Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network Podcast. I'm confused what this guy's position is.

Was Jesus fully God and fully man during his earthly ministry? I'm going to say yes, he's going to say no. And yet when I listen to some of what he said today, I listened to about 10 or 15 minutes of something else that he did. It didn't make any sense what he was saying. So I'm going to have to spend time figuring out what it is he teaches.

And I don't know, you know, but I'm going to debate him, apparently, and we'll see how that goes. So there you go. There you go.

There you go. So what I'm going to do right now is just tell you that we have four open lines. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. Now, on Fridays, a lot of times I'll do hate mail and I might get that ready. Also, some of you may get a little confused. We've been having a lot of Internet problems.

Okay. And so yesterday the radio station had an Internet problem. A construction team cut their Internet line and so off the air. And I've had all kinds of problems. I spent today one, two, three, three and a half hours on Internet problems and on tech help and stuff like that. And it was shortened because I know tech stuff.

Otherwise, it would have been even longer and longer. So bad news and a lot of frustration, but it seems to be working right now. Got a new network up and we'll just see how it goes. So if you want to give me a call, four open lines, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Rudolph from North Carolina. Rudolph, welcome.

You are on the air. What is Christian Science? Christian Science? Christian Science is a non-Christian cult started by Mary Baker Eddy. And let's see, I got a lot of stuff and information on her back in Southern California. When I was there a lot, I would run into their reading rooms, Science and Health reading rooms.

And so I got into a lot of discussions with a lot of them and had a lot of interesting interactions. They really don't understand much about logic and thinking and critical this and that. OK, so anyway, so what does it teach? Christian Science teaches that God is kind of like an infinite, impersonal force.

And there's a principle. Think of New Age stuff, but a little bit more sophisticated. And so there's a divine force, a divine energy that you get in contact with. And through proper thoughts and through proper understanding of reality, you can then mold reality, your reality, into what it is you want. They would deny the incarnation of Christ. Now where the New Age could say that's possible, even though they say it's a Christ consciousness, the Christian Science group would say, No, God cannot indwell sinful flesh. So they're kind of gnostic in that. And they would say God is mind and that the Trinity is not three distinct simultaneous persons, but the Trinity is life, truth and love.

And so we can all have the mind of Christ and the understanding of Christ consciousness in us. Furthermore, there is no personal devil. There is no personal sense of sin.

There is no personal sense of hell in a final judgment. And true healings are the result of true beliefs. OK, so let me read a couple of quotes to you that are really interesting from from Science and Health, the Key to the Scriptures. Father Mother is the name for deity, which indicates his tender relationship to his spiritual creation.

So Father Mother, the word Christ is not properly a synonym for Jesus, though it is commonly so used. Mind is the I Am or infinity. Mind never enters the finite, but infinite mind can never be in man. A portion of God could not enter man. And recognize that Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God.

So get that. That's really interesting. One of the most interesting quotes in Science and Health, the Key to the Scriptures, paragraph 361, page 361, paragraph 11 through 13. So that Jesus Christ is not God, as he himself declared he was. So that she, Mary Baker Eddy, flat out contradicted what Jesus said. Admits that Jesus claimed to be God, but said no, but he's not. So, I mean, it's just demonic.

Check this out. Let's see, I'm going to get this quote. Let's see, gee, interesting quotes, questions.

You know, I'm surprised why this quote isn't on my list here. The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon the accursed tree than when it was flowing through his veins as he went about daily doing his father's work. History of the Church, I mean, excuse me, Science and Health, the Key to the Scriptures, page 25, line 8 through 13, I think it is.

It isn't from memory. And so, they deny the deity of Christ, they deny the crucifixion, and the atoning sacrifice of Christ. So, yeah, non-Christian cult. Okay.

May I ask you one more loaded question? Sure. What does NASA stand for? What does what? NASA stands for.

National Aeronautics Space Administration, NASA. No. What does it stand for? No, it does not.

Okay, what does it stand for? Never a straight answer. All right. Okay, well, you have to do what we can.

