Catholics don't increase it. Do they hold to the communicatio et omatum?
Yeah, that's, I never heard of that until the one brought it up, and I'm still not an expert on that. It just means that the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person, that the attributes of both natures are communicated to the one person, so the one person of Jesus says, I am thirsty, he's claiming the attributes of humanity. The one person said, I will be with you always, even at the end of the earth, so he's claiming the attributes of divinity. So the one person who said, I, claims the attributes of both the human and divine nature. So the I, the person, claims those attributes, therefore those attributes are attributed to the one person, which is why the penal substitutionary atonement works, because if only the divine nature, excuse me, if only the human nature died on the cross, the divine nature by definition cannot die to biological function, well if only the human nature died, then how is the sacrifice of divine value? And the answer lies in the communication of the properties, in that the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person, and we see the person dying on that cross, and therefore the personal sacrifice has the attributes of divinity and the quality of. And it makes perfect sense in PSA, and when we go logically with what PSA means, it also necessitates limited atonement.
And there be the ones you'll be inconsistent, and I can show that. You mentioned limited atonement, is that what you said? Yes, because if you go with a legal substitutionary atonement, now it's substitutionary, we know that because of Isaiah 53, 4 through 6, he took our place, so it's substitutionary. It's legal because he had to fulfill the Old Testament requirements when he entered into the baptism, in Matthew 3, as well as being under the law, Galatians 4, 4, and he never broke the law, 1 Peter 2, 22. So he had to be a high priest's sacrifice after the order of Al-Qasidic, Hebrews 6, 20, Hebrews 7, 25, and he could not be blemished, which is why he has a sinless nature, and that's how Deuteronomy 17, 1. So Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law. He had to be a substitute, he had to be one of our own, I think it's Hebrews 2, 15, I think it talks about that.
He had to be made like his brethren. So it's a legal sacrifice because he had to be an atoning sacrifice according to the law. So therefore it's legal and substitutionary. That's what the Scriptures teach. If it's legal, and sin is a legal debt, as Jesus said, our Father who art in heaven, forgive us our debts in Matthew 6, 12, and Luke 11, 4, he says forgive us our sin. So Jesus equates sin with legal debt, and he says on the cross, to tell us die, it is finished, that's a legal statement, which designates a legal transfer, a legal debt paid. Furthermore, Jesus cancelled the certificate of debt on the cross, Colossians 2, 14. So when we understand that sin is a legal debt that's transferable and was imputed to Christ, and he bore our sin and died with those sins, then the payment for our sins is accomplished, and nobody can be held responsible for sin debt that's cancelled. Hence the necessity of limited atonement. Otherwise they are accusing God of unrighteousness by saying that Jesus pays for people's sins, cancels our sin that they're paid for, and they still go to hell for those same sins. It's unrighteousness, and they're accusing God of it. So yeah, I've gone over this a thousand times different ways, and so that's what I argue, and it makes a lot of sense, and it answers the questions, and they can't answer them. There's a lot they can't. Okay?
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. One of them, he used to be a five-point Calvinist, but now he doesn't agree with limited atonement because it's a four-point Calvinist. I would be glad to do a lecture on it where I can answer their questions and show them the logical necessity of that position, and I can ask them questions like, if Jesus paid for their sins, why do they go to hell? Because they didn't believe. Well, that doesn't make the payment efficacious. The payment is made whether you accept it or not or even believe it or not. A legal debt cancelled is irrelevant to whether you accept it. It's a cancelled. They fail to understand the efficacy of Christ's work, and they make it dependent upon humanistic principles.
It's humanism in the church, and we need to abandon this, and we need to get back to biblical theology so that the people who are preaching and teaching will get to Christocentric historical redemptive preaching. Okay? Amen. I appreciate it, and we can't wait to have you. All right.
Tell them I'm willing to do a discussion and see if we can set it up, okay? All right, man. God bless. Okay. All right.
