Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the C-A-R-M All right, so why don't we just jump right on the calls.

Let's just get to Matt from Wisconsin. Matt, thanks for calling back. Hey, can you hear me? Hey, yes I do, I hear you, mm-hmm. Okay, so I think you remember me. I was the guy that called last week about Deuteronomy 22 towards the end of the show.

Yep. And so, you know, you encouraged me to call back, and I had originally planned on calling back to kind of further discuss that chapter and that passage, but over the weekend, I started thinking, and there was something else that came on that I thought of that I kind of wanted to talk about instead, so I'd rather go that direction if that's okay? Sure, up to you. Okay, all right, so this thing I'm talking about, this thing I'm talking about is kind of this whole big picture, there's three facets to it, or three parts, and I know the questions that I'm gonna ask, you're probably gonna wanna ask me like, you know, whether or not I have a moral basis for this, or what basis do I judge this, and I'm willing to talk about that, but I just kind of wanted to get into the over-parking narrative, I guess, before I discuss that question, so I was wondering if you could reserve asking that question until I cover all three parts, does that sound okay?

I don't know, it all depends on how it goes, because I generally don't like people to give too much stuff without responses, if it goes on and on and on, I could give them a platform to speak against our Lord, so it just depends. Okay, okay, okay, yeah, that sounds fair, you know, thought I'd ask. So, the first thing that I wanted to get to, I said there were like three parts to this, so the first part involves a question with the story of Samson, and so you know that story, the Israelites cut off his hair, and his strength was weakened, and they, you know, plucked his eye out, and they had him imprisoned, and then, you know, he went to that Philistine palace or temple or whatever it was, and there were three, I think like 3,000 Philistines standing on the roof, and so Samson went there and he was able to, his hair grow back and he was able to get his strength back, and he pushed on the pillars, and he sacrificed himself, and those Philistines died in the process, and yeah, and so I mean, to me, the idea of somebody's hair being, or somebody's strength being controlled by the length of their hair seems kind of silly, and then the fact that, you know, the Philistines, they knew his hair was a strength, was the source of his strength, yet when he was in prison, they didn't cut his hair because that just seemed like plot convenience, and then the fact that 3,000 people could stand on a roof that was supported by two pillars kind of seems, doesn't seem to really make sense to me, but all that's kind of the subject.

Hold on, hold on, let's look at it, okay? So you raised objections in three things. So he's a Nazarite, which means not to cut his hair. It was certain laws or requirements that were demonstrations of their sanctification before God, and to cut that hair was a violation of the Nazarite vow.

So this is why. So God had called him to be what he was and said, don't cut your hair. This is part of the Nazarite vow.

When he did that, okay, then it was broken. So it's not resting in his hair. It has to do with the covenant and the Nazarite vow system, okay? So what was the other thing? So that's that. So what's the other thing? Three things.

We'll tackle the 2,000 people later. Well, no, yeah, because those things were just like, that wasn't part of the overarching thing I talked about. Those were just like little tidbits that I kind of took issue with. Well, you raise them up, don't raise them up if you don't want me to talk about them, okay? So go ahead. Okay, yeah, yeah, you got a point there. Okay. So what was the second one you raised? I forgot the second one. The second thing I said about how the Philistines knew that they said that they cut his hair and then he lost his strength, but when his hair grew back, his strength returned.

You'd think they'd be smart enough to realize that maybe they should take a few minutes every once in a while to cut his hair so that his strength doesn't come back. You think so? Yeah. Okay, so let me ask you, is it as simple as that? So you gotta be careful.

So to speak, you're sitting in a lounge chair. You know, you got a drink in your hand and you're looking back at scripture and ancient culture and you're judging it. So is it?

Is it like that? Because, you know, if he's defeated and he's enslaved in a prison situation and they are at comfort and they're resting, they don't believe in his idiocy and stuff like that, okay, and it grows, so what? And then they're surprised. Hey, wait, there's legitimacy to it and they realize it too late. It's perfectly consistent with what happens with people for real and their behavior and inconsistencies.