You're never a straight answer. Thank you. You too, man, thanks a lot. God bless, buddy. All right, that was Rudolph. And if you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 8772072276. Let's get to Adam from Arkansas. Hey, Adam, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, how's it going, Matt? It's going, man. It's going. So, what do you got, buddy? Okay.

Me and a friend of mine is kind of trying to combat full predatorism. Yes. I'm going to Acts 1-11, and I'm a millennialist because of you bringing my views to that, but he's telling me about Revelation 1-7 that how can I get out from underneath Christ, not return us in. Behold, he's coming with the clouds.

Every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and the tribes of the earth will mourn over him, so it will be amen. That refutes full predatorism. I'm lost. Yes.

That's what I'm thinking. He's trying to tell me if I tie Acts 1-11 to Revelation 1-7, then that means Christ already returned bodily. And how does that mean that?

Where does he get that? I have no idea, because when we use Acts 1, we're saying that he's going to return bodily, and he's attaching it to Revelation 1-7, saying that he returned bodily or whatever. Well, no. Revelation 1-7, behold, he's coming with the clouds. That's exactly what Acts 1-9-11 says, that he's going to return, and just as he went up into the clouds, he's going to return the same way.

Behold, he's coming with the clouds. It's consistent. I would say to the preterist, I'd say, dude, no wonder you're a preterist. You can't read scripture. That's what it says.

What's the problem? That's what I hold. Partial preterism, we can hold that that's not been fulfilled yet, right? Right. And partial preterism, it's the view that the things that were in the time of Christ were fulfilled then and will also be fulfilled again later, that there was a double kind of a fulfillment thing that's going on.

That's one of the views. And I lean towards partial preterism. Full preterism is simply refuted by Acts 1-9-11 and Revelation 1-7. He's coming with the clouds.

I will see him, even those who pierced him. Okay. How does it refute your position against him?

I don't get it. I would have him call the show and see if he can defend his preterism. Because it makes no sense. I think he's just trying to say that I hope that that's already happened. Revelation 1-7 has already happened. And I don't hope that view.

I hope partial preterism, whereas that's not fulfilled yet. It sounds to me like this gentleman you're talking to, just no disrespect, Matt, but it sounds to me like he can't think critically. And he's inserting things that aren't required. He's not making any sense. And so I'm confused. It's like, why would you say that when that's not what this... I've had people do that.

They'll give me a verse. And I'm like, but that doesn't say what you're saying. It has nothing to do with it.

What are you talking about? And they'll say, yes, it does. And then they'll do this weird thing. Sometimes I think they're just trolling.

So maybe that's what he was doing. I don't know. Okay. It doesn't make any sense. I don't know.

Maybe... Like, my pastor did a reputation with Sam Frost, and he's doing a bring out. It's called the apologetic dog, where he's trying to refute preterism. And the guy that's talking is commenting on it. So we're just trying to push back and refute preterism. Yeah, it's full preterism.

Oh, if we could get your help in any way, mentally. To me, Acts 1, 9-11 destroys preterism. And if I were in a two-hour debate, scheduled debate with a preterist, I'd just be camping out on Acts 1, 9-11.

I mean, I would probably end up quoting it 50 times during a debate, saying, this is what it says. You go up to the clouds. It's coming back this way. Is that how he came back in 70 A.D.? That's what the preterists say.

Is that how he came back? Well, the word cloud over here means it doesn't... Yeah, but that's not talking over there. It's talking right here. Look what it says. I would just be on it and on it, you know?

Like a monkey in a cupcake. I refuted him. Good for you. He also tried to bring up this generation. And you could see that it has multiple different definitions for the generation. It could be this particular or a group of people or a kind of people.

I feel like he's just trying to pick one that fits his false theology. Well, yeah, but also, you've got to remember, don't do the thing that we accuse them of doing. Say it can mean this.

It can mean that. So, you know, when we go to... Let's think it's Matthew and talk about this generation. But what shall I compare this generation? No, he's talking about the people right then and there. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, talking about the people right there. The queen of the south will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it.