Let's get to next longest waiting is Paul from Virginia. Hey, Paul. Welcome. You're on the air. Hello. How are you? Good. What do you got, buddy? I had asked you about a book called COVID-19 and the Global Predators We Are the Prey by Dr. Peter Breggin, and I know the last time we spoke around October, you hadn't had a chance to take a look at that, and I was wondering if you had been able to look at that book.
Let me see. COVID-19 Global Predators, and I'm opening it up because I went through some of it. I have read some of it, and I'm 2% into it, page 22, out of 998. So I won't be reading the whole thing, that's for sure. I usually go back and forth between three or four books.
So a lot of the back of the book is the copy that I have is including the index is 651 pages, so the index and the endnotes are close to 200 pages, acknowledgements and all that kind of stuff at the back. But my question is, from what I'm reading in this book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, we are the Prey, that this situation was planned over a number of years, and Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, along with Anthony Fauci, and some other players that are mentioned in this book, and I use the word players in quotes, that arranged all this and these shots were supposedly already in the works way before Operation Warp Speed along with... Okay, do you have a question, though? Do you have a question? Well, my question is, is like, if this book is true, which I don't know why these four people...
Okay, if the book's true, yes. Why they would make all this up, and I know there's money and corruption and that kind of thing, but how are they getting away with these type of what I would call Nuremberg type crimes? Well, when people get away with stuff like this, it's because they're unrighteous, they're demonically led, and they don't care about truth, they care about power. And society, for the most part, cares about comfort. And when something is introduced that threatens that comfort, people don't react well. Those who are independent thinkers put righteousness above comfort, but the leftists and the so socialists put comfort above righteousness. They want the state to take control and take care of them, and then they want to impose that value upon all others.
And so they become part and parcel of the overall system that is perpetuated in a downward spiral. Okay? Okay. All right, buddy. All right.
Okay, man. Hey, folks, we have one open line. Give me a call.
877-207-2276. We will be right back, Lord willing. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.
All right. Welcome back, everybody. Let's get to Mitchell from Charlotte, North Carolina. Mitchell, welcome. You're on the air. Hang on. Hi, Matt.
Me again. Quick question. I've heard you say that the three persons in a trinity is perfect. That one or two wouldn't work, but three is perfect.
Could you elaborate? Yeah, the nature of personhood is self-awareness, awareness of others. We know this because God reveals himself to us in that. And we, by analogy, can recognize the attributes of God because of what's called the communicable attributes.
The communicable attributes are those attributes that belong to God that can be communicated to us. He loves, we can love. He hates, we can hate. He reasons, we can reason. He thinks, we can think. And so these are the communicable attributes. He is self-aware.
We're self-aware. Now, also within this is a nature of personhood. And we know that God is love, 1 John 4-8, and the nature of love is other centered, as Jesus said in John 15-13. Well, let's take this aspect of love in regards to personhood. Personhood is fellowship.
It included among the attributes of personhood, fellowship, love, etc. If God himself is perfect and he's one person, then you have to ask the question, how then does he exhibit in one person from forever ago, before the universe was made, how does he exhibit the full nature of personhood? He would not be able to have fellowship, he would not be able to have love, he would not be able to have reciprocity, awareness of others. And this is problematic, because we understand God by analogy, by our own personhood.
Not that we judge God by ours, but we understand him by that, his self-revelation being made in his image. And since, as Christ said in John 15-13, greater love has no man than this, if he lay his life down for his friend, and that God is love, 1 John 4-8, the nature of love is part of God's nature. Love by nature is other centered. How did God then, from eternity, express the full nature of love, and other centeredness?
There was no possible way of that manifestation. So among that aspect, as well as others, in reciprocity, contemplation, awareness of others, expression, these things wouldn't exist in the idea of a single person God from forever ago. And if you have the aspect of God being two persons, then the issue of fellowship and love in reciprocity is solved. However, there seems to be a problem in that the very thing of love is an abstraction. Okay, so I love my wife, but I can't take love from my wife and put it in a jar and say, here you go, hon.
