Share This Episode
Matt Slick Live! Matt Slick Logo

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick
The Truth Network Radio
July 26, 2022 1:10 am

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 961 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

July 26, 2022 1:10 am

Open calls, questions, and discussion with Matt Slick LIVE in the studio. Topics include---1- Matt discusses a recent conversation with a Roman Catholic regarding Mary.--2- Can you explain how unitarians understand Jesus---3- Isn't -Jesus name only- baptism the pattern in Colossians 3-17 and all throughout Acts---4- Can you explain what the amillennial view is---5- What's the best book to learn about presuppositional apologetics---6- What do you know about the preservation of the Quran-

Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul
Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul
Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul
Core Christianity
Adriel Sanchez and Bill Maier

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Click live if you want to give me a call, as usual, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. And I want to hear from you. We have five open lines, wide open.

So what do you got? You want to talk about Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity, Baha'i, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, UFOs, the Occult, Evolution, Apologetics, Theology, oh I don't know all kinds of stuff we can talk about here in the show. So today I was online and I was working on, let's see what was I working on, I was working on something.

And then I decided to go in a different direction and it worked out, anyway I started listening to some people talk about some other things. I was in this room, I love discussing theology, I really do. And I was in this room and this Eastern Orthodox guy just started talking smack about me. I mean, whoa, you know, I'm a liar, I'm no good, dishonest, I'm like dude, wow. And so I typed in let me come up and defend myself, no that can't happen, no you're just guilty. And so I started a room discussing Eastern Orthodoxy and it filled up pretty quickly.

And so we discussed stuff with Roman Catholicism as well, somebody came in. And I'm going to tell you, you know, I enjoy that kind of stuff just like I enjoy hearing hate mail. Now tomorrow, Fridays, we do hate mail. I love it when people insult me, I don't know what it is, but I get a kick out of it. We had one yesterday after the show, you're a magnificent clown, you know, I'm chuckling, that stuff is awesome. And I don't know, there's something, just thinking about it makes me feel good.

So yeah, there's something obviously wrong with me and you know, so why would something like that, enjoy that? Well, I just do. All right, hey, we'll let you know that we stay on the air by your support. If you like what you hear on the show and you want to support it, all you got to do is go to, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, and just forward slash donate and you'll be able to help us out, you'll be able to, if you want, that is, you know, we ask $5 a month, it's not much. $5 a month and it just helps, we're trying to get 1,000 people to do that. Now that may sound like a lot of money, but it's not in the broad scheme of things because we have missionaries in Brazil, Colombia, Turkey, and in Africa and we're supporting boots on the ground doing stuff and we're trying to support them as best we can.

We don't have a lot, we're just not rich, and everything that you don't donate helps us further the kingdom of God, that just, that's it, you know, forward slash donate. All right, now, so we've got nobody waiting right now, why don't you give me a call, 8-7-7-2-0-7-2-2-7-6. So I was talking to a Roman Catholic today, and I like setting up the Roman Catholics, and I said, okay, all right, in the middle of the conversation I said, so let me ask you, let me just ask you a question, because he was telling me how great the Catholic church was and how it's the true church and he went through these scriptures and none of them that he brought up were actually teaching what he wanted it to say. Well, you know, it's implied, well maybe it's implied, maybe it's not implied, you know. And so I said, can I ask you a question? He said, sure. I said, okay, so regarding the church, you know, Jesus started the church and Jesus is the one who, you know, he bled for us and purchased us and things like that. I said, are you with me so far? He says, oh, yeah, yeah. He says, so would you agree with me then? I said, would you agree that Jesus is the one we need to look to regarding the church, its origin, mission, everything, that the best way to look is to Jesus?

He goes, well, of course. And so I said, okay, let me read you this. This is from the official Catholic writing. After speaking of the church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. Well, I'm going to tell you, the, how do I put this politely, the violations of logic and exegetical principles that were invoked in order to justify this statement as being true, while it's also the case that you only look to Mary. And he said, it doesn't mean that we don't look to Jesus. And I said, well, I got that. But the text says no better way, no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. And he, you know, he just ignored the phrase. I said, well, no better way.