That's also talking about this generation, a relative there. Now, hold on. We've got a break, so we'll run with this a little bit more when we get back from the break. Okay, so hold on. We'll be right back, folks, after these messages.

Please stay tuned. . It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. . All right, you still there, Adam?

Yeah, I'm here. All right, so the phrase, this generation, usually refers to the period of the time and the generation right then and there. And then when we get to Matthew 24, he says, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away.

Of that day, no one knows. And then he gets into the eschatological issue. So this is why the partial preterists are what they are, because they'll say, well, this generation, is he then speaking of only that particular generation then?

Because if he is, then the new heavens and new earth have to have occurred already, because that's part of what he says will occur. And it didn't make sense to say that. That's why partial preterism became popular, at least in this respect, to say that, yes, they did watch. They were careful. They did understand.

And they did flee. And so they did, and many were saved. But this is going to happen again, because he says, as it was on the days of the day before the flood, they were doing it. That's how it's going to be at the return of Christ, when the coming of the Son of Man be.

It'll be like it was back then. They were eating, drinking, giving marriage. But it says two men are taken, and it's the wicked who were taken are taken to a place of destruction. The full preterist might say, well, that was just Jerusalem talking. I mean, the Jews were killed in the armies of Rome. But it doesn't sound like that's the case, because it talks about the return of Christ and how bad it's going to be, and it doesn't seem to be just for the Jews, but for everybody.

And so this is why it's just not an easy issue. That's why I camp out on Acts 1, 9 to 11, because it's very clear, very clear, how it is going to occur. And so we go with what the very clear says and then move out from there. Okay. All right, man?

So you draw from the text and, yeah, thank you very much, Matt. All right, buddy. All right, God bless. Thanks. Okay. All right, let's get to Paul from Richmond, Virginia. Paul, welcome.

You're on the air. Thank you. I need your help in regards to how to reply to an online chat where a person who identifies themselves as the 67-year-old retired scientist who worked in the biopharmaceutical industry also has an M.D.

and biology and chemistry type of education. And so somehow or another I got pulled into this chat where he talks down to people who express their faith. When I asked him what he thought, he described himself as agnostic, and he comes across as a very clinical, cold person. And so I'm giving you a brief version because this has been going on for about three or four days now with several people. And so he said something about God's will, and I had heard you speak about perfect will, prescriptive will, and permissive will.

Yeah. And so I replied back to the person about that, and then he brings in these questions around, then what are you saying is that God's permissive will permits people to do evil, so once again, God cannot be all good. Theologians have tied themselves into knots, and the best they can come up with is stuff like this.

If God is all-powerful, God should be able to stop them from lying because I used the example of God. Okay, hold on, hold on. You're saying a lot of things, and I don't want to just cut you off, but I want to say that there are so many things that he's made mistakes in. I have multiple conversations on the various topics that he's got. I can tell you're reading from it. So what I'd like you to do is start again, and then I'm going to interrupt you and say, here's how to respond to that, okay? So go ahead. Okay.

We'll go through a little bit at a time. Go ahead. So he replied that, he said, then what you are saying is that God's permissive will permits people to do evil. Yes.

Yep, that's correct. God permits people to be rebellious, and I say to the atheists, just like you are right now, he's permitting you to rebel against him. I say, so go ahead, and I say, go ahead. Okay. What else have you got? I'm trying to write something. I'm trying to.

Okay. And then why does he allow evil to occur is basically the thing to get to, but go ahead. He says, I might have the will that I do not want my teenager to get drunk and drive the car into a stone wall, but if I give my teenager the keys to the car and they drive drunk into a stone wall, I have allowed them to drive into that stone way of giving them the keys to the car.

By God giving people permission to lie, do evil, et cetera, God is as responsible for what people do as I am by giving the keys to the car to my teenager. Okay, so now what we have to do when we talk about this with atheists, I say, look, you need to understand what's called the ultimate, proximate, and efficient causation issues. And I ask them, are you familiar with these? And then half the time they'll say no, and I'll explain.