He told Delilah that his strength came from his hair and then she told the Philistines and then they cut his hair and then they imprisoned him and they had him in prison. You think they would have, you know, like, hey, wait a minute. Maybe we should cut his hair just, you know, it just kind of seems like you had all of these Philistines. You thought one of them should have, you know, taken a moment to do that, but they didn't, which just kind of seems like, you know, plot convenience, I guess. Maybe one or two or three or 20 did, and maybe the people and official says, nah, don't worry about it. You don't know. You don't know. You can't sit here in your lounge chair, so to speak, and just start judging. You can say, oh, you know, maybe they thought they might have done that. Well, yeah, and maybe there was other conditions too that just weren't recorded and mentioned.

It's not a very good criticism. Now, about the pillars. It says Sampson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested. Didn't say there were only two.

Okay? Yeah, but the fact that two pillars can bring down a building that can support 3,000 people on a roof, I don't know, that just kind of seems a little too far-fetched to me. I used to be a mechanical designer. I used to do mechanical design, and of course, I had the advantage of support of a structural engineer. I was a mechanical draftsman, and I could work with welds and bolts and stresses and things like that, so that if one part of it were to fall apart, it would not jeopardize the structure of the whole.

But that's not stone and wood in an ancient culture where they would have vertical things and not necessarily trellises and things like that, and they could have two humongous pillars that were the middle on display, where he was put on display. They were the representation of the power of that whole thing, and then just to crumple one area that could cause a cascading effect, and I happen to know that is possible. So- Okay. But I mean- Your criticisms are- Those are just smaller things that I- Your criticisms are, yeah, they are. You need something more substantial. If you want to find something wrong with the Bible, you need something better than that, because it's, I mean, so far, you're kind of swinging it at air. Those are just kind of little things that weren't really part of the big picture, but anyway.

We'll give you something big. Okay, so the first, because I said there were three big parts to the thing I wanted to talk about. So the first thing was a question I wanted to ask you, was you personally, do you think that what Samson did there was good? Do you think that his action there was justified? And if so, could you explain your reasonings as to why? See, here's the thing a lot of atheists try and do. They'll say, Matt, what's your personal opinion? Then they try and set the personal opinion against scripture.

And then they try and create a problem there. What I can tell you is this, that God allowed what he allowed to happen. For you to say, was it good? Doesn't mean, well, you haven't described what goodness is, or by which you can then justify a standard of goodness by which you can even ask the question.

So you say, is it good? I can just come back and say, first define what good is. Then we'll answer it. Because you're presupposing a certain value, and yet you haven't defined what the value is. And if I answer according to an undefined value, then you try and use it against me.

That's a technique that the atheists often do. So my response generally is, okay, first of all, before I can answer the question, you have to define what good is. You say, is it good? I'll tell you what good is first before we know.

We had to have a standard, so what's good? Do you want me to kind of answer the whole morality question from an atheist standpoint? Okay. So I kind of wanted to talk about this later, but I guess if you're bringing this up now, I guess, okay, I will. Okay, so I know you've had a debate with Scott Clifton before, correct?

I don't know. I've had debates with lots of people. Okay, because I believe you had a debate with a gentleman by the name of Scott Clifton, and he was able to, anyway, he was able to come up with, I think there's quite a good definition of morality that isn't contingent on any kind of religion. Which is definition. So his definition is, I don't know if I'm saying this verbatim, but with both morality and immorality, he says a particular action is moral or right if it somehow increases happiness, health, and wellbeing, or somehow minimizes unnecessary pain, harm, and suffering, or it does both, and a particular action is immoral if it somehow decreases happiness, health, and wellbeing, and somehow increases unnecessary harm, suffering, or pain, it does both.

Because the thing is is that, you know, that's a horrible definition. Happiness, health, can I continue? Sure. Okay, because the thing is is that, you know, happiness, health, wellbeing, pain, and suffering, these are things that we can show actually exist. You know, we all experience pain and suffering, we all experience health, happiness, and joy. I mean, these aren't things that are just, you know, subjective. I got that, I got it, yeah.

They are things that actually, they are things that actually happen. Because for me, what it really boils down to is harm. Because, you know, if you look through history, and you look through your own personal life, and you look throughout society, what we can see is that decreasing harm increases the quality of life, and is better for society. And that increasing harm minimizes- Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I've heard this, I've heard this a thousand times, okay? Yeah.