That means there's no better way than Mary, right? Oh no, blah, blah, blah. And so I said, oh, so you're disagreeing with it. And then what he said was, well, we don't, we're not obligated to believe it. He said, okay, well, you're not obligated to believe it, but what do you think about what it says?

It's official. And so, you know, holding the feet to the fire is, it's hard to do when people squirm. Have you ever done that? You know, there's a fire going, hey, let me take your feet for a second. What are you doing? Put a mix of the fire. They're going to pull back. They're going to know what are you doing?

I'm holding your feet to the fire. Well, people don't like it and this guy did not like it either. And it was really kind of interesting.

So he did all kinds of stuff. And then one of the things I like to do with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people, because it works the same. And I love the, uh, let's just say the feedback that I get from the different individuals who say varying things to justify their position.

I say, um, I'd say, so, uh, let's see, which one I thought, which one do I want to go on? I said, Oh yeah. I said, uh, so can Mary hear our prayers and she, oh, of course she can.

Okay. Can Mary hear millions of prayers simultaneously? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Can Mary hear millions of prayers simultaneously spoken and thought in different languages all over the world? And uh, there's, Oh yeah, yeah, she can really. So do you have any scripture for that? That Mary can suddenly hear millions of people's prayers all at the same time and in different languages, comprehend them all and know their thoughts because it's spoken in the heart all the same time from all over the planet.

Could she do that? And they go, yeah. I said, well, where's that in scripture? The common verse they go to is Revelation five eight. When he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. That's the verse you see in the symbolic book of revelation has a four living creatures and 24 elders fell down before the lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And that means that Mary can hear all the prayers of everybody all over the world, spoken in thought, in different languages, you know, and I'm reading this and I asked him, can you explain to me how that verse Mary can heal our old prayers? And this guy said, well, the saints could do it too. What?

Yeah. The saints can hear all the prayers because they're in heaven and they're all the prayers of the saints. And if they're all, they are the prayers of the saints, then they're hearing them.

Well, it doesn't say they're hearing them, but it does say, and they sang a new song saying worthy to take a look, break the seals. So this is the kind of thing that they will do. Now why do they do that? I'm going to tell you why.

It's because they revere the church more than scriptures, more than Jesus himself. Now, I know there's a lot of people right now are just saying that I do not know what I'm talking about. Well, maybe I don't. Maybe you have an opportunity here to call me up and say, man, you know what you're talking about? And I'll say, okay, why?

And let's see. But you see, how I see it is that when the scriptures tell us something, the Catholics in the Eastern Orthodox will submit the scripture to their church. Now, this one guy I was talking to, I said, so how do you know that your interpretation of the scriptures are correct?

He goes, that's your problem. I said, well, I don't know what you say, but you're the one who says that your church has all the authority, right? Where do you get that from scripture? So the church has the authority, right? So where'd you get your authority to say that the church has the authority? Because if you don't have the authority, you can't say the church has the authority. But if you say the church says it has authority, well, then you're just relying on whatever it says and not scripture. So if you go to scripture, then you're interpreting the scripture to say that the church has authority. So who's got the authority here? Well, that kind of reasoning, you see, is not permitted because basically the wheels came off his cart at that time and he's trying to make sense of things and it just let him talk because I want people in the room to hear it, to hear the nonsensical stuff that's being said in defense of their position.

This is what happens when you put the church as the final authority over the word of God, and that's what happens. Let's get to Aaron from Washington. Hey, Aaron, welcome.

You are on the air. Thank you. I just have a general question. So I've been studying Unitarianism and I wanted to understand, I guess, your understanding of how they understand Jesus and how that's not biblical. Because when I look at, the basic reasoning says, well, it's not the Trinity and I just wanted you to go more into depth on that.