And they'll say, oh, you're just going to try to find a way to weasel out. And I say, if you're interested in a real discussion, then let's continue to have a real discussion. But if you're going to talk like that and you don't want a real answer, then don't ask me questions. If you want me to answer, then let me answer.

And I want to go and teach you about this, okay? Okay, because I asked him way back yesterday, since he claims to have all this education and this illustrious career, what type of theological education he had, and that's where he picks and chooses and he didn't answer. Right, let's just stick with one thing. Hold on, let's just stick with one thing. Let's focus, okay?

We brought up this issue of him saying that God gave the keys to the car and he's responsible, okay? Right, but can I ask you when you said understand ultimate, approximate, and what was the other thing? I was going to tell you, ultimate, proximate, and efficient causation. Efficient, E-F-F-S.

Yes, efficient. So you go to CARM and look up ultimate, proximate, efficient. Look up proximate causation and you'll find information on it. So let me explain what it is. Ultimate causation, let's use his analogy. A person, a real parent wouldn't give keys to a drunk driver and say, here, go.

That's just not a realistic thing. It's not a compatible analogy and you just say, look, that's not how it works. Say, if a person chooses to drink on his own, gets into a car on his own and drive and he injures someone, he's the efficient cause. What we mean by that is that he is the one who of his own free will acted.

No one coerced him and he did it of his own volition. That's called efficient causation. He's the efficient cause. He's the one who did it no one forced him to.

That's what efficient causation is. Proximate causation is God is the one who allowed him to go to the bar and drink. God is the one who allowed him to buy a car. God is the one who allowed others in that bar to not pay attention.

And so then the guy gets into the car and he injures somebody. Is God responsible? The answer is no, because he's not the efficient cause. He's the proximate. He's next to it.

Now people say, well, he could have stopped it. But then we have another question. Now I'm going to ask about that after the break. So hold on, okay? Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned. We'll be right back. Paul, are you still there? Yes. All right, now.

Yes, sir. There's a lot of stuff that's going on behind the scenes in the argumentation with the atheists who do this kind of thing. So what I've done is I've shown you what efficient causation is. And now I will talk to you about proximate causation. Ultimate causation is God is the one who made the universe, the planet, and put everything in place. He's the ultimate cause of that drunk driver injuring somebody. He's the proximate cause of the drunk driver injuring somebody. But he's not the efficient cause.

The efficient cause is where moral responsibility is in place. Now the atheist at this point is going to say, well, God ought to have stopped him. Now we've got a problem.

Or he has a problem. I say, really? So are you in connection with the universal moral ought about what ought to be done?

Where do you get this? What God ought to do? Who are you to say what God ought to do? Please tell me what moral standard do you have that you can say this is how it ought to be. And you just camp on this point for a while.

Tell me how it is. Where do you get the universal truths? Where do you get the universal morals that you have to say this is how God ought to be? He ought to this, he ought to that. How do you know?

Where is it? They won't have any way of defending that. And you just break their argument up this way. You don't have any standard and yet you want to impose your value. Isn't that arrogance? Because now you're telling me that God ought to do what you think he ought to do.

You don't have any universal moral standard. You're the one who's going to go back and tell God how he ought to behave. Well, he ought to do this. You shouldn't let it happen. Really? Who says?

Who says he shouldn't let it happen? Who are you? Yes. Okay. Listen, so you said all of this, though, if I go to karma. Because I'm trying to write some of it down as you speak, which as you might imagine is kind of difficult. That's okay. Just listen.

It's all a form of work under approximate causation. Go to the atheist section. And I'll give you more information here on the radio. But go to the atheism section and check it out.

Okay? And I also have a novel, a novella that can help you. It's called Atheistica.

And there's something there. And I've written a book called Apologetics and Atheism. So, you know, I got a hundred or so articles on atheism on karma.

There's a lot to wade through. But let me just continue with this. Okay? Now, so the atheist will want to argue. And I get them.

And I just, you know, I pin them. I say, you don't have any universal moral standard of ought, do you? It's just your opinion, right? And I'll say no disrespect meant, but why should we listen to your opinion? Well, God shouldn't let it.

