Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.

Listen to Matt Slick live. Let's see, it's April 28, 2022, if you want to give me a call. All you've got to do is dial 8772072276. Now I'm just going to give you a heads up. I spent several hours this morning working on a preparation for the study I'm going to be teaching tonight here. It's on the doctrine of the Trinity. My last, let me see what it is here. I'm going to open it up and see how many words is in it. In the opening paragraph, just the one paragraph. That's got one, two, three, four, five headings. Six headings, uniqueness of God, aseity of God, nature of God, unity and diversity of God, and creation of God. Aside from those words, the paragraph, let's see, is, oh my goodness, seven, oh, that's what the scripture reference is. We're going to go without the scripture references. See how many words it is.

It's, oh, look at that, exactly 500. How about that? That's what the headings, though. So I'll be teaching on that and going through the uniqueness of God and it'll be broadcast tonight so you can go check it out. I think you can just go to calendar, calm.org forward slash calendar. The links will be there.

I spent some time also working on the video feed for that. I think I got it fixed. We'll see what happens tonight. Maybe we'll do a test beforehand.

I think that's about it. So, oh, I got a yawn coming on. Hold on. Oh, wow. Man, I always wonder how many people are yawning after I say, oh, yawning, you know.

Oh, well, let's see. Laura's not yawning. I'm looking at her. No, she's not.

I don't know if Charlie is. So we have people we watch in video here in StreamYard, but it also goes out to Facebook and it goes out to, let's see, Facebook, and where else does it go? It's actually going to Twitter today. I put a Twitter account in, so I'm hoping it's going to work, and I don't know what I did, if it's working or not. So somebody go to the car on Twitter, match select Twitter, see if it's feeding. I don't even know.

I just did some stuff, clicked it, and here we are. So, yeah, I'm just blabbing. I'm just blabbing, boy, aren't I? Okay, if you want to give me a call, we have four open lines, 8772072276. Let's get to Anthony from Virginia. Anthony, welcome. You're on the air, buddy.

What do you got, man? Hey, Matt, would you agree with the statement that the human soul exists eternally? In what sense? Like the human soul that every human has exists at all times eternally? You mean it's always existed forever, even in the past? Yes.

No, of course not. Well, the Bible teaches that the soul of Jesus, well, I guess it wouldn't be the soul. His person existed for all eternity in the past, correct?

No. So Jesus is, oh, wait, the son did not exist at all times in the past? You said the person has always existed. The one person of Jesus Christ who has two distinct natures did not always exist.

That union occurred 2,000 years ago. So I'm just going off your precise words. Will you discuss stuff like this? You have to be precise with your wording. Okay, just letting you know.

Okay, go ahead. Well, maybe the being of Jesus, his divine nature, his divine person existed for all eternity, correct? The divine nature is eternal. Correct. So there was a preexistence to at least Jesus's being, correct? Let's do this again. I want you to listen.

When you use terms, you have to be specific. So Jesus has two natures, right? Divine and human, okay? You with me?

Are you there? That's what they teach? Yes.

Yeah, that's what our position is, okay? Two natures. That union of the divine and the human nature occurred 2,000 years ago. So when you say the person of Jesus, by definition, you're talking about that union. If you say the person of Jesus is eternal, that's not correct, because the union did not occur eternally in the past. It occurred 2,000 years ago.

Okay. Right, I'm not claiming that, but there was some sort of preexistence to Jesus, his bodily incarnate. Jesus is Jesus. See, when you say some sort of, okay? If you don't understand it, because you're asking questions, but we say some sort of, well, in a poetic sense, ontological sense, what do you mean?

No, Jesus existed before his bodily incarnation. I don't see how that's controversial to you. Because you're not understanding what you are saying.

You don't even understand our position. I'm trying to tell it to you again. Jesus, by definition, has two distinct natures that occurred at his conception in the womb of Mary. That's when the incarnation began, with the two natures in one person.

When you say Jesus, you're talking about one person with two natures when you use the word Jesus. Okay? Okay, so his divine nature, it preexisted since all eternity. Correct. Is that correct to say that?

Yes. The divine nature has always existed. Okay, so he had a will, he had a conscience.

Wait, wait, wait. Now, you've introduced something. You've introduced the incarnation and the two natures, which deals with the issue of diselitism. You've also introduced the idea of the word being eternal, and you say he had a will, so now I don't know which you're referring to. Okay, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So the Son has always existed. Again, I'm shocked this is even a point of argument.