Sure. Unitarianism says there's one person in the Godhead and now there are variations within Unitarianism and one of the sub-variations in a loose sense is oneness, Pentecostal, because they also teach there's only one person in the Godhead. But they will affirm that Jesus is God in flesh, even though they do it inconsistently. But the Unitarians deny that Jesus is God in flesh. Jesus is a created thing. And so Unitarianism, strict Unitarianism, holds to the idea that God is a single person who's existed forever and that he created the universe, created Jesus, and that salvation is found in varying ways, either through faith in Christ, which doesn't make sense in that perspective, or through your works, or certain knowledge, or whatever it is, or ceremonies. So that's what Unitarianism is. There's variations of it and it's non-Scriptural.

And ultimately, it has problems with the issue of God's personhood, as well as what I call the static mind problem. And so I can go to more of those if you want, but I think that helps right there. Yeah, that'd be great. You have to just listen to that. All right. So let's talk about that. And I'll do this.

We've got a break coming up in a minute or two, so we'll continue after it too. But a person, you're a person and I'm a person. Now in this context of what person means with you and I, it means different individuals, different beings, different entities. But the word person in relationship to God as a Trinity does not mean that. It was used by theologians to designate attributes of personhood. So personhood, the characteristics of being a person, such characteristics are such things as being able to think, or to speak, or be aware of someone else. Be aware of yourself, being able to reason, to love, to hate, to have fellowship, to have reciprocity. You know, I talk to you, you talk to me, exchange, and this is what personhood is. And God, of course, at the very least of the sense, he is a person and we can say that he's one person.

We can say he's three. I'll get into this after the break. I'll give you both one person and three, but they're different senses and hopefully we'll make sense of that. Okay. So hold on, Aaron. Hey folks, four 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. Hey, welcome back everyone. Let's see. If you want to give me a call, we have three open lines, 877-207-2276, Aaron, are you still there? Yeah.

Okay. So, as I was saying before the break, God is spoken of as one person, but also in more than one at the same time. So for example, in Exodus 6, 2, and 3, God spoke further to Moses and said to him, I am Yahweh and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God almighty.

So he says there, you know, I am Yahweh. So God is speaking in the singular, but we also have where in Genesis 1 26, let us make man in our image. And then in Genesis 11 seven, let us go down and confound their language.

Some people say, well, that's the royal weak. No, it's not because it wasn't in use in the Bible and the Hebrews, they didn't do that. And in Genesis 19 24, God says, Yahweh rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah from Yahweh out of heaven. We see this plurality going on. As I just quoted, you know, Genesis 19 24, where it says Yahweh rained fire and brimstone from Yahweh out of heaven.

Well, that's just kind of strange, excuse me, that's kind of strange wording, but check this out. God says, the name is 4 10. I got a sneeze coming up, so I may go silent here for a bit.

Hopefully I don't have to sneeze. He says, I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt. I slew your young men by the sword, along with their captured horses. And I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils that you have not returned to me declares Yahweh. I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

What? He's talking and he says, I did this like God did it. There's this plurality thing going on in the Old Testament. So we get this issue of personhood. Let's talk about personhood. So personhood has, like I said before the break, characteristics. For example, thinking, speaking, having a will, can love, can hate, says you and yours and me and mine. And this is what the word person means in the theological sense as it relates to the Trinity. And so here's some questions. Let's assume the Unitarian position.

There's two major problems that I see. So let's say God is Unitarian. He has one mind.

He's one person. Now from forever ago, that's how he existed before the created world. So since God is love, 1 John 4.8, and the nature of love is sacrificial, the creator love has no man that is but to lay his life down for his friend, John 15.13, and God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, John 3.16. So the question then becomes for forever before the incarnation, before creation of the universe, let's say, the Unitarian God, is he capable of loving? Now there's a sense in which, yes, he's capable, but it's not manifested because he may have it within him to be able to do it, but he can't do it because there's nothing to love, no one to love, just himself for forever. So we would say in that condition, the one person of God has no one to love and the full expression of love cannot be realized from an eternity past. In fact, the full expression of love must now be dependent upon the existence of something else other than God. That's problematic because it hints at the idea that God is not completely and totally self-sufficient because the nature of love is to give, God is love, and yet he can't manifest a fullness of love without a created order.