If I tried that, I'd probably get a slap upside the head. And so love is something, it's an abstraction, and you know, it's conveyed in intention and things like that. So if the intentionality of love was expressed in a two-person godhood, then it would mean that the fundamental quality of God, his nature, which is love, is also impersonal. Because the nature of love here would be an abstract entity, an abstract thing, proposition of abstract containment, and it gets into philosophy. So the problem here is that that would mean a fundamental part of what God is, is an abstract quality, love.
And that's problematic. If however God was three persons, then the Father could mediate the action of love and fellowship, reciprocity, etc., among the other two. And each of the members of the godhood could mediate those aspects of personhood to the other two in what's called the perichoresis, in the doctrine that each one mutually inter-dwells the other. And there would be a complete union in the divine simplicity that God is one substance. Eternally existing is three persons in perichoresis who are fellowshipping among themselves where there is reciprocity and exchange, but without any equality being an abstract thing that is nonpersonal. And therefore you have the Trinity being the apparent minimal necessity of true fellowship and eternal nature of personhood, and the exchange and the quality of the expression of personhood.
And that's why you wouldn't need four or more, and two or less doesn't work. Okay? Okay. So that was a lot to take in, but I will dwell on it and I appreciate your answer.
Thank you for your help, buddy. Okay. If you want more of this, you can go to my debate I had with Shabir Ali. Just go to the CARM website and look up debate, Matt Slick, Shabir, S-H-A-B-I-R, and I listed out this argument to him in our debate, because he holds to one person in the Godhead, Allah.
And he admitted in the debate he could not respond to it, didn't know how to answer. Okay? Okay.
I'll check that out. Thanks, buddy. All right, buddy. God bless. All right.
Let's see. This is Crystal from Richmond, Virginia. Crystal, welcome. You're on the air. Hi. Hi.
Good evening. I have a question. I'm pretty new to the faith, and I've been joining some apologetic groups, and one of the discussions is pre-trib versus post-trib, and I guess I'm just trying to understand a little bit more, like, what to believe, I guess, how to read the Bible and interpret that. Boy, I'm so tempted to say, believe whatever Reverend Slick on the radio says, but I don't want to do that. So I can tell you that my opinion is that post-tribulation is true, but that's my opinion, and it doesn't mean that I'm correct. You need to study the best you can and come up with your own answer, but I would suggest going through Matthew 24. Now, you've heard of the statement, for example. I'm going to feed you some information that, generally speaking, they will never bring up. So you've heard the phrase, as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the son of Man, for they were eating, they were drinking, they were giving a marriage, till the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and took them all away.
Two men is in the field, one is taken, one is left. You've heard about that, right? Mm-hmm.
And that's the rapture, right? Mm-hmm. Okay.
It's not? I mean, I never looked at it. Oh.
No, I never thought about it like that, so I don't know. I'm pretty new to all of it. Oh, you're that new.
All right. Well, when they say that, if they say it's the rapture, it's not the rapture. It's pretty common that they say that. It's not the rapture because it's the wicked who are taken. That really, you know, for the pre-tribbers, it's like, what? But it's the wicked who are taken. And if you go to Matthew 13, Jesus says that the first ones taken are the wicked.
Now, here's a question. If at the return of Christ, the rapture of the good happens, then why does Jesus say at the end of the age, which is when he returns, the first ones taken are the wicked? The pre-trib rapture can't work with that model, and it can't work with mid-trib either. Furthermore, if you were to go to Matthew 24 and read, just read, you'll actually see that they ask Jesus questions about, when's this going to occur? And he actually says after the tribulation of those days, and you'll see certain things. After.
That's what he says. And you should read that for yourself. After the tribulation. Someone said, one of the arguments that I saw was that if it was a post-tribulation, then why does Jesus call us to live righteously? Oh, so in other words, we're not supposed to live righteously if we're going to escape? It doesn't make any sense. He calls us to live righteously independent of circumstances, because he's our standard.