Okay, so what you're saying is, what reduces harm is good, in a nutshell, right? I know that there are like, you know, certain- Can you work with me? Specific instances where, you know- Let me show you.

Can you hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. It's my show, not yours. Yeah, yeah.

All right. What you're saying is, what reduces harm is good. It's a nutshell version, right?

Right? Yeah, a nutshell version. Yeah, and so what is good is what reduces harm. So, what reduces harm is good, and what's good is what reduces harm. So it's completely circular, it's meaningless. It's a meaningless statement. How is that circular and meaningless? Because it defines itself by its own definition, that what reduces harm is good, and good is what reduces harm.

It's meaningless. Now, hold on, we'll be right back after the break, okay? And we'll tackle this a little bit more. Folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

You know, I love talking to atheists because it's like shooting fish in the barrel. We'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276, here's Matt Slick. Sorry, I'm laughing at something someone said in the chat. Another moronic government conspiracy.

I just love stuff like that. All right, let's get back on with Matt. Are you still there? Okay, Matt.

Yeah, I'm still there, yeah. All right, so before the break, to define something by its term, and the term is its own definition, to say what reduces harm is good, and what is good is what reduces harm, is completely circular and non-definitive. It's useless.

You have to come up with something other than itself. But just telling you, it's useless. Furthermore, saying that reducing harm is what is the standard of goodness, well then, you have to be able to establish that that is the universally valid position to hold.

Because I don't agree with you. For you to say that's what reduces harm is good, well then, let's just work with it. So reducing harm is good. So then, what do you say? Let me ask you this question. So if someone lies to reduce harm, is that lie morally good?

Yes. Okay, so then I could suspect, hold on, hold on, hold on. So then, I would expect you to lie to me in our conversation here, so that you can theoretically reduce harm by not promoting Christianity, which you think is bad. So that you should be lying in our conversation, shouldn't you?

No, I said that there are specific instances that of course you could debate. Now, you know, kids would be saying, you know, lying as... Is Christianity good? Is Christianity good? Do I think Christianity is good?

Yeah. You're asking my opinion on that? Yes, is Christianity good?

I'm asking you. It can provide benefits, but overall I do not think it's good. Okay, so you think it's bad. So then, therefore it's harmful. So then, right now, you should be lying to me to reduce the effect of Christianity.

Yeah? No. Yes, because you said lying to reduce harm is morally good.

So don't you want to reduce the harm of Christianity? Shouldn't you then be lying right now to be consistent with your own assertion? No, because the thing that I'm referring to now... Well, then you're inconsistent with your own assertion. Then you're inconsistent. Hold on. You're inconsistent.

Hold on, hold on. You're inconsistent. You're saying, no, you shouldn't lie. Now, let me ask you, why shouldn't you lie in this situation where you said Christianity causes harm and lying to reduce harm is good? So why is it you should not lie to me right now in our conversation in order to reduce harm? Because lying in this specific instance is not going to do good. Like I said, things like lying... Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Things like lying...

Hold on. In this specific instance? So can you give me an instance on radio where lying would be the right thing for you to do about Christianity? On radio, I can't think of something that's necessarily specific to that instance. But in instances where...

Okay, so then, how about TV? Like, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, I'm holding your feet to the fire and you're starting to get a little bit singed here. This is why you're trying to over-speak. Now, here's something else.

Say something else. If you say that an action is good ontologically, you're saying an action is good, an action is good or bad, that's a problem. Because morality is not an action. Morality is an attitude. It's an abstract entity. It's a concept that occurs in the mind. Morality is experienced. But nevertheless, to say that an action is good is to say there's a necessary moral quality to an action. But if that's the case, then if the same action occurs in different places and different times, then it obtains a transcendent, immutable quality, right? I guess so. Okay, so then, how do you as an atheist defend the idea of universal moral absolutes which require minds?

That's something. Look, I'm not saying I'm the smartest guy in the world or the biggest philosopher. So that's, you're talking about things that, again, you've been doing this for a long time, so you know a lot more than I do.