It's a problem. All right, well, what about reciprocity? Not possible. Fellowship?

Not possible. Now theoretically, such a God would know that others could exist and could then in an abstract sense focus on what is other than himself and the potentiality, though they don't yet exist. So he could have that sense there, but there would be no reciprocity from forever ago, no full expression of personhood. This is a second problem. Here's another problem.

I call it the static mind problem. And so let's take the Unitarian God who has existed for forever. Does he know all things? Yes. Can he contemplate?

That's a simple question. To contemplate means to think about something. When I go to bed and I go to sleep, I've trained myself to try and go to sleep by contemplating various things. And so I'll think about something and I'll go over it. I have an apartment in the Bahamas in my mind and I'm furnishing it and I'm looking out the window at the ocean. It's dumb something.

I like the ocean. And so I go through this. It's just a procedure and I go through that and it helps me train myself to go to sleep. Okay. Well, whatever. People have different things they do. But you see, that's an abstract idea.

No actuality there. But I can contemplate about it because, well, I don't know everything that I already know. But in this static mind problem, God already knows everything he already knows. So how could he contemplate?

You couldn't consider what he already knows because from eternity he would already have known that. So it doesn't make any sense. The implication is that he's kind of stuck. There's no one to fellowship with. There's nothing to, no one to talk to. There's solitude in, I guess, darkness, I don't know, maybe his own essence of light.

You can see light, I don't know. But there's no one to talk to for forever, no fellowship, nothing. He already knows everything, even what he would contemplate. So he really can't contemplate anything.

He's just kind of stuck. It's a problem. Now, I'll go on with this. There's more. What would you call it if you were to put someone in a cell with no light, no heat, no warmth, no cold, no one to talk to for the rest of his life? That's torture.

That's interesting. It kind of applies to Unitarian concept. Now here's something else. Since the Unitarian concept is problematic, well, then let's introduce another person in the Trinitarian concept personhood, but let's do it for two, two persons. Now let's say that there's a father and a son.

Let's just assume that as a position in Unitarianism, but it wouldn't be Unitarianism anymore. Now it's called Binitarianism. Well, now these problems are solved, most of them. Now we have communication, reciprocity. Now the other can be loved. There can be an awareness of you and yours and me and mine. Now that problem, those problems I was mentioning are gone, except there's another problem that now comes up, because you see, love itself is an abstract idea. I love my wife. I can't take it out of my heart, put it into a jar, wrap it up, and then give it to her for a present. So here it is.

Can't do that. It's an abstract entity. It's a feeling, and in the sense of that, it is impersonal. It can't walk around. My love cannot walk around, speak, and say, hey, what are you doing?

It can't do that. It's impersonal, but it emanates out of a person. So let's assume the father and son love each other. This would mean then that an impersonal aspect of God's creation is now fundamental to his nature, and that's a problem.

Because it would mean the abstract idea of an impersonal concept called love is what completes God in the binitarian sense, and that has a problem. Now, we've got a break coming up. When we get back, I'll continue this a little bit more.

Is this helpful? I hope so. We'll be right back, folks. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

This is Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show.

Let's get back on here with Aaron. Are you still there? I am. All right. Now, is this interesting so far? It is. Very interesting. Thank you. All right.