That's why. And Jesus says immediately after the tribulation of those days, it says the sun will be darkened, et cetera, and you'll send forth his angels with a great trumpet, and they'll gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. So Jesus specifically says in Matthew 24, 29 to 31, after the tribulation, the trumpet will occur, and the elect will be gathered. Now when we go to 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, the Lord, that's Jesus himself, will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.
The trumpet. And the dead in Christ will rise first, and we who are alive and remain will be caught up together in the clouds and meet them. So at the trumpet is when Jesus returns and the rapture occurs.
And yet Jesus also says after the tribulation, with the sound of the trumpet, is when the elect are gathered. It's the same event. Oh, okay. So you see. Okay. Oh. Okay. Here we go. This is good.
Thank you so much. Give me something to think about now, or go study. I didn't know where to start, so this is good. Matthew 24 and Matthew 13, study those. And you said 1 Thessalonians, right? 1 Thessalonians 4, I think you said. Yeah. Okay.
Four times four is 16. So 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, and just keep reading. Okay.
Matthew 24 and Luke, I mean, well, Matthew 24, Luke 17 are parallels, but Matthew 24 and Luke 17 and Matthew 13, the parable of the wheat and the tares, verse 30 and verse 40, read the context of both of those. And you'll see. Okay. That, I mean, I'm going to step on people's toes.
Pre-tribulation rapture just doesn't hold water in that case. I just make people mad. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. All right, Crystal.
And call back. If you say, no, I don't agree with you, go, okay, that's fine. That's no big deal. It's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Okay.
I hope I am. I don't want to go through it. Okay. All right, Crystal.
Well, God bless. Okay. Thank you. You too. Bye. Sure.
All right. Let's get to next longest waiting is John from Washington. John, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt.
It's John from FEMA Region 10. Hey. Hey, John. How you doing, buddy? All right.
Hey, buddy. So I know that we're short on the time here, so I just want to quickly talk about the hyperstatic union that you were talking about earlier. Okay. I discovered recently that there are some provisionists who believe that they don't believe in the hyperstatic union. And so it's pretty crazy to think about that. And so I was reading up on it. Could you explain a little more about monophysite? Is that what it is? Yeah. Monophysitism.
How you say it? Yeah. Physitism. Okay. Yeah. So diselitism and monophysitism.
All right. So Jesus has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. By necessity, each of those nature has to possess personhood, has to possess will, because a human has to have will and awareness and life, otherwise it's not a human. So die means two, and thalatism comes from the Greek thaleo, two will.
Two wills. A will of the divine, a will of the human. There's die thalatism, that's the correct doctrine.
However, we only have one person, Jesus, with one will. And that's because of the hypostatic union and the communicatio idiomatum. The hypostatic union says in the one person are two natures. The communicatio idiomatum says that the attributes of those natures are ascribed to the one person. So die thalatism is the correct view. Monotheletism says, basically, instead of the hypostatic union, they have what's called monophysitism, that the human nature and the divine nature combined into a new third thing, the divine man nature. It's a one nature, not two, but one, so it's a third thing that's neither divine nor human. The problem here is with the issue of continuity, and it's a logical thing we don't have time to go into, it destroys continuity, that's an issue, which is essentially the creation of a new third thing, that these are God nor man, but a third thing called the God-man. And inside of monophysitism, then they hold to monotheletism, and that's heresy.
So they're teaching a heresy, and ultimately this denies the efficacy and the sufficiency of the atoning work, because it doesn't have a true divine sacrifice. We're out of time to get into it. And then we can also get into necessary and sometime later, but okay.
Yeah, we'll do that in our time. All right, John. Call back buddy. All right.
Sorry, Nate's worked me way a long time. Sorry about that. I'll have to give a little sin. We can talk about that tomorrow if you want. And also, Brianna from Florida, is there a ministry more important than the abortion ministry? Yes, there is. Call back tomorrow. God bless. It's powered by the Truth Network.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-07 23:48:35 / 2023-06-08 00:07:51 / 19