Which is how I'm quickly, it's how I'm quickly able to get to the heart of the issue and undermine your position with simple logic using what you say and what logic requires. If you say an action is moral, any particular action is moral action, then what you're saying is the action itself has a moral quality assigned to it or that is in its physical action. A rock rolling down a hill is a physical action. A one man slapping another man is a physical action.

So let's use the idea of a slap. Now you're saying, under the right current conditions, slap would be moral or immoral, just the action. Well, then that means that when the exact same action occurs someplace else, it has a moral value. But what you're saying is it's now transcendent. But you see, the problem is morals don't exist under rocks.

They exist in the heart, in the mind. But you're saying there's a universal moral quality to an action because it's transcendent because when the exact same action occurs elsewhere, it has a moral value. But you can't have that in your atheistic worldview.

It refutes itself. Your position makes no sense. I'm just trying to help you out here and show you. So can I get to the other point that I was trying to get to? Because I had the three.

Because you've been asking me questions I've been trying to answer and I was- You need to jump up higher now because now that I've cut your legs off, it's gonna be harder to reach the higher levels of argumentation, but go ahead, try. Okay, so the first question out of the big three that I had was from the Christian perspective, from your perspective, do you personally think that what Samson did there was good? Do you think that his action there was justified? Did you find good? I'm asking you. Well, goodness is that which corresponds to the character of God. That's what good is, it's a universal quality of God.

It emanates out of God and is reflected in certain circumstances. So when people do things that God uses, it doesn't mean the action itself is in concert with his holiness, but God could certainly use bad things, non-good things for a greater good. So there you go. Okay. So you think that what he did there was good and justified? I didn't say good and justified, did I? You're not listening. Now I'm gonna tell you, I do a lot of discussions with atheists and I'm not trying to be insulting here, okay? But I'm telling you that a lot of times the atheists display a lack of critical thought. See, you misread what I said, I'm being very specific. I said, God's goodness is what corresponds to the character of God, but God can use an action that someone does that may not be good and he can use it for a greater good.

That's what I said. So kind of like how you said lying is bad, but he can use something like that if it's in a specific instance? Well, he can use your sin.

Isn't that inconsistent? He can use your sin in rebellion as an atheist for something greater. For example, you're here as an atheist discussing things with me and I'm very easily undermining your whole position and so your rebellion against God in your sin is being used by him for a greater good. So why couldn't, so lying is usually seen as something that's not good, but why couldn't I use something lying that's usually bad to do something that's good?

Like if Anne Frank were in my attic and if Anne Frank were in my attic and she were, and Nazis knocked on my door and they said, is somebody in your attic? And I said, no, and that saved her life. You're saying that that's not a good thing? I didn't say it was or was not. You're saying that that's not benefit. But if you could talk about goodness, just talk about right now. Are you gonna, should you lie to me right now about your position?

No. Oh, so truth is what's good? But you said lying can be good. How can both truth and lying both be good?

Now you have contradiction right there. Hey buddy, we got calls waiting. Call back tomorrow, okay? Call back tomorrow.

We're about some better sentences and better arguments. Call back tomorrow, we gotta go. There's another break. They got callers waiting. Folks, we'll be right back after these messages. This is Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. I would love to have talked to him the whole hour if nobody was waiting, but I wanted to make sure other people weren't ignored. So let's get to Brian from Vancouver. Brian, welcome, you're on the air.

Hi, Matt. I'm a seminarian. I go to Regent College in Vancouver and I'm really troubled these days because I took a course on the Old Testament and the textbook that we use, it was published by Harvard University Press. The textbook basically taught almost as fact that the Bible, the Tanakh, the Old Testament has been redacted and edited, the so-called documentary hypothesis. And I've never encountered this theory before seminary and it's just been challenging me intellectually.

And I asked my professor, hey, this is new to me. I'm kind of disturbed by the documentary hypothesis. Could you please give me an evangelical critique of the documentary hypothesis? And she said that she doesn't have such critique.

In other words, she as an Old Testament scholar, as a reputable scholar in the field, said that she doesn't have her critique. And so I'm just wondering, do you have any two cents to help me grapple with the idea of the documentary hypothesis? Yeah, that teacher needs to be fired, okay? If that teacher, she, promotes the documentary hypothesis, which is also called the Graf-Wellhausen theory or the JEDP theory, then if she proposes that as being legit or having any legitimacy, she needs to be fired.

She's incompetent. If I was in a class, I would raise objections and I would, I'd say, how do you know? I mean, you know, so it's called the JEDP for short, okay? The documentary hypothesis, Graf-Wellhausen. What it means is the first five books of, for those who don't know, the first five books of the Bible, Moses, were written by at least four different authors, a Yahwist, an Elohist, and a Patriarchist, and a Deuteronomist. And so the three, the four have different, different, they're different authors. And so the pen it took was put together and assembled, maybe by Moses, by looking at different stuff. And so what they'll do is this.

They will say, for example, let's see, where can I get this? That J, I'll go to, let's see, where is it? Genesis chapter five, versus 28. I'm gonna read 28, 29, and 30, okay? So 28 is from P, and Lamech lived 182 years and became the father of a son.

And then it jumps over to J. Now he called his name Noah, saying this is the one she'll give rest from our work. And then it goes back in verse 30, then Lamech lived 500 years. So that's two authors right there in those verses. So in other words, Lamech lived 182 years and became the father of a son. Now he called his name Noah, saying this is the one she'll give us rest from our work from the toil of our hands, rising from the ground which the Lord has cursed. Then Lamech lived 500 years, 595 years. So what they just said was 28 was P, 29 was J, and 30 is back to P again.

I just read it to you, and they're saying in those three verses are two different authors. That's what they say. You with me so far? It's dumb. Yeah, I'm with you, yep. Yeah, it's dumb.

How about, this is 11, 12, and 13. In the 600th year of Noah's life, in the second month, in the 17th day of the month, in the same day of all the fountains of the great deep burst open, the floodgates in the sky were opened, and the rain fell upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, and those that entered, male and female in all flesh, entered as God had commanded. So you see, that was two different authors in those verses, but they're coherent.

It's called the Graf-Wellhausen theory, and it's arbitrary. What they did, these so-called scholars that go and look at the Hebrew, and then they say, hey, we see differences of patterns in the writings, and so we're going to tell you that there's different authors. That's what they're gonna do. That's the whole thing, is they perceive different authors. Now, are there different authors?

Well, no, because Jesus, he equated all of the areas, J-E-D-P, he equated them all to Moses. I've got an article I've written on this, okay? Furthermore, I remember doing this back in 1999. This is when I wrote two articles on this, 1999. And it was a Sunday, and I'd been studying J-E-D-P, and I wanted to write it for this CARM website I'd been on, and so I remember going, okay. So I'm thinking about it for a few days, researching and rewriting, and I got up before church, and I wrote what the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis was. I wrote it. And then I went to church, and I came back, and I wrote a response to it. The same person wrote two different articles on the same day on the same topic.

You with me so far? Yep, yep. So I wrote it in WordPerfect back in that day. It had what's called a grammar analyzer. And so I ran both articles that the same author wrote on the same day on the same subject. Now one was explaining what it was, and the other was refuting it. And so the Flesch-Kincaid grade level of explaining it was 13.64, and answering it was 10.35. So the first one is written on college level, and the other one was basically a sophomore in high school. The passive voice, both were 9%, so I write in passive voice a lot. Sentence complexity, explaining the JDP was 60 out of 100, but in answering it was 43.

Vocabulary complexity, explaining it was 38, in answering it was 22, obviously. Two different people wrote it, right? That's JDP. That's what they're doing, okay? Thanks, I really appreciate it. So you published an article on the website, and do you tell them about the subject matter, or?

Just look up documentary hypothesis, or look up JEDP, you will see the articles. One's answering and one's explaining. It's simple, okay? And the way I write is very quick, and I get to the point, let's move on.

That's what I do. And I wrote this back in 1999, all right? Wow.

Yeah, I'm 65, I've been doing this for a long time. So you can go through there, you can check. Now let me tell you, these guys, okay, let me tell you. I've been in college classes with professors in a secular environment, and they would raise stuff like this and other things. I just ask questions. You know, if someone said, JEDP, five theories, and this is what the four authors would say, how do you know that? Well, because a scholar said so. What scholars?