So now let me continue a little bit, all right? So now the problem with unitarianism or binitarianism would be a fundamental aspect of God's eternal existence would be something that's impersonal by nature. It's problematic because now we have a fundamental aspect or necessity of God's existence in the communion being itself impersonal, and that's tough. Now let's talk about Trinitarianism. So in Trinitarianism, that fundamental aspect would not be impersonal. The thing exchanged would be actually true love mediated by each of the other members of the Godhead. So the Father would mediate the love between the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son between the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit between the Father and the Son. In that way, there's no impersonal anything in the nature of God, and it would be the minimal, complete, and necessary, let's just say, situation, construction, by which we could then manifest the completeness of fellowship without any impersonal aspect being extant in that.

And that's the Trinity. Okay? Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you. Make sense? It does.

All right. Furthermore, with the Trinity, we have a solution to a problem. If you were to take a piece of paper and take a pen and just make dots all over, let's say make 20 dots on this white piece of paper.

Now this is a bit more complicated, but I'm going to see if I can make this make sense. The dots each are what we call a dot. There's a concept called dot-ness. We recognize each one of those as being a dot. And we recognize that the one principle, dot-ness, is unifying them.

We recognize each one of those as the manifestation of the same thing. See, if we were to take one of those dots and erase it, dot-ness is not destroyed. Just like if you were to take this piece of paper and write little circles, you know, draw perfect circles, let's say you drew 10. Well, those are manifestations of the idea of a circle. If you were to erase one of them, it doesn't mean circle-ness is destroyed. Okay, so we have this concept called circle-ness, and we have circles. The circle-ness is actually what we call a universal, because I can draw them and you can draw them.

And we're different places at different times. They're universal, and they're not dependent upon a particular time and space or place, or who created them or who drew them. And if we were to take that piece of paper full of circles and burn it, all circle-ness is not disappeared. So the universal of circle, in this case, is not dependent upon any particular manifestation.

Well, wait a minute. If it's not dependent upon a certain particular manifestation, how do we know those things are circles? Well, there's some interesting theories about stuff like that, but we won't get into that. What we're saying is we recognize equality, a universal, and particular manifestations. Now, the question then becomes, what unites them?

What is the ultimate? Is it the concept of a circle? And then if that's the case, then how is it particulars or manifestations of it if I'm creating it and you're creating it?

What unites us? What's the underlying principle? Is it simply us drawing it, or is there something else going on behind the scenes and we're manifesting a universal that you and I both recognize? But how is that possible when individuals are the ones doing that?

It's a problem. And so we ask the question, what is universal, or what is the ultimate? Is it the particulars, or is it the universals? The ultimate means, what's the standard by which the truth of everything is judged?

Is it the universals? Then how do we connect the particulars to them? Where's the connection? Draw a line between the universal and the particular. What's that line that connects them?

Can't do it. And so this is called the problem of the one and the many, the one and the many. And it's solved in the Trinity. That is one and many. One God, three persons. And he then provides the necessary precondition for all intelligibility in that the universal truth of the laws of logic can be instantiated, recognized, and justified in the single being who's a universal God, who in particular manifestations of personhood, which is one and the many, he is the one who offers the fingerprints upon creation, by which then we can use logic and recognize universals like redness and goodness and all kinds of nesses. And then we can connect them back to him being the ultimate, because they're both equally ultimate in God's essence.

The Trinity provides the solution. Wow. Yeah. Okay? Yeah, that's great.

Thank you so much. Yeah. That's certainly different. Different talk, but on Unitarianism.

And I haven't even told you how it's arrived at in scripture. That's another talk. Okay?

But there you go. Hope that helps. All right. Yeah. Appreciate it.

Thank you. All right, man. So don't adopt Unitarianism.

It'll lead to further heresy. Okay, buddy. Okay. All right. All right. Come back tomorrow. We'll talk some more.

All right. Let's get to Elijah from Pennsylvania. Elijah, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Max. Look, how you doing today?

Let me check. Yeah, I'm good. Yeah. Me and you had talked yesterday. Do you remember me? Nah. I only remember people I care about, so, you know, it's hard to remember anyone. No, I'm sorry. I just meet so many people. It's a blur. So, no, I don't. But go ahead.