Well, it should be something that, you know, you called up before. You don't affirm orthodoxy. I have to be very precise with you, because you don't understand the thing you question. Well, I really think, at this point, all I'm doing is affirming Reformed theological perspective of the Trinity. I'm not even trying to argue against it. I'm just trying to establish that the...

I'm trying to tell you. When you say Jesus, you're talking about the two distinct natures. If you want to say the divine nature is eternal, that's fine. You say the divine nature is eternal. Correct. The human nature is not eternal.

Not in the past tense, okay? So, but, when the Son was pre-existing, he was conscious and aware and had a will and all that, correct? The divine aspect of the Son? The divine word. The divine word, yes. Okay, so there was a pre-existence to the incarnation of Jesus. Is it accurate to say that? It's a non-sequitur.

It's a non-sequitur. So, what you need to say is the divine nature of Christ pre-existed and was eternal. Okay? All right? Okay. So, does it stand to reason, then, that perhaps there's an eternal aspect to other humans as well?

That their soul, likewise, could... No. All right. Why not? Because we're not God incarnate. Okay. But, there could be some sort of pre-existing consciousness or will that preceded our earthly incarnation?

Would you... No. It's not biblical. Okay? He formed us in the womb. So, there's nothing in the scriptures that teaches a human pre-existence.

Mormons teach that, but they're wrong. Well, you would acknowledge that there is some aspect of our being that continues on after death, right, though? Of course, after death. So, there is an eternal soul. After death, the eternal in the progressing from now on sense, yes. So, where does the soul come from? Does it begin when we're born? There's a thing called traducism. And then becomes eternal?

Traducism says a soul is produced by the human population and at the coming together and the formation of the zygote and all that kind of stuff and the soul is produced there. Another theory, and we don't know what the truth is, another theory is it proceeds from the father, you know, the human father comes down through. So, we don't know. Okay? There's this theory.

Okay? But the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of the pre-existence. I know some of the early church fathers did. Yes, it does. Yes, it does. So, the Bible does not teach that we had a pre-existence.

Okay? It says we began and we came into existence and stuff. It says God formed us in the womb. That's when he made us, in the womb. There is no pre-existence. He formed our body in the womb.

Yes. And we are to be formed in that with the body. This is how God made Adam. When he formed Adam, he breathed into him the breath of life. And he became a spirit man right there alive.

That's how he began. It does not say Adam had a pre-existence. His life began then when God breathed into his soul, into his flesh, what do you call it?

He became alive. Okay? Well, you said the Bible doesn't teach the pre-existence of the soul. I said the Bible doesn't teach against the pre-existence of the soul either. Would you agree with that? Yes.

Is there anything in the Bible? I just told you. You call up and I want you to continue to call and stuff like that. But you tend not to hear.

I'll say something and then you tend to ignore it and go on with something else. So the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. So that's when it occurred.

Nothing is there about a pre-existence because if there was a pre-existence of Adam as a human being, then it wouldn't say that the man became a living being. Well, there are some who said that's a metaphorical description of the soul animating the body once it enters. Oh, thank you. If you see my camera, my hair is getting gray. I agree.

Are you there? Yes, so how do you respond to the notion that God breathed a soul into Adam? Is it just language describing God?

Yeah, Laura is nice. Charlie, I don't know about. Why would you say that? Are you denying the Bible can use metaphorical language like that? Oh, so you are aware that when you start introducing metaphor, this and that, in order to make a change to what you wanted to say, in order to fit your presuppositions, then if I do the same thing with your vocabulary, it's not permitted. Look, you need to repent of your false doctrines and your false teachings. I'm trying to show you. I tell you what the Scripture actually says, and instead of going with what it says, you go, oh, it's metaphorical now.

Oh, so if it's metaphorical, then what you're saying is metaphorical and I can interpret your words any way I want. Why do you deny God? I don't deny God.

Yes, you do. You suppress the truth of God into unrighteousness. Let me ask you, is Jesus Christ God in flesh?

I didn't call to discuss that. I'm just asking you a question. Is Jesus Christ God in flesh? No, not in a sense that reform theologians teach.