And is it true that my scholar can beat up your scholar? Because Jesus equated all of them to Moses. So was Jesus wrong in seminary, was it wrong? You know, the professor, was he wrong? Well, no, it just didn't really, so Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. Is that what you're saying?

I mean, I ask these questions, I ask difficult questions in class. And see, so, you know, get this straight. So we can read, Susan, I happen to have some information right here, let's read through some of the verses, and then you can see, you can try and tell me how you can get J-E, J-D-E-P out of them.

Can you, what's so different about them? What, you don't know? Have you read any books that refute JEDP? Because they're out there, and they do a great job of refuting them. Have you read any books? No, so you're only presenting the one side in that attacks the word of God? So you're going to a liberal seminary.

I really, really appreciate. Yeah. Yeah, well, it's Regent College, and it's considered an evangelical seminary, but I think theological liberalism has creeped into this seminary. And like I said, my Old Testament professor, she said she didn't have an evangelical critique, and that she, as a credible scholar in this field, she has to subscribe to a lot of these theories. But yeah, it was just really discouraging.

Yeah, really discouraging. She didn't have to subscribe to them. She can make up her own mind. I don't know.

She can do her own thinking. I was, you know, when I was in college, I'll tell you, I had a reputation, and it wasn't that I was trying to be mean, but I had a reputation among the secular, well, I went to two years of secular college, and two years of a Christian college, but I had a reputation among the staff, and it wasn't like I was mean, or I would just raise my hand. Well, I got questions about what you just said, and their eyes would roll.

They would, ah, yi yi. And it would happen in different classes, because I started thinking, started asking questions. How do you know this is true? And too many students just believed what they said. You've got to learn how to ask the right questions.

What evidence is there for JEDP? And you've got to do some research, but you're in seminary, so that's not really fair, because you're just drowning in homework. I know what it is.

I got my MDiv in 1991, I remember. So, but go there and take a look, okay? If you have any questions that come up because of this seminary, you call me up, all right? You call me up, all right? All right, thank you so much, man.

I appreciate your time and input. All right, man. Okay, God bless, buddy. You, man, liberal seminaries.

I think seminaries are good, but liberal ones. Mike from Winston-Salem, welcome, you're on the air. Okay, I'm up. You are on. Oh, now you're off, because there's a break. Sorry, brother, there's already a break. We'll get right back to you after the break. Hold on, okay. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. All right, buddy, welcome back to the show.

72276, let's get back on the air with Mike from Winston-Salem. Back on, you're back on the air. Okay, thanks, I just have a simple request here. I'm having a hard time finding an understandable definition of gnosticism as it was 1,900-plus years ago, and then what it might look like in today's world, maybe an example in today's world, and I'm going to hang up and listen to your answer. Stay on, you can stay on, that's all right. If you can't be one.

Well, I think I hear better, understand better when I'm holding up the phone by listening to the radio, but go ahead, I'll hang on. Okay, no problem. So gnosticism is an ancient heresy that taught that salvation was through gnosis or knowledge, gnosis, gnosticism, and that the only way to God, the true God, was not through Christ, but was through special, revelational knowledge that the gnostics possessed. Part of the theological perspective that they had was that matter was bad, matter was evil, but God was so good that he could not touch evil, therefore it could be no incarnation. Furthermore, in order for him to work in the material world, he had to have demiurges, or he had to have go-betweens. He created lesser divinities that would then act upon the physical world and carry out his wishes. And so there was a disparity, there was, through the lesser created beings, there was good and evil that manifested.

But you gotta understand, matter is evil, and that truth is by knowledge. Now what are some modern gnostic leaning kinds of things? Within Christian thought, we have gnostic ideas in the name it and claim it.

People who say, you have the knowledge of God written in the word, and your words have spiritual power, and you can proclaim what the truth is, and in that you can be saved from material problems. It's a gnostic kind of a thing. It's also occurring in the New Age movement. It's heavy in the New Age movement. And a little bit of it is in the New Apostolic Reformation movement as well, okay? Okay, so you said they considered that matter is evil, and what was the second part of that statement?