Yeah. Yeah, so my question is this, Matthew 28, 19, Jesus told the apostles to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. But all throughout the book of Acts, we only see them baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And also, this is another scripture that, one, this Pentecostals like to bring up to say that Jesus' name, only baptism is what we should do, is in Colossians 3, 17, where it says, And whatever you do in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. And so they use that as a proof text to say that we should also do baptisms in the name of Jesus Christ. So my question would be, if Jesus really meant to baptize in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, how come the apostles never do that?

They did. So the phrase, in the name of, is used 68 times in the Bible. And for example, Deuteronomy 18, 20, or which he speaks in the name of other gods. When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, Deuteronomy 18, 22, 1 Kings 20, 16, to mean nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord, in the name of God of Israel, it says, Prophesy to the Jews who are in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of God, the God of Israel. So in the name of has different meanings, slightly different meanings, different contexts.

Generally it means by the authority of. Psalm 20, verse 5, we will sing for joy over your victory. And in the name of our God, we will set up our banners.

May the Lord fulfill all petitions. We will boast in the name of the Lord. So an action performed in the name of, okay, will sing in victory and in the name of the Lord, we'll set up our banners in the name of the Lord by the authority of, to proclaim, et cetera. Now, when you go to Acts 4, 7, when they had placed them in the center, the Jews, they began to inquire, by what power or in what name have you done this? And Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man as to how this man was made well, let it be known to all of you, the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ and Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name, this man stands before you. So they healed in the name of Jesus, which means, they said, by the authority of, that's what it means.

In what name or in what authority, what power are you doing this? Because when they say that, it's dunamis, power, the power it gives you, the name of Jesus. It's in his name. That's what's going on. So when you baptize in the name of Jesus, you're doing it by his authority, and to do that in his name is to say, I now baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because in the name of, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is also a phrase of how it's used, by the authority of, in particular in Christ who granted authority to the Christians to be able to perform baptism, then you do it in his name, in his stead, in his authority.

And then that's why you see it reflected that way by the phrase, and they baptize him in the name of the Lord Jesus. That's all that's going on. Okay? I'm going to hold. We've got to break. Hold on, buddy. We'll hold on to the break. Hey, folks.

Two Open Lines. 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. All right. All right. Welcome back to the show.

Let's get back to Elijah. I hope that helped. Did it? Yeah. For the most part, so when the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, they were also baptizing in the authority of not only Jesus, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit?

No. In the name of Jesus means by the authority of Jesus. Okay. That's what that means.

In the name of Jesus means by the authority of Jesus, and that's how it's used. Okay. Okay.

Make sense? Yes. Okay. That's all that's going on. And they just misapply it, misuse it.

They don't understand what's going on. And it's unfortunate, but that's the case. Okay. Yeah. All right. Let's see. Earlier today, I watched your debate against Marco Baldwin on the continuing charismatic gist.

It was years ago in Texas, yeah. Yeah. And you guys went through the book of Revelation, and y'all brought up amillennialism.

Oh, yes. Can you explain what that is? I believe I saw one of Trent Horn's video on that, where he talked about what the Catholic Church believes about the rapture and stuff. It sounds similar to what they believe. So do you hold to the position of what the Catholic Church believes about the rapture and all that stuff? Well, Trent Horn is a Catholic and don't trust anything Catholicism teaches. It's a false religion. So that's one point that's worth looking at and examining. But nevertheless, so amillennialism is the position that the millennial reign of Christ is not a literal 1,000, but that it's a figurative number and that he is in control and reigning now.

And so the premillennial view is that, excuse me, is that there will be a future literal 1,000 year reign. Okay. That's the difference. Okay. Okay. So are those the only views on that particular section?

No. No, there's amillennialism, premillennialism, postmillennialism. Postmillennialism would be the position that the kingdom of God will come into existence after the world is converted. And so postmillennialism is like a form of amillennialism, except generally speaking amillennialism is a pessimistic kind of a thing. It's going to get bad, it's going to get worse, and the rapture is going to happen.