So you deny who Christ really is. I'm informing you, okay? Now, I've asked your question, and if you have another one, that's fine, but I'm trying to get you to be specific and understand what it is you're criticizing because no offense, man, but you've called up many times and failed to understand.

You don't seem to want to learn. Now, hold on. You've got to break, okay? I want you to hold on. I think people need to hear how the conversation goes.

They need to hear you talk, okay? Hey, folks, we have three open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Okay, everyone, welcome back to the show. We have three open lines. Why don't you give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's get back to Anthony. Anthony, welcome.

You're back on the air. I just want to wrap up our conversation. So when you say the Bible precludes the possibility of the pre-existence of the soul, you refer to Genesis. Is that the only place where you see that possibility being refuted, or are there other places? Well, what do you think of Genesis?

I'm just trying to find out. I don't think it's convincing. I think that can be interpreted to include the possibility of pre-existence of the soul. And why do you want pre-existence of the soul? Because it makes sense. If the soul is eternal, that means it exists after we die, but it would make sense to think it also exists before we live. Okay, so it's incoherent for you to say that the souls are eternal in the past tense. I'll show you why. So roughly, would you have any idea of how many billions of souls there are?

Okay, do you have any idea? Just take a guess. Wild guess, 100 billion. At least one per person for every person who has existed, probably.

Well, that's not necessarily true. Like a theory of 100 billion people who have lived on the earth. I've heard that number.

Let's just pick it. Ten billion. It doesn't make any difference.

So billions of souls have eternally existed in heaven, right? Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Okay, you don't see a problem. Do you have any information on that? Any sorts of information on that?

What do you mean information? Well, you're just making it up? You just believe it because you just felt like it today? What's the rational justification for your assertion that billions of souls, human souls, have pre-existed eternally?

Again, I believe the soul is eternal, and that would entail existing before and after the human life. I got that. I said, yeah, I got that. What justifies your opinion? Are you arbitrary? You just decided to believe it? Or is there a rational reason for it?

What's the reason? Well, I can't say I can scientifically demonstrate the nature of the soul. You didn't say scientifically.

But for me... I did not say scientifically. You continue not to hear me.

I did not say scientifically. I just said, what's the reason you have? What's the reason? Why do you believe it? If something is eternal, that means it has existed into eternity past and eternity future. That is the definition of eternal. No, it's not. Now, look, I'm asking you, why? On what basis? What's the reason that you affirm that there are billions of human souls that have eternally existed in the past?

What's your reason for that? Because if a person has a soul, any person, and it's eternal... You just can't hear. You can't think. You're not listening.

Because if it's eternal... Where am I going wrong? I'm saying you're not listening. You need to focus. Focus, all right? Crack your knuckles and take a couple deep breaths.

Loosen your shoulders and go, okay, I'm going to focus. Ready? Why do you believe there are billions of eternal souls from eternity past? What's the reason you proclaim that as being true? What's the reason?

All right, here's why. Would you agree every person has a soul? Yes. Every human person, yes.

Okay. In my belief, every person has a soul. The soul is eternal. And to me, the definition of eternal... No, no, no, no, no, no. You don't get it.

Okay, you need to slap yourself side to head. You've got to start thinking here. You say, it's eternal.

I got that. Why do you say it's eternal? What's the reason you say they're eternal? It's immaterial. It doesn't depend on the physical existence.

So it doesn't perish or arise with the physical body. So now you're saying that the souls are transcendent, that they're not dependent upon the physical realm and or the time-related issues, and somehow they have eternal existence. So do each of these souls have a mind? Do each of these souls have a mind?

Yes, it would be... Okay, so is there a God? Is there a God?

Yes. So these souls are equal to God, right? Because they're eternal and not dependent upon the physical realm, which means they are also like God or transcendent. If you assign transcendence to a being, you're saying it's not limited by space or time. Now you have billions of transcendent beings, not limited by space and time. What's the difference between them and God in that case, since he's not limited by space and time?

A lot of things. I mean, no, it does not equate them to God in any means. In one sense it does, in the sense of their eternality.

Listen, listen. You said they're transcendent beings. Transcendence means not dependent upon space or time, not restricted by space and time, that these are non-contingent. That means they have non-contingency, which is what God has, that has transcendence, which is what God has. That it's not dependent upon space and time, which is what God has.

And that it's eternal in the past, which is what God has. So what's the difference between them in this world of yours, between them and God? Did God create them?