How do you know? Do you believe God exists? Well, I don't know if he does or doesn't. So, functionally, you're an atheist because you don't include God in your explanatory power, do you? And your realm of explanation possibilities, God's not included, right? So, you're functionally an atheist.

So, now, functionally, you're an atheist and you say what universal morals ought to be. Where are you getting this from? This is devastating to them. Okay? They can't respond to this. And then I'll say, look, okay, so you're saying now that what they'll probably do is, well, you're God.

Oh, now you're arguing for my God. Okay, they switch from what's called an external critique to an internal critique. An external critique is you look at your perspective and you judge my perspective based on your perspective. That's a problem.

An internal critique is you look at inside my perspective and you look at it from inside of itself. Now, that's more logical for them to do, but nevertheless, that's another topic. Now, I'll ask them. So, you're saying that our God should have stopped that guy from drunk driving, right? And injuring somebody. Yes, that's right. Because he should do that.

Okay. Should he have also stopped him from thinking about going to the bar and doing this? Because that's where it started, right? I want to know, where in your worldview is the dividing line between what God should allow and what should not allow? I would like you to give us a list of criteria by which we can then say this is what God ought to do and what he ought not to do.

He should have intervened here, but not there. And if you want to say, well, that makes God responsible, then obviously you've not studied this issue. You, being in science, don't understand the logic of the position that you're arguing against.

Okay? And furthermore, let me give you this one, too. This is one to do with atheists.

There's so many things I can talk about, but I say he's a scientist. Basically, if he's an agnostic, I'll do two things, agnosticism and materialism, okay? So, if he's an agnostic, I'll say, okay, so you're saying you don't know if God does or does not exist, right?

Correct. Then would you say there's equal evidence for both positions? Is there equal evidence for God existing or not existing? That would make you not decide, right? Or is it 90% against and 10% for?

Whatever he says. Well, maybe it's just 10% of the arguments I've heard for. Okay, can you give me some of those? What are some of the arguments for God's existence? That you would then say, I can't commit to atheism because these arguments have some validity to them on the pro-God side. This is why you can't commit to atheism, which is why you're being agnostic. What are the other, what are the pro-God side arguments?

And they don't have any. So, oh, now you're being inconsistent with your own position. So, you don't even know why you hold your position in agnosticism. You don't even know what the counter-arguments are to the no-God position. And yet, you don't have any arguments for God's existence. And yet, you say you don't know if God exists, even though you don't have any positive arguments for him.

Why would you be so inconsistent with your information? If you have information, and it's only towards God's not existing, then you should affirm that God does not exist, not say, I don't know. And if you appeal to ignorance, you say, well, I just don't know, I can't say anything for or against, then you're saying, oh, it's possible that God could exist, right? Then, if God, if it's possible for God to exist, what kind of things would you look for to see if God exists? And that's a whole other topic, universals, moral absolutes, and things like this. But here's something else that I like to do with atheists. And if he's a scientist, say, okay, so functionally, you don't include God.

Is the physical universe everything that there is? He might say yes, he might say no. It really doesn't matter at this point. You might say, well, I don't know. Okay.

Ask him this question. You're a scientist, right? Yes. You believe in biochemistry, right? Yeah. Does the physical brain operate under the laws of chemistry? He'll say yes. Is the mind a product of the physical brain?

And now we're getting to some tough stuff. Because if he says no, that's called substance dualism. Substance dualism. That would mean the mind is something different than the brain, so when the brain dies, the mind continues. That means there's a soul separate from the physical body, and that implies there's a being behind that. Because if a human soul can exist without a body, why can't there be a God without a body? Did you say that does the physical brain operate under the laws of chemistry?

Yes. Because if he's a property dualist, which if he says that the mind is a property of the physical brain, then you got him. Because that would mean then that the mind is a property of the physical brain. The physical brain is required to operate under the laws of chemistry, right?