Postmillennialism says it's going to get better and better, and the rapture is going to happen better. Generally, those are pretty simplified, but that's basically what's going on. Okay. Okay. All right. Make sense? All right.

More or less? Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

There you go. All right, buddy. All right. Okay. All right.

Can I ask you one more quick question? Sure. Are all Presbyterian churches a reformed Calvinist? They're supposed to be, yes. Uh-huh.

Okay. That's what it means, right? Presbyterian deals with, it's from the reformed camp, and Presbyterianism does mean the issue there of the five points, and then Presbyterianism also affirms a deeper covenantal aspect, including infants. And then there's reformed Baptists, and they hold to the same stuff, except they don't believe in the issue of baptism of infants, not for salvation, like we don't, Presbyterians don't, but as a covenant sign. So some people, yeah, anyway, I kind of mess up on it a little bit.

Reformed Baptists don't believe in infant baptism, and the covenant in that respect, our Presbyterians do. That's the basic idea. Okay. Okay?

Yep. All right, man. Okay.

God bless, buddy. All right. Okay.

Okay. Let's get to, let's see, Alex Orlando. Hey, Alex. Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, brother.

I always want to make that baking soda vitamin C joke, but I know I'll get you going. I know. Yep. You got to come up with a new one, though, because, yeah, I got another recipe for you, and we'll see how that one goes later on. I'm not taking it. I don't care what you say. Okay.

Sounds good. Okay, buddy. Hey, you were watching the discussion last night, weren't you? Yeah, man.

That was great. Yeah, I was, you know, asking those questions. I thought it was informative. I actually emailed it to Dr. White to see if maybe he would comment on it and stuff. What question was that? Well, I just emailed him the debate, or the discussion, and I just told him, hey, pay attention to my Super Chat and listen to the responses, because that guy, Michael Jones, had said that stuff about presuppositional apologetics, and Dr. White commented about it. I don't know, he might comment on it, but I want him to know. Okay.

You never know. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, no, it was great.

I liked Tony Costa and those guys, and just kind of hearing the different views and stuff, yeah, and as I get more into presuppositional apologetics, he's learning. Okay. All right.

Sounds good. Yeah. Well, since we're talking about it, one quick question. What's the first go-to book you would say to learn about presuppositional apologetics?

Because I have a few, but what's the first go-to? Acts 17. Okay. What does Paul the Apostle do there? In Acts 17, he talks about the pagan gods, and he says, this one right here is the true god. He's the one who did this and this and that and that. He just presupposes the truth of the Christian Trinitarian position and works from it, if he does. Okay.

Yeah. And then what about just like a modern author book you would recommend? Well, I try Apologetics to the Glory of God. That's Good by John Frame, but I also go into Greg Bonson's stuff and just find out some stuff on presuppositionalism from him. He's got some various stuff, and I listen to his lectures. The guy's brilliant.

Too bad he passed away, but that's what I would do. I go there, too. Okay. Yeah, I have Always Ready by Bonson.

I just haven't cracked it open yet. Yeah, it's good stuff. That's lovely. Yeah. He's quite good.

He's brilliant. Yeah. Yeah.

Really quickly, I know we don't have a lot of time. I was talking to a Muslim guy. I had a short time with him, and we were having a discussion back and forth. He was actually kind of taken back when he was like, well, we have the same God as Judaism, Christianity, Allah. They're all the same. And I said, no, they're not. Our gods are very different. Mine is the God of the Bible, and our characteristics are different.

Our attributes are different than Allah. And he was taken back, and then the discussion started. We started going back and forth. So I only had a short time with him, but the last thing I mentioned was, I was talking about works, and he was saying, well, doesn't the scriptures say, like we were talking about, you know, if you love me, you'll keep my commandments.

So I said that. He went there, and then his wife chimed in about that as well, about, well, what about works? So that was the last kind of part of the discussion.