Well... Did God create them? I would say God has dominion over them, whereas they do not have dominion over God. So in other words, they're not transcendent. God is their judge. So they're not transcendent in that they are dependent upon...

They're eternal. ...someone else's. Okay.

Okay, let me just tell you. You can't think these things through. But here's another question. How do you justify the universality of the abstract principles of the laws of logic from your worldview? With universal minds out there that are eternal, how is it that unites them? What is the abstract principle that unites them as being these universal transcendent minds?

We've had this conversation before. I've argued I don't believe in the universality of the laws of logic or the transcendent... Oh, okay. Well, I guess blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. The laws of logic are not universal. No. That's right. Yes, it does in your world. Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday because you can't have the law of identity always being true and the law of non-contradiction might work and excluded middle might or might not work.

Yeah, that's right. Well, they're not laws in the sense of like the law of... No, tiddlywinks. They're not laws in the... That's the answer. All right. You're not actually allowing me to explain my position. What the heck are you saying? That's not a good joke.

Boy, you know, you got some issues there, man. No, I don't care what kind of clothes you wear. If you'd like me to explain my position, I'll do so.

Wait a minute. So you want to be logical while denying the universality of the laws of logic, which you have no basis for. You want to try and speak rationally, which presupposes the universality of the laws of logic and the transcendental nature in order for you to be able to assert something is universally true, and yet you can't define the universality of them when you say they're not true. Okay. Well, there is something that is universal. You're a walking contradiction. You don't understand the issue of the one and the many and the transcendental nature of the particulars, these minds.

What is the unifying principle behind them? What is it? You're not allowing me to explain my position. Yeah, he doesn't know what he's doing. Yeah, I'll tell you.

He just does not know what he's doing. Hey, folks, four open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back for a brush of black. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. Let's get on the air here with Claudia right after I give the number.

We have four open lines, 877-207-2276. I'm going to get into a concept here because we've got nobody waiting right now. I want to talk about something. I want to understand what I was trying to talk about with this guy. He's called up numerous times, and he doesn't learn. He doesn't listen.

I'm not saying I believe everything I say, but he doesn't stand correction. This happened many, many, many times, as he's called, over many months. It gets exasperating when someone just refuses to listen. There's an issue called the one in the many. What I asked was if there are billions of independent souls, persons, then I'm asking what unites them together if they don't have an origin.

It's called the issue of the one in the many. For example, you could have ten chairs in a room. Let's say they're green chairs. And so we would have ten particular chairs that share a quality of greenness and chairness.

What unites them logically? Well, we could look and say, well, that's because they're chairs. I got that.

We understand that. They are ten particular manifestations of a concept. If you were to take one of those chairs and burn it, destroy it, and it's no longer a chair, does the quality of chairness disappear?

The answer is no, because chairness is not dependent on any particular chair. It's a quality not limited to the particular manifestation. So if we have many particulars, then how are they united with one another if the abstract idea that identifies them is not embedded in them? Because if it was embedded, it would be removed, and the quality would be lessened, but that can't be once the chair was destroyed. Furthermore, what's the issue that shows there's congruence between them? If they're unrelated in their particular manifestations, what is the overarching thing that unites them?

But if you say it's chairness, where does the idea of chairness come from? Because it's an abstract object. It's not something you can take a picture of, but you can take a picture of manifestations or particular instances of it, like red. You can take a picture of red in different places, all over your house, all over your city. But if you were to destroy something that is red and the redness is gone, redness itself is not gone.

Redness itself is not destroyed. How then do the particular manifestations that have the attributes of equality, how are they united among different objects that aren't even of the same type? This is very serious discussions that philosophers have had for centuries and centuries that deal with universal concepts. It's solved in the doctrine of the Trinity. Because in the Trinity there's one and many.

You can ask, what is the ultimate? Is it the one abstract ideal or is it the many particular manifestations? Because in secularism it's one or the other, but they don't have a worldview by which the one and the many are congruent with each other. But that does have actuality in the concept in the doctrine of the Trinity, where God is one being and three particular persons. Therefore, we could say in Christian thought that God provides necessary preconditions to account for these things. When we talk about this, we talk about this to unbelievers.

For example, in a discussion I had recently with an atheist, I said, let's say you and I are in a chair or sitting on a bench at a park and we see a robber attack a woman, kick her, knock her down, get her purse, and he gets away. It's an injustice and he ought to be punished. And a year later we're on the other side of the world and sitting at a park bench and the same thing happens there in the same condition.