Yes. Then that just means, very simply, that what is going on is that one chemical state, at least another chemical state of the brain, is just producing chemical reactions. How then does that produce truth? Because if you see something, and your brain reacts chemically, and you have a reaction, is it true? Is your words true? Or is it just chemical necessity?

And if it's chemical necessity, then all the questions you ask have no meaning, because you can't know if your questions are good questions because they're just chemical reactions. But if you argue apart from that worldview, then you're refuting the worldview if you say that there are universal truths that exist independent of chemical reactions. Well, then you're refuting your own position, and now you're back to the idea of the soul being separate from the body, and that's evidence for God's existence. So you see? Okay.

Yeah. There's a lot there. And so I have one other thing, because he waited a while, and then he came back and he said, Actually, now that I have thought about it for a bit more, having two wills means that God must suffer from split personality disorder.

And with a split personality, there must be a good God. Let me answer that. Because we're almost out of time. Sorry, that's what I'm saying.

We're almost out of time. What happens here, he does not understand that there are aspects of the one mind of God, just as you can have an attitude to want to discipline your daughter, and you also don't want to discipline your daughter. That's the theological division. You have an intended will and a non-intended will. I intend not to do something. I intend to do something.

But it's the same will, because you can have aspects of your desires as they relate to different conditions. And that's all that's going on here. So this guy does not know what he's talking about, does not know how to think critically, needs to, and I've told some atheists after an hour of discussion like this, I've told them, You need to sit down and you need to start studying, because you don't understand the issues here. And you should not be up there pontificating on areas and things that you're uninformed in. And I'm not trying to be mean, but I say, this is after an hour of discussion, I'll tell them this.

I've shown you, you don't understand, you need to study this stuff. Okay? There you go.

That's a good starting point. Okay, buddy? Thank you. All right.

Sorry about that. We've got to go. Hey, three open lines.

877-207-2276. We'll be right back. Please stay tuned. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the show, the last segment of the hour.

I hope you enjoyed that stuff. I go over that kind of stuff in the atheism section on Karm, on a novella I wrote called Atheistica, which you can get on Amazon, and also in a book Apologetics and Atheism. And I go over these kinds of things and how to respond to atheists. And let me just tell you that for the most part, atheists don't have anything of any real substance to offer.

They're trying to work, trying to sound smart and philosophical, but they're easily defeatable. Let's get to Hattie from North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air.

Yes. How you doing? Doing all right, by God's grace.

So what do you got? I was listening to you a couple of weeks ago, and someone called in, and they were talking about women preachers and pastors, and you were giving some information on it, and I was unable at the time to get any information. I was trying to share it with a spiritual friend, brother of mine, and I was trying to explain it to him. So I told him, I said, well, I'm going to catch that number, and I'm going to see if I can get him on the phone, and he could give me the information, or I could get that information, because I've come up and episodic and holiness, and I was sort of taught that the women, they didn't get behind the pulpit, but they could speak on the floor, you know, evangelists. But I just was standing with him, and I just wanted... Okay, well, that's where I come up when I episodic, but we were more or less thinking about talking about the pastor and preachers behind the pulpit.

Right. And you would explain to the guy, and... Well, if you have access... Yeah. Go ahead.

No, I was just wondering if I could get that information available, and where I could get it and share it, because I believe in sharing God's words, when I hear somebody speak to me, I really, you know, I want to share it. Sure. Sure. Are you able to get on the internet and go to my website? No, I'm not.

Believe me or not, I'm a 78-year-old, I'm a senior, so I'm not, you know, all in that, but I do know, I can't dial the number. That's okay. Let me give you some scriptures, and then you can write them down, all right?

Okay, thank you. All right, you ready? Yes, I am.

Are you ready? Okay, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Timothy 2, 12 through 14. That's where it says, Paul does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet, for Adam was first created.

Okay? Then you want to go to 1 Timothy 3, 15. This is the next chapter over. 1 Timothy 3, 15, because Paul is telling us that he's telling people how to conduct themselves in the household of God. This is not opinion, this is instruction about church.

That's what's going on. 1 Timothy 2, 12 through 14, or 13, I think it is, and 1 Timothy 3, 15. Then you want to also go to 1 Timothy 3, verse 2. 1 Timothy 3, verse 2. It talks about the elder who is to be a husband of one wife.

A woman can't do that. And also, you want to go to Titus 1, 6. Titus 1, 6. And where the elder is supposed to be husband of one wife. So, this is what's going on.

Those are the main verses you can go to. All right? Okay.

Are you there? Okay. Okay. Okay. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much. And what is the station, because I was trying to tell him, he was trying to ask me what was the station that was on, and I couldn't tell him. So, what is the, now he's in Whitefield, North Carolina. I don't know. Whitehall. Yeah, Whitehall, up near Wilmington. He's up there near Wilmington. See, I'm in Idaho, and so the station, or the broadcast goes out to Utah, to Ohio, to the Carolinas, to Virginia, I think Georgia, Florida.

I'm not sure. Yeah, he's in the Carolinas. He's in the Carolinas.

I'm in Charlotte, so he's in Whitefield, but he's just, you know, about a couple hours away. But I was telling him, but I keep it ready on day and night. I don't ever change the station. I wake up with it, it goes there with it. I keep it on.

I really enjoy it. And I just wanted to share it with him. He was excited about it. So, what is it, W... I don't know, but just give him the... Oh, that's why you say you don't know. Right. I'm just on different stations.

Okay, so I don't know how to tell him. I don't know which one you're listening to from out there, because there's several stations. Oh, okay. That's what I'm saying. I know.

They say something about Dallas, and Rock Hill, and... If you're listening to a station, just tell him what address it is on the radio station and give it to him. Or you can tell him to go to thetruthnetwork.com. The Truth. Yes. I think it's thetruthnetwork.com.

T-R-U-T-A. Network. Or maybe it's just Truth Network. Okay. I think it's just Truth Network, not The Truth Network. Okay. So Truth Network, and then you can see... So I'm in North Carolina in Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and High Point on... Okay, yeah.

That's where he's up there. Okay. Okay, and now your name again. My name is Matt Slick. Matt Slick. S-L-I-C-K. My real name.

Nat. N-A-T. Matthew. N-A-T. Matthew. It's Matthew. Oh, Matthew. Oh, Matthew. Okay.

Matthew or Matt Slick. Okay. S-L-I-C-K is my real name. All right.

S-L-I-C-K. Slick. Okay. All right. I'll get this to him.

I'm going to get on the phone now and call him and get it to him. Are you on every day? When the Internet's working, Monday through Friday, yes.

Yeah, at this time. Okay. Okay. I just want to know, because I listen to a lot of it, I just have to catch you in the late evening, you know.

I mean, late afternoon, you know, so that's why I was just wanting to try to, you know, so I know when to have an on to catch you. Sure. All right, Dan.

I think I got enough for him to get on here and so he can get with it, because I was telling how there is just, you know, cutting. All right. I know you're busy.

How did you go? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

You just hit wait and then he will give you information off the air. Okay? Because he's a great guy. Okay.

He knows his stuff. All right? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just going to put you on hold.

He'll hang up on when you're done, but just stay on and then he'll talk to you. Okay? Okay. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. You're welcome. God bless.

All right. Now let's get to Janet from Raleigh, North Carolina. Janet, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt. I thought I needed a Friday. But I got a debate tonight. Now I just found out. So I got to do that.

I find these things out. Oh, yeah. I forgot.

I got to do a debate. What's that? Hey, I just have a quick question. I wanted to ask you, what's the definition of a non-Christian cult? Well, I would say a non-Christian cult, what I use is a group that uses, there's two main versions, a group that uses the Bible but distorts the biblical teachings sufficiently so that there's no salvation, but you can also have a non-Christian cult in the sense that they don't even use the Bible. And so you have different kinds of cults, and that would do that. So I would say a cult that either affirms or does not affirm the Bible and teaches things in such a way against the Bible that damnation is the case, like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses are cults. Now, then people say, what about Roman Catholicism? I don't call it a cult. I just call it a false religion, apostate religion, because it does the same thing as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. It denies the true essential doctrines. Okay.

Oh, okay, okay. That's what I wanted to know, because I know I always hear you on the radio talking about Christian organizations being non-Christian cults. I'm like, how can they be if they use Christianity?

But you explain that. Well, it's like Mormonism, for example. They claim to be Christian. They include the Bible in their authoritative scriptures, but they don't really believe the Bible, what it says, and then they reinterpret it so that they teach things like God used to be a man on another planet, and that he has a goddess wife, and they came to this planet and they have physical relations and produce spirit babies that inhabit human bodies on earth. This is Mormonism. Well, they claim to believe in Jesus, but the Jesus they believe in is a brother of the devil and you and I in the preexistence.

They claim to believe in the Trinity, but to them, the Trinity is three separate gods. So they use the same words, and so this is why you always have to know your definitions and your theology so you could say, well, what do you mean by that, and then you can go from there. Yeah. You always remember what you say, define your terms, you know? Define your terms. Always define. Yeah. That's right.

I remember that. Yeah, I'm trying to practice some of the things that I've learned from you, so we'll see how it goes. But don't forget to learn the stuff you learned from me, how to treat people, because I'm always humble. I'm always really good with people. I always make them like me and entertain us.

My wife, I tell my wife about how great I am, but you know, so you know, you've always got to work on that part. Yeah. I'll make note of that, yeah. But have a great weekend, man. I hope you enjoy yourself, and best wishes on your debate tonight. Okay. Thanks a lot.

God bless, Janet. Okay. All right. Bye. Okay. All right.

Gary from Utah. Hey, Gary, welcome. Are you on the air? Okay, good. Hey, I'm always at the last part of the show. I like to close your show.

Okay. Now, I wasn't able to that one day keep that call back about that other question about some people, I don't know why they think Jesus was a socialist, that's pretty funny. And the one thing about Ann Graham Watts, they play her hair on the truth, and she's preaching over a congregation, and they play her sermons.

Now, I'm not saying she's not born again, but according to John MacArthur, when he was preaching on the women pastors like you talked about, he used those scriptures and talked about how they're out of place, they're out of line, they're out of order. And she is out of order. Yeah, she is. Now, here's the thing. I'm on this radio network. She's on the same radio network.

What do I say? Well, I'm telling the truth. She should not be a pastor.

And that's it. She's preaching and teaching over a congregation, and I will formally and politely offer a debate challenge with her. I'll be glad to fly out there at her so-called church, and we can have a nice public debate on this and get to meet people while I'm out there. That's a polite challenge.

Let's see if she'll take me up on it. But no, she should not be a pastor in the room. Right. Right.

Right. No one ever takes me up on it. How do you address people that for some reason they don't know the Bible, but they think, oh, Jesus was a socialist. I'm like, no, he wasn't. I'd say, okay, look, they make an affirmative statement, ask them to demonstrate that affirmative statement as being true. Jesus is a socialist. First define what socialism is and show me how Jesus fits that definition. Simple. That's what you do. Always define your terms. Ask them to demonstrate that what their definition is, according to Jesus, is valid. Yeah. And then if they don't have any place to show in scripture, say, well, then you can't back it up.

So then you need to retract your statement that he was a socialist. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Makes a lot of sense.

It's simple. It would be nice if you get some of those debates. Oh, I would love to. I'd love to debate those things. And once again, everybody, I'll be glad to fly out on the East Coast, debate the issue of women pastors and elders. I've been offering this for 17 years on radio. No one's ever take me up on it. Does the Bible teach women to be pastors and elders? That's the debate topic.

Will they take me up on it? Nah. Why?

Because the Bible doesn't teach it. All right, brother, we're out. Thank you, man. Okay, man. God bless. Hey, folks.

We are out of time. May the Lord bless you. Hope you have a great evening and if you want to see that debate tonight, just go to the calendar on CARM and it'll be up there later. God bless. Your program powered by the Truth Network.