Matter is evil, and so therefore, in Gnosticism, so therefore God could not become incarnate, because he's not evil, matter's evil, there could be no incarnation of the divine. Okay, all right, okay. All right. I still have the same problems, we're back there, okay. Thank you.

Yes, that's very true, Mike, very true. Okay. All right, buddy, God bless you. Thank you. Okay, all right, let's get on the air with Nelson from Bakersfield.

Nelson, welcome, you're on the air. God bless you, Matt, yes. In John chapter 17, I was looking at this stuff that would go, and something dawned on me, like, wow. Maybe you could explain what it means.

I have a lot, a couple of thoughts, but I just don't know which one I lean onto. In verse, between verse 12, I'm sorry, yeah, between the beginning of verse 12 and 11, where it starts, where Jesus says, Holy Father, can you read John 17? At that section there, the end of verse 11.

Well, verse 11, John 17, 11 says, I'm no longer in the world, and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to you, Holy Father, keep them in your name, the name which you have given me, that they may be one even as we are, okay? Yes, the thing that gets me, it says, the name that, your name, it says to the Father, your name, other sections, I think verse six and verse 26. What you've given me.

Yeah, what you've given me. What name is he referring to, because he says, I think, the name of the Father. His name, his name is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Name in the culture, there wasn't a name like Bob or Frank, it was, like the Indians, where's running bear, like Methuselah meant, when he dies, it will come, okay?

So Matthew, I just have it because my name means gift of God, and you have Nathan, which comes from the Hebrew to give. So genealogy of Genesis five is a bunch of names, like Adam means man, and Noah means rest or peace. So when he dies, it will come, is Methuselah. And when he died, that's the year of the rain came.

It's Delhi, so that's what's going on, okay? So his name, the name I've given, the name is more than just Bob, because his name is Yahweh, that's the name he identifies himself with, in Exodus 3, 14. But it's the I am the being one. Jesus says in John 8, 24, unless you believe that I am, you'll die in your sins. In John 8, 58, he says, before Abraham was, I am. He says, I am no longer in the world, yet they themselves are in the world, and I have come to you, Holy Father, keep them in your name, in what you are, your representation, the truth of all that you are, the name you've given me, that they may be one even as we are one, okay? Yeah, because I know that I'm oneness.

I try to say that, see, that's the name of the Father is Jesus. No, that's oneness heresy. Yeah, and, yeah, it's oneness heresy.

Oneness is heresy. All right, Matt, well, thank you very much. I appreciate you wanted to ask you that question about this verse right here, this particular verse. Thank you, appreciate it. All right, man. No problem, buddy, God bless.

All right, let's get a Janet from Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome, you're on the air. Thank you, Matt.

I just have a quick comment. I just wanted to say that I have never seen anybody talk to an atheist like you did, with the confidence and the scripture and all that backing, and it's such a beautiful thing to see that as Christians, we should be able to give an account for what we believe, and to refute somebody, that's not an easy thing to do. So I kind of listened to you for a minute, and I was like cringing. I was like, how is he going to get himself out of this? And you just went on, and I was like, oh my goodness, he didn't need me help.

He didn't need me in my prayers right now. I'm like, well. Well, I just wait for, my technique is wait for atheists to talk, because as they talk, they're giving me rope to hang them with. That's it. Huh. It's all they're doing. Look, here's the basics.

They have no foundation by which they can make any truth statements. When I say foundation, foundation, there's a principle. I gotta write about this.

I gotta do a little video on this. You have to understand a basic thing. Everything an atheist says or believes, he does so for a reason.

What's the reason? Can that reason be justified? So if he says, for example, if an atheist says, well, God killing all, having the Israelites kill all the Canaanites is bad, I'd say, how do you know it's bad? Because it's wrong. Just because you're saying it's wrong doesn't mean it's wrong.

And then we get into something more difficult. We'll say, so are you saying the action is wrong? Because think about this, I didn't get into this with him. So if I slap somebody, is that right or is it wrong? Now it's an action. If I'm slapping somebody to stop that venomous spider beetle creature thing crawling and the frowny face getting ready to point his finger in there to save him, that's good.

But if I slap him because he said that I was ugly, slap him. That's not a good reason. Because basically it's true.

It's not a good reason. So the exact same action has a different result based on the intention. Morality is intentional.

Oh, okay. Now, so if he wants to say there's an action has a moral quality to it, it's an action of slapping the face is the same thing as an action of a rock rolling down a hill. Why is there morality attributed?

He'd say a rock isn't personal, got you. So morality then requires personhood, right? Yeah, so if I go to the other side of the world a year later and slap someone upside the head for the same reason, is it also wrong? Yes, well then what they're saying is that the action has a transcendent quality. It's not dependent upon when or where. It has, it's a universal truth.

Wait a minute. How do you get a universal truth in atheism? Because truth occurs in the mind. You don't find, you know, a bag of truth under a rock. Hey, look, I found a bag of truth.

Don't open it because the truth will get out and we'll lose it. Right. It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, so if he's making a universal truth statement, truths require minds.

So how do you justify a universal truth, moral truth, from your atheist perspective which doesn't have any universal mind? How do you do that? Wow. Wow. You see, then they're swimming.

That's just amazing. Oh, it's easy. And so the thing is, they don't realize they're in a cracked cement canoe. They're trying to paddle upstream and they're getting nowhere. What I don't understand is if they listen to what you're saying, which makes total sense, then they would change their thinking. But they seem to continue to go on trying to chump you up, you know, trying to trick you or, you know, get you to persuade you to think differently.

That's right. Because they think, oh, I could go on. They think that what they're thinking is correct.

They think they have a point. But all I have to do is pretend I'm a five-year-old, which isn't too hard, and just say, well, why? Well, why?

Why? So when someone makes a claim, it's called JST, Justified, or JTS, JTB, Justified True Belief, what's the ultimate foundation by which they then claim that something is true? Now, if they go in reverse and ask you why, you're able to answer that?

Yeah, easy. The rest, truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God, the Trinitarian God. Okay, okay. And so when someone says, well, how do you know God is good? Because he tells me. Well, they don't like that answer.

Well, how do you know? What standard of good, Matt, do you have by which you can judge God? That's exactly right, I don't. I don't have a universal standard of good outside of God. Because if you're gonna imply that God somehow did something wrong, you're implying then that you have access to a universal standard of good that you then can apply to God. Right, right, right, right. So what justifies your universal standard of good?

Don't ask me questions like that. I've had atheists, when I started doing this to them, they'll say, no, I'm not talking about my view, I'm talking about your view. But you're talking about my view from your view, because it's what's called an external critique. They're judging my view from something outside of my view, which means they're judging it from their atheistic perspective, which means I have a right to examine their atheistic assumptions. If they say no, it's only from the internal perspective, then they can't win from that, because then I'm just saying, okay, well then, God reveals what's good out of his character. That's how we know what good is. That's an internal critique. Well, how do you know he's good? Well, that's external.

Well, that's external. It's easy stuff, okay? You know, it kind of reminds me of playing a chess game. You know, it's like they make a move, and then you counter that move. I mean, it's not a game, but it's like you have a way of addressing them. It's kind of, I've never seen it before, and it's just kind of amazing to me. So I was just like, I gotta call and tell you that I just, I thought that was amazing. So I'm like, oh, I see what an apologetic person does.

You know, I'm like, man, this is pretty interesting. So I have seen one of your debates, you ever debate another one? I'm not the only one who talks like this. I know several apologists who do the same thing. They would just word it slightly different. They're doing the same thing. And we just, we tear atheists up because our arguments have no founding in actuality, and they can't justify the causal chain by which all factual statements are then justified.

And that gets them more stuff. Hey, call back tomorrow. We can talk more about it. Okay. I know, I hope that guy calls back.

That was so interesting. Okay. So anyway, thanks, Matt.

Yeah. All right, God bless. All right. Okay, bye-bye. Bye. Hey folks, hope you enjoyed that. By His grace, back on air tomorrow. We'll talk to you then. God bless, have a great evening. Another program powered by the Truth Network.