The woman is injured, purse stolen, the man gets away. It's also an injustice. But the thing is the particular instances of that injustice, they manifest in different times in different places, and yet the quality of it being an injustice has a universal aspect.

And we get into other issues of intentionality. If that's the case, how does someone say that both of those acts in different times in different places both have the same property or the same value of an injustice? The injustice is the concept we're dealing with, that it's a universal but has particular manifestations.

And we recognize them. So what is the ultimate? Is it the injustice? Is it the concept in a mind out there and that's the ultimate? It's the greatest thing that must exist in order for the particular manifestations to exist? Or is it the particulars where these two instances occur and then we conclude that there's a universal something out there? But then that means there has to be a universal thing that concludes before that and it gets into circularity and redundancy. I didn't deny them.

I know for a lot of people that it really blows people's minds away, but this is a very important topic, and it comes up more and more in debates and discussions. I was trying to get into it on a lower level with this guy, but he doesn't know what he's doing. I'm sorry, but he doesn't. Let's get to Ray from Iowa. Ray, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, brother.

Hey. I'm studying here in 1 Corinthians 15, 51 to 52, and I used to believe that a pre-tribulation rapture basically because that's what I was told. But like you, I don't believe in that anymore.

Okay. 51, 1 Corinthians 15, 51 says, Behold, I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleep but all be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye.

At the last trump. So in order for a pre-tribulation rapture to be true, there would have to be millions upon millions of people die, and their bodies would have to be left behind because verse 50 says flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God. Okay, hold on. Before you go, whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay. Just to help you out. The term flesh and blood is not the same as flesh and bones because Jesus said in Luke 24, 39, A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.

Flesh and blood is used as a kind of a phrase that designates sinfulness and failure and things like that, but also in a corporeal sense. That's what he's saying there. Okay? Just so you know about that. All right? Yeah, okay. Okay.

Go ahead. So the pre-tribulation rapture, as I was thinking, couldn't really happen because we don't get our new bodies until the last trumpet sounds. Right.

That's correct. So therefore there could be a disaster and millions upon millions of people die, but that wouldn't be the rapture. Yeah, that would be millions of people just dying. The order here is if you go to 1 Thessalonians 4, it says he'll descend with the voice of the archangel with the trumpet of God, and we know that's also the last trumpet because of what it says, that death in Christ will rise first. We who are alive and remain shall be caught up together. That's the rapture. And in 1 Thessalonians 15, 52, it's clinically benign, the last trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

So he's saying the same thing. So with the return of Christ is when the last trumpet occurs because it says he'll descend from heaven with a shout. Now some people will say it's a partial return. There's no partial return in scripture, period. Okay.

And? Yeah, well, I was just thinking about that. How would our flesh and bones, I mean, we couldn't enter into heaven.

No, we can't. We have to have our new bodies to enter there. No, you can be in heaven without your physical body. 2 Corinthians 5, 8, to be absent from the body is to be home with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 12, 2 through 4, I know a man whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, but such a man was caught up in the third heaven. That's the very presence of God up there in the third heaven. Well, you know, a lot of those movies that were on showed just people disappearing, their bodies and clothes left behind, and that's what a lot of people have the thought of or image of, and that just can't be.

Would that be correct? I'm with you. Let me throw this out with you. The dead in Christ rise first, and then we are raptured with them, or whoever is left is raptured, which is what it says in 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, 17, and in 1 Corinthians 15, 52, well, then here's another thing to throw in the mix. In Matthew 13, 30, the wheat and the tares, because the first ones gathered before the good at the harvest, the first ones gathered are the wicked.

So how does that happen for pre-trib rapture? It just does not. And it also, in my opinion, refutes post-millennialism. That's another issue. Hold on, buddy. We've got a break. Thank you.

Hey, folks. I'll see if you stay on, but that's good stuff. I'll be right back after these messages.

I mean, I'm stepping on toes today, aren't I? Okay, we'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, and welcome back to the show. Let's see if Ray is still there. Ray, you still there? Yeah, I'm still here. All right, so we got kind of cut off there by the break. No big deal. Did that answer it enough? Yeah, I was just thinking, you know, hopefully you understood my question I was asking, because watching the Left Behind movies, which are not correct by no means, but they seem to teach, and most people think, about the pre-tribulation rapture, that people's bodies and everything would disappear.

Well, they will. And I believe the Spirit can be in Heaven before, but what do we do with these flesh bodies, being they can't be in Heaven until we get our new bodies? Here's how it works. If you die right now, your body dies and decays. Your soul goes to be with the Lord. At the time of the return of Christ, we are reunited with our bodies. God recreates, remakes, whatever you want to call it, our bodies, resurrection. It's up to God, okay?

That's it? I believe that, but a lot of people don't on the pre-tribulation rapture. They think the bodies and everything, they're just going to hold as a person, bodies and everything disappear, and that's not possible. At the rapture, what is going to happen is our bodies will be transfigured into the new bodies, and we'll go right up to be with the Lord, okay? Correct, but not at a pre-tribulation point. That's not possible. Yeah, I don't affirm pre-trib either, that's correct. That's a particular aspect I was looking at to prove that that can't happen at that time. I don't think you're following the logic of their position properly. They would teach that the rapture can occur and that people who have died are up there with the Lord when he comes back, that the dead in Christ, those who died beforehand, are reunited with their glorified, resurrected bodies.

And then those who remain get raptured, and it happens to them, too. That's all, okay? All right, buddy?

All righty, thank you. All right, man. All right, you have a good day. You, too. Bye-bye. Okay, bye. All right, let's get to Nate from California.

Nate, welcome. You're on the air. How are you, man? I hope everything's going good. Well, I think you're going well enough.

And me going again. That's all right. Yeah.

What have you got? I like to call it, the more you learn, the better it is. Yeah, he's pretty sure. Yeah.

I have a friend who just told me that, because I told him about the Old Testament and the New Testament, and he told me that he's not that much into the Old Testament and that we are not supposed to read it, that it's best just to read the New Testament. That's natural. And I couldn't agree with him. I could not agree with him for nothing. Yeah.

Because everything in the entire Bible we should read. Exactly. You are correct.

That's how it should be. Read it all. You told him right.

Good for you, man. I have to because, or else, the more than what, Ten Commandments, or more than Ten Commandments, and the prophecies, he believes that the prophecies have already been told in the New Testament, but I believe that Jesus practically, when he spoke, he didn't, wasn't reading the New Testament, he was just preaching, and he was reading more of the Old Testament. Okay, do you have a question now? Do you have another question? Yeah, that was my question, that we should read both the entire Bible.

Yeah. Yes, we should read both. Yes, we should.

Okay, it's just simple. We should read, because God gave us all the scriptures, Old and New Testament. Are there any mistakes, like the Jewish said, they don't eat ham, or stuff like that, that we shouldn't worry about?

No, don't have to worry about any mistakes. There aren't any. Okay. All right. Okay.

Thanks a lot. You have a good one. You too. Okay, God bless. All right. God bless.

Okay. That was Nate from California. Let's get to Darryl from Virginia. Darryl, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Hey. How are you today?

Whoa, that was loud. I'm fine. I'm fine. What do you got, man?

Very good. Well, I think we don't have any time, and we're on regeneration, but since that topic of the rapture, but since we don't have any time, I was listening to your show Friday, and you were discussing the Trinity with one guy that rejected the Trinity, and your argument was basically following how people called upon the Lord, and then Paul spoke of those who call upon the Lord, and you made that correlation. And I just wanted to throw out there, in Isaiah 41, 42, and 45, I think, the Lord says, I am the first and the last. And then in Revelation 1, Jesus says, I am the first and the last. Yeah. So his objection, he pretty much said that he would embrace the Trinity.

No, he won't. If that could be shown. People who say that, no, they don't embrace the Trinity. I've defended the Trinity for decades, and I've talked to so many people, and not a single one has said, who has said, oh, they're the Trinity, if you can show it to me in the Bible, and I show it, oh, it doesn't work. They just say it's just lip service.

They've already made up their minds to reject it. That's all it is. Yeah.

Yeah. So I'll go ahead and just ask another quick question in regards to the rapture. You brought up the wheat and the tares, and the implication was that the wicked would be taken first.

That's what it says. Okay, and that's an argument that you're presenting against the rapture, right? No, not against the rapture. I'm for the rapture. I'm just saying that Jesus says, at the time of the harvest, the first ones gathered are the tares.

That's what he said. So just work that into the rapture, because the wheat gathered, that's the harvest time, which most people agree, and I do, it's the rapture, because that's what it says, and as he seems to allude to that, it'll be at the end of the age, and he'll send forth his angels and gather out of his kingdom, all the stumbling blocks. Okay. So, you know, how does that work? That's all. Fitting it into the pre-trib rapture, how does it work?

That's all I'm saying. Well, it wouldn't actually fit into the pre-trib rapture, because that would be in relation to the Lord's return at the end of the tribulation, where two men are gathered, one is taken, one is left. Let me ask you this, when he says they are taken and one is left, That's the wicked who's taken.

Who's taken. That's the wicked. Right.

Right, it's the tares. And that's the sheep and goat judgment that takes place at the end of the tribulation, as opposed to, so basically we wouldn't correlate those teachings with the pre-tribulation rapture. And you did mention 2 Corinthians 5, where So you have a question? I'm just curious, do you have a question? You seem to be wanting to take that and teach, I'm curious what's going on here.

No, I already asked it. It was your view on the wheat and the tares and the taking of the wicked first. So the primary gist of the question is, why would you not make that correlation to the return of Christ at the end of the tribulation? Are you pre-trib rapture? I'm just curious.

Oh, absolutely. Do you have any verses that show pre-trib rapture? Anything in scripture?

Well, think about this. Now I know that Not think about it, do you have any verses? Do you have any scripture?

What would you go to for scripture? Revelation chapter 20. What about Revelation 20? Okay, so in 4 and 5, I believe it is, we're told that the rest of the dead live not for a thousand years. Okay, pre-trib rapture.

You're talking about millennial stuff here. So do you have any verses that show This is the point. Okay, hold on, hold on. Darryl, Darryl, I'm asking, do you have any verses that show pre-trib rapture?

That's what I'm asking. Well, you know all of the normal verses that are used. First Thessalonians chapter 4. Okay, but you're not listening to the point.

One of the things that we see Well, what is the point? Well, we see a resurrection at the beginning of that thousand years and we see people who die who are not resurrected, right? And so we're told that the dead in Christ and those that are alive are all raptured at the same time, right?

So here is the thing. So do you believe Jesus comes back twice? I believe that He comes back at the end of the tribulation. We're not at the beginning of the tribulation. Does He return at the beginning of the tribulation?

Does He come here for that? I don't really view the rapture as a return. I view that as the Lord gathering believers, the church. Then why does He say that the wicked are the first ones gathered when He does that, when the believers are gathered? No, that's in the pre-tribulation rapture. The wicked are gathered. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You're not hearing me.

No, I don't think so. If you're going to say that the wicked are judged later, why is it that they're judged before the pre-tribulation rapture? So they die physically when Christ returns at the end of the tribulation.

No, no, no. Jesus says they're taken. It's the harvest. They're taken to a place of destruction, to be burned.

It's judgment. That happens before the pre-tribulation rapture. According to Jesus.

It couldn't happen before the pre-tribulation rapture, because that takes place at the end of the... From your perspective, it has to. No. Yes. Not at all. Yes.

You know why? It's a separate resurrection. Wait, how many resurrections do you have?

Three, four? There are several. There are several? There's the resurrection of the rapture. There's the resurrection. Got any scripture for these separate ones?

I've talked to people about them, and when they show me the scriptures, you know, you read them in context, it doesn't work. It does. But where I think a lot of the confusion comes in... Excuse me?

I've debated it hundreds of times. I know. I listen to your show a lot. I love your show. I'm glad. I'm glad. I'm glad. You know, so, you know, I'm not trying to be, you know, hostile or anything. I'm just saying that I've listened to your reasoning quite a bit, and, you know, in your discussion with this fellow right before me, you know, you were talking to him about the rapture, or the guy right before the last one. And you were...

There's the music. Why don't you call back tomorrow? We'll continue. I tell you what.

Find me your best preacher rapture verses, and let's talk about them tomorrow. Let's just see, okay? Well, I don't know if I'll be able to do it tomorrow, but I'll try, okay? Okay, well, try next week then. All right. No big deal. All right. Have a good one. All right. Thanks. All right. God bless. All right. Hey, folks. I enjoyed that. It was good. May the Lord bless you. Bible studies tonight.