And how would you go from there? Like when they start, I say the verse about works, and then they start talking about it. I know they're coming at it from, like, a different viewpoint, but where would you continue with that? What they're doing is assuming that the mention of works means this is what you do to get saved.

They're reading into the text. Jesus says, if you love me, you'll keep my commandments. And it's true. But where does this verse say that keeping those commandments is what saves you?

It's just excellent. And so you ask them, well, what does it mean, you know, are you saying it means that they're saved? It doesn't say that it says you love him, you'll keep his commandments. And it's true.

If you love him, you can do what he says. That's all that's going on. So you know, do you believe in him?

You loving him? Yeah. Well, there you go. That's what you do if you're a real Christian. It doesn't mean, it doesn't mean it's how you become a Christian or get saved. It doesn't mean that. Okay. Okay. And then one of the other things they were talking about was the Quran, you know, it's been preserved over all these years.

No, it hasn't. I'm not too, yeah, yeah, I, you know, I understand that I'm not too familiar with King Uthman and all that stuff, but what, what information do you have about that? Well, it's just information I'm still collecting, but Uthman was the guy who collected all the segments of the Quran that were by either in memory from people or who had written it on parchment or pottery or stones or various things. And he collected all of this stuff, then he compiled the Quran and said, this is what the original Quran is, that he had all the other stuff destroyed. So the question then is, why would he have all the other sightings and recitations and stuff destroyed if it was all identical? He says, no, this is what we have. Yeah. Why would he do that? Oh, because it's identical. No, it isn't. Because if it was all the same, you could just rest assured that what he would have done. Absolutely. He would have said, see, everything's identical.

Here's the fact, but that's not what happened. So when they would say that, you would go to the scriptures being preserved over time, all the manuscripts. I think it's the highest count of manuscripts, right, of any document of antiquity?

Yeah. And the Quran's a different topic in that sense, but it doesn't work. And so you go to Surah 1094, which says to Muhammad, if you lack understanding about certain things, then go to the people of the book before you. Well, that means people of the Bible who read the New Testament. Well, if that's the case, and the Bible's corrupted, as they like to say, then why would God tell Muhammad to go to those who read the book, the people of the book?

It was corrupt. Okay. Okay, that's good.

And then also, he started to get a little animated. How do you deal with that when someone, I mean, will you continue to entertain it for so long? Just say, please, you know, calm down, we've got to just talk, that's all. That's just okay. Polite. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. I appreciate it, brother. All right, man. God bless, buddy.

God bless. All right. We'll talk to you later. All right.

That was Alex from Orlando, Florida. Let's get to Jamie from North Carolina. Yeah, we have about one minute. What do you got, buddy? All right, brother, just a quick question about concern. We've been in the First and Second Thessalonians, and First Thessalonians, chapter 5, 23, where Paul is mentioning and praying that we may be whole in spirit, soul and body, and just if you could give me and us an explanation of what the difference or a definition of what's the difference between the soul and the spirit, and what does Paul mean by this? Meaning your spirit and your soul and your body blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus.

What is Paul getting at with that? Well, what you're talking about is the difference between what we call dichotomy and trichotomy. Dichotomy says the soul and the spirit are one and the same things that are used interchangeably. Trichotomy says, no, they're different, and they have different ways of looking at it. And then the question then becomes, because we're almost out of time, the question then becomes, well, which one's the right one?

They're used interchangeably, but then they're also designated differently. Maybe it's because he's using it poetically in the three, and that's right out of time. Call back tomorrow. We can talk about this tomorrow, okay?

Because we're out of time, buddy. All right, sir. God bless you. I appreciate you.

All right. Can you let God bless? Hey, folks, we are out of here. May the Lord bless you by His grace, and nothing but His grace. We're back on here tomorrow, and hopefully we'll talk to you then. So have a good one, okay, everybody? God bless. God bless. We'll see you next time.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-03-19 20:00:43 / 2023-03-19 20:19:45 / 19

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime