Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Have a good time listening.

It's a nice Friday. If you want to watch the show, all you've got to do is go to CARM.org. And on the right-hand side, you'll see the link there for the video. And you can watch it and check me out sitting here.

Not a big deal. And those of you who may be coming in here and there watching, you'll notice I'm playing with the background. And I've got some more stuff I'm going to be doing this weekend to make it even more betterer. So hopefully that will be nice.

All right. Now we have nobody waiting. If you want to call me, 877-207-2276. Now, because it's Friday, I'm going to do hate mail.

I love hate mail. And I know that a lot of people are already applauding in the chat room. So I'm going to jump right in. I get a kick out of it. Oh, by the way, I hope you enjoyed the Bible study last night that I taught on Romans. And you may notice I did a different presentation on the video and the audio on that. And hope that you enjoyed that. I got some good positive feedback on that.

Trying to make things better so that the viewers enjoy it more. All right. Having said all of that, let's get to this.

Let's see. Earlier this year, we submitted, wow. Oh, man, this is good. To whom it may concern, earlier this year, we submitted to 300 international theologians, 30 theses on some concepts of conventional theology in relation to the future of the solar system.

Wow. I love stuff like this because now it's about the future of the solar system. You know, it's like I just I mean, you know, it's hate us. I like to walk into a convention one day, you know, it's like, what is this?

You know, don't don't walk in. And this is what there's what some guy up there is talking about. It's going to get a thing behind him on the solar system.

And this is we've submitted 30 theses to 300 international theologians on the future of the solar system because it's in jeopardy. You know, I'd be like, oh, man, I'm going to watch this. Isn't it fun to sit down and enjoy it? That's what I would do. I'd take notes. Okay. What did he say?

Because it's going to be good. You know, talking about it on the radio later. Oh, well, anyway, let me continue. The recipients covered a wide range of faith groups. Since then, we have received a number of thoughtful contributions. These encourage us to continue these discussions. One contributor contributor suggested that this may lead us on a path towards a new perspective on theology. Oh, I'm going to check to see what he said. We anticipate to collect these contributions in a discussion document. Okay.

So the theses. I want to say feces, but that's not good. I shouldn't say that. The sun is the primary source of energy without which we as we understand it, the creation. Duh. Let's see.

Let's see. Each living thing takes up energy. Wow.

That's pretty. That's deep. The sun creates the energy by a process. No, it doesn't create energy. It just transforms it to other forms. Let's see. We can assume that this process consumes part of the source of that energy. Let's see. Look at this. We can assume that the source of that energy is unlimited.

They don't even know they're talking about. So let's see. We have no reason to assume that our sun is not similar to or even identical to other stars. Check that out. We have no reason to assume that our sun is not similar or even identical to other stars. What does that mean?

Not similar or even identical. You know, I have people ask me questions, you know, and I'll be talking and I'll see. What are you saying? I don't understand what you're saying.

Can you help me out here? What are you saying? And then they explain more of the same and I say to them, I still don't understand what you're saying. Anyway, let's see. We have no reason to assume. The thoughts of the predicted course of astronomical events challenges a traditional concept of a creator god. Really? It does? Wow.

As we begin to understand the astronomical course of events, we realize that the ancient creator concept of god needs to be reconsidered. Okay. You know, this is when you need to see my face, okay?

You know, you're driving along the radio. What would my face look like? Let's say I was walking under a tree and a couch fell out of it and a kangaroo walked by and then a paper airplane flew and hit me in the head. All at the same time, what kind of face would I be making? What?

That's what I'm doing now, okay? Let's see. In this new reality, Abrahamic religions need to rethink their concept of a creator god. Wow. In the new reality of things that this guy is saying that's completely obvious and he's got some things wrong, he doesn't understand, now it's a new reality. We need to rethink the creator god. Wow. This is the opportunity to better understand the principles of our religions and find peace amongst them.

A first step would be removing from their teaching all differences which arise solely from their religious and mythological concepts. Man, I'd love to talk to this guy. I'd be like, okay, where are you getting this? This is good stuff.

I enjoy this stuff. All right, let's see. Charlie says in the text, sounds like my wife when I ask her if she likes one thing or another thing and she answers, yes. I wonder. I'm not going to say anything because our wives know each other. I'm staying out of that one. All right, let's see. Okay, okay, let's see, let's see, let's see.

How about that? The valuable humanistic core of religious teachings should remain. Man, this guy does not have all his paws in a litter box.

We need to understand to what extent a belief in a higher power has a positive influence on human behavior. Wow. Man, his crayon box is missing a few colors. Wow.

His pull tab doesn't work. All right, let's see if we can get another one. Oh, yeah. I am applying for a chaplain position for a correctional institution in Wisconsin and I'm an atheist.

You know, I'm applying for a position as an astrophysicist in blah, blah, blah and I'm a magician. So what do you think? What? Okay, I'd really appreciate a letter of endorsement for the idea of atheism as a religion.

Are you enjoying this as much as I am or are you pained by it? Let me continue. I read some of your articles supporting the idea of atheism as a religion. He did not understand what I was saying, that there are religious aspects to atheism when you go to conventions.

That's what I wrote about, that's all. He goes on, I can establish precedent in the correctional institution. I might eventually be able to shove myself into the army as a chaplain. Oh, man, if interested in endorsing this idea, please send a letter, a short letter of endorsement with your contact information to my email at blah, blah, blah that includes your stance on the idea of atheist clergy.

You know, his quantum tunneling doesn't and star clusters are too imbalanced. Let's see, I'm an atheist and I'm majoring in religious studies at whatever it is, some university. I'm active in free thought groups. I'd love to talk to this guy.

I do atheist weddings and I have a small website, blah, blah, blah. We are likely to agree on this for every different reasons that satisfy very different agendas. Now, see, come on, if you're going to write me a letter, make it make sense.

We are likely to agree on this for every different reasons that satisfy very different agendas. But it is an agreement nonetheless and I do you a fairly obvious favor in requesting this. It's fairly obvious. It's not obvious. It's fairly obvious I'm doing you a favor by requesting this. So, Matt, I'm doing you a fairly obvious favor by asking you to endorse me as an atheist chaplain who wants to shove himself into the army. You know, so much heresy, so little time.

How can people actually drive cars when they talk like this? It makes me wonder. Okay, man, we've got a break coming up. I'm going to do another one and then we'll get to the callers after the break. I want to talk about predestination and free will.

It would be interesting. Here's another hate mail. All right, he goes on. I call them hate mails. There's hate mails, whack-a-mail together. You sure do not know anything about what Muslims believe. You will answer to God for your slanderous talk. You know, I've written over 100 articles on atheism and I've gone through the Hadith, the Quran, I've gone through the Tasphere, I've talked to many, many, many Muslims. And he says, I don't know anything about what Muslims believe, even though I've debated them and read their material. Anyway, he says, many Christians are very good at hate speech.

Really? Oh, man, in the Quran 551 it says, do not take Jews and Christians as your friends because they're friends of one another. Oh, yeah, but we're good at hate speech.

Wow. Many Christians are very good at hate speech, wounding the sinner and generally not doing the will of God. We are called to heal the sick, not persecute them. Wow, the talk with the kettle calling the pot black, or how does that work? Because that is whacked.

Islam is a dangerous, violent religion of condemnation, judgment, and hatred. Wow. All right, let's see, we've got another one here before the break. Because after the break, predestination, free will is going to be a serious topic.

It's going to take about five minutes. This guy goes on and says, why do you only allow atheists who don't know anything onto your show? Oh, that's what we do, you see. We have the caller, I mean the screener, he screens them. Do you know anything?

I don't know nothing. Okay, you can come in. Okay, that's what happens, right? No, that's what we do. Oh, yeah. Why do you only allow atheists who don't know anything onto your show?

Wow. Oh, this is good stuff. Is it because you're scared someone like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Hawkins would easily prove you're insane for being a Christian? Oh, man, I love the title of those guys.

Beating up amateurs like Andrew proves nothing. Oh, come on, give me your best atheist, give me a call, okay? Hey, there's the music. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll talk to Dave from Salt Lake City on predestination and free will. Four open lines, 877-207-2276. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, welcome back, everyone. If you want to give me a call, we have four open lines, 877-207-2276. I want you to give me a call.

And let's get to Dave from Salt Lake City. Welcome, you're on the air. Hi, Matt. How are you today? I'm doing all right. Having fun with hate mail and stuff, enjoying it.

All right, buddy, what have you got? I appreciate your sense of humor. I have a good sense of humor. I do. People don't know that.

Absolutely. I know. I appreciate that about you.

I've called in a couple of times. I appreciate your ministry. I understand that God is all-knowing, so he knows who's going to accept the rejection. I also understand that Jesus talks about the, how should we say, the path to heaven is narrow, right? Yeah. And it's why to the abyss or to hell. So we know that. But I understand that the Bible also speaks of predestiny, and I don't understand, like, God knows, but did he select, like, the elect, if you will?

Like, how does that work? Like, we don't know who he elects. We should witness and be alike to everyone. Right. We are God-elect. I'm just trying to reconcile. Right?

I'm sorry. What are you trying to reconcile? I'm not sure I understand. So, like, I have friends that I've, you know, witnessed, too, invited to church to, you know, try and help them learn about Jesus.

Obviously, I try and be a light to them at work and any interaction I have with them. But I also know that, like, if their heart or mind is closed off to it, that it's foolishness to them, right? Yeah, but, okay, let me ask you, do you have a question, though? Yeah, so, like, so, is there such a thing as, like, are they not elect? Like, is there a possibility that they just have not been selected, if you will, by God ahead of time?

Like, is that how it works? Yes, it's possible, but we don't know who God has chosen. A lot of people don't like the idea of God choosing people for salvation, but it says in 2 Thessalonians 2, 13, he has chosen us for salvation.

That's what it says, 2 Thessalonians 2, 13. In Ephesians 1, 4, it says he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that would be holy and blameless. This is God's predestination and his work of election. Those who before knew, he also predestined, Romans 8, 29.

So, the idea of God's election and predestination, sorry, folks, if you don't like it, that's your problem, because that's what the Bible teaches. Right, right. And that's what I say to people, you know, that's it.

Right. And I understand where you're coming from, and I believe that God's word is God's word, that God breathes, and that's the gospel, so to speak. So, I just, so, an all-knowing, all-loving God predestines certain people to help him, or is he just not, like, I don't understand how... Okay, let me, let me, let me jump in and help you out. Does that make sense? Yeah, let me jump in and help you out here.

You see my conundrum? Yeah. Yeah. So, before the foundation of the world, before the universe existed, the only thing that was existing, the only thing that was existing was God himself.

Okay. In the intertrinitarian communion, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father elected people for salvation, and he did it in the Son. This is Ephesians 1, 4. He chose us in him before the foundation of the world.

So, this choosing is not based on anything in the future that God would see us do, or some good quality in us, and then he chose us based on that. Are you making noise in the background there? Sorry. Yes, sir, I'll stop.

I just pulled my lunch out, or dinner out. Okay. And so, he doesn't base his choice on anything in us. Otherwise, that would show favoritism, and God denies favoritism in James 2, 2 through 4.

So, well then, how does this work? Well, we don't know how God elects. We don't know how he chooses. We don't know what he does, how he does.

We just know that he does it. A lot of people don't like it, because they want salvation to be dependent completely on themselves, as if they themselves were wise enough in their sin to pick God, but so-and-so across the street was not. And so, they don't get what biblical theology is. I'm teaching biblical theology, and I'll argue with people about it.

I'll debate them. This is what the Bible teaches. It teaches election and predestination, and anybody who denies it, as a Christian, is just denying truth, denying the Scriptures. Now, then we get to the issue of Romans 9, and Romans 9 is a very interesting chapter.

I'm not going to go into it in detail, but it says, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated, and it wasn't based on anything they would do. And it goes on, and talks about, well, there's no injustice with God. And then God says, I'll have mercy on whom I have mercy. I have compassion on whom I have compassion. It doesn't depend on the man who runs or the man who wills.

This is what's going on. This is Paul the Apostle, called by Jesus Christ, his teaching in Romans 9. God has mercy and compassion on whom he desires.

It does not depend upon the man who runs or wills. That's what he says. If people don't like that, my suggestion is just never read Romans chapter 9, because it'll just be a stone in your theological shoe. You won't like it. But that's what it says.

Your question now becomes relevant. You'll say to me then, why does he still find fault for whoever resists his will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not save the molder.

Why did you make me like this, will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory. Now, this is a very difficult set of scriptures for a lot of people. And the reason is, is because they follow the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian surfer Jesus, who's standing at the door of your heart asking for you and your wisdom and your permission to let him in. This is the elevation of man and the reduction of God's majesty and sovereignty. People don't like this, and the fact that they don't like it is one of the signs of their own depravity that doesn't mean they're not saved, they're just sinners.

And it means that they're not submitting to the word of God. People say, I don't like that. Well, you don't get to like it. That's what it teaches.

So this is it. Now, people will say, well, no, they don't accept that. I've had people, after I've read them what I just read to you, I've had people say to me, well, I don't accept that. Okay, you don't accept the word of God then.

That's what it is. You're judging God's word. And then what I'll do is I'll say, look, I believe that God makes everything for his own purpose.

Everything's made for its own purpose. Even the wicked for the day of evil. I believe that he does that. And then they'll say, no, he doesn't do that.

Yeah, he does. I just quoted Proverbs 16.4. The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. And, you know, people, they are taught, in my opinion, this is a sore subject with me because you've really kind of touched on a nerve. In the church today, there are a lot of good preachers, a lot of good teachers, but there's also an undercurrent of casual humanism. Humanism is man-centeredness, where man's the standard of righteousness, truth, freedom, and the American way. And so it's by man's choice that we're to be saved, by man's will that we are to find truth, by man's will, by man's ability, by man, by man, by man.

Because God would never do blah, blah, blah to violate my free will. So what they're doing is elevating themselves. And this is a problem in the church.

And when they do that, they abandon biblical theology and a lot of other areas. There's a break. Hold on, Dave.

Hold on. Thank you, man. Well, I've got to run. I appreciate you, Matt. Thank you for your teaching.

I agree. Thank you. God bless, buddy. Hey, folks. Four Open Lines, 877-207-2276.

We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the show, Bottom of the Hour, Three Open Lines, 877-207-2276.

Kevin from New York. Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Thank you for taking my phone call. How are you today?

A little bit melancholy with a little bit of obstreperousness just kind of tinged with just a minute amount of fatigue. That's how. Well, you asked.

I've been doing that lately. People in the store, they'll ask me, how are you doing? And I will give them something like that. They look at me.

They chuckle. Well, I don't think you asked. Somebody will have fun with it. No, I have no problem with that. You don't want to ask me about what?

I'm going to have a little bit of a lag, Conflicher. Go ahead. Go ahead. What I wanted to ask you about is I recently had a conversation with a skeptic and a god and so I agreed to have a conversation with him and he set up this premise and he says, so I'm going to set up a premise and let you know if you agree with it. I said, OK. And he said, premise one, that God is the source and cause of all that is good in morality. And I said, OK, I could agree with that. He said, premise two, God cannot do things that are contrary to his moral standard. And I said, I agree with that. Now, premises three, I knew what he was trying to do, he was trying to trap me.

The slaughter of babies is morally evil. And I knew where he was going and he did. He went to 1 Samuel 15, brought up God commanding the Israelites to slaughter all the Amalekites. Then he talked about Genesis 6, how God slaughtered the whole world. And so I stopped it there and I said, look, I know where you're going. And I said, because God has infinite knowledge of all things, he knew that these people would always be wicked, they wouldn't repent.

So it is not evil for God to take them out as children before they come to a full adult because he knows what they would be. Then the skeptics accused me of hopping back and forth between objective and subjective morality. And he laughed at my answer.

How would you have dealt with that situation? First of all, what was the second premise? What was the second one? I'm going to see. I'm going to write it down.

What did he say? God cannot do anything that would contradict his own standard of morality. His own standard of morality. See, God is the cause of good and stuff. First of all, cannot contradict his own standard.

So here we go. When we say that God is the cause of good, what I'll do with an atheist, these three premises, right, I'll say, OK. Number one, what do you mean by cause? And I say, I'm not playing a game because there are different levels of causation. There's ultimate, there's proximate, and there's efficient causation.

Are you familiar with them? I'll ask the atheist this. Most atheists by far are not. And I say, OK, so you're not sure about the different issues of relationship of causation and moral culpability related to these. You want to discuss them right now so that we can get your premise more defined.

Premise one, they don't know what they're talking about usually. Number two, God cannot contradict his own standard. Now the question then, is his standard something that's arbitrary or is his standard something based on his nature? Because sometimes atheists, what they'll say is God just arbitrarily says you can't do this and can't do that. No, it's not like that. We have to make sure that an atheist doesn't think that God is arbitrary in his reasonings, or that it's conditional based on your circumstances and this is why God decided to do something.

That's not it. The morality of God is based on his own character and his essence, so he can't contradict his own nature. That would be a violation of basically the law of logic, which is an emanation of his essence and his nature. The second law, the law of non-contradiction, we won't get into that too much. The slaughter of babies is morally evil. This is what I would say to him, it is?

Where'd you get that? Where does it say morally evil? Right, and I never got a chance to get to that because it's exactly what basis are you judging God from? Like where do you get your morals from? And he says that his morals are his opinion. But the problem is if your morals are your own opinion, how can you tell if they are correct?

Okay, so I'm going to teach you some more stuff here, okay? So what we're going to talk about here is called internal and external critique. So an internal critique is he looks within the Scriptures and he looks at what it says within it, and that's an internal critique, and that's valid to do. An external critique is he has his subjective preferences, he imposes it upon the Scriptures. It's an external critique, it's not valid.

Because he's using a different criteria and a different set of examination than is revealed in Scripture, and it's like me saying, you know, I'm an American born in 1956, which is where I was born, and I've been living, you know, for 65 years. I'm now going to judge the Roman Empire for its behavior. What? You can't do that. Yes, I can because it's me. It's my opinion and I can do it. That's what this guy's doing. And he's imposing a value of his own subjective experience and desires, and that's what he's doing with his external critique. This brings us to the issue of objective and subjective. So an objective moral is a moral standard that is not based upon your preferences, is not based upon your opinions, but is a standard that is independent of you, that you recognize. That's objective. Subjective is I like it and that's the way it is. It's based on my opinion. When someone tells me that they have a subjective opinion about something like the slaughter of the babies, I'll say, so you don't like it?

No. I'll say, okay, you don't like it. I said, come back and talk when you have something substantial to offer me other than I don't like it, because whether you like it or not has no bearing on whether it's good or bad or true or false.

I need something more than I don't like it. And if you come back with something – Was my answer incorrect? Would you have critiqued the way I answered this question? Would you have answered it differently?

I was still writing down the points because I was going to tackle each one. I don't remember what your response was, so tell it to me again, okay? Okay. So what I would try to tell him is it's wrong for man to do those things but not for God because he knows all things. He knew that these people would always be wicked. They wouldn't repent. So from God's perspective, it's not wrong to take them out as a child if he so chooses to, but it's wrong for us to do it.

Yes, I would suggest you polish the response, but you're on the right track. See, it's not necessarily an issue he knew they would always be wrong. It's the fact that in what's called federal headship of the Adamic representation that when Adam sinned, that's called original sin, we then inherited the sinful nature. We are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2-3. And the effect is Romans 5-19 that Adam is the one who made us all sinners. That's what it says in the Aorist active indicative or Aorist passive indicative in Romans 5-19 by the offense of one. Many were made sinners.

That's us. So I say theologically from an internal critique, you've got to understand, Mr. Atheist, that all people are born in condemnation and of judgment. Now, you may not like it, but that's the standard. That's what the Scripture says. So God has the right to execute anybody at any time according to the law. You can't say it's right or wrong because you don't have a universal moral standard by which you can then impose upon God and the Scriptures. And if you want to say it's right or wrong, I'm going to ask you, where do you get your universal standard of morality from? You can't use your subjective experience or preferences. What would I say to him, because he tried to pull that on me, is that, well, if God can do it and a man can do it, then that means that God's contradicting himself. No, he's not contradicting himself because all people are under judgment. They are, by nature, children of wrath, by being born.

He can take the life of anybody he desires and not break the law because all are guilty in Adam. Period. Right. There it is.

So that's it. I don't think he would accept that answer. Who cares? Who cares? No, I'm serious.

No, I'm serious. And they'll say, I don't accept that. I've had many atheists, I'll give an argument and say, I don't accept it.

Well, that's fine. You don't have to accept it. I'm just telling you the biblical position. And if you don't like the biblical position, that's your right to deny God, deny Christ, deny the truth, and work yourself into a further level of damnation. That's between you and God. But I'm just telling you what it says.

And if you don't like it, you need to provide a universal moral or logical standard by which you can then say, this is right or wrong or true or false. I need to have that. You can understand something here. Atheists often are arrogant twits. I love them. I know some that, hey, here's the keys to my house. I'll be back in a week.

Just make yourself at home. I've got atheist connections like that. These guys are good guys, okay, for the most part. But there's a lot of them who will just in their arrogance say, well, God's wrong. Really? Why is he wrong?

Because he wouldn't do that. What? There's some ethereal moral essence floating around the universe that's independent of God and that you take your finger, put it in your ear, oh, there it is up there and I know where it is.

I'm informing you. They don't have a leg to stand on. Don't let them even assume for a minute that they have a universal moral standard that they can then judge people by.

Because the only thing they have is subjectivity. We've got a break. Hold on. We're going to get back to this, okay?

All right. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. We'll get more into this. This is stuff I love doing.

This is stuff I do all the time. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live. Taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome back to the show.

Three open lines, 877-207-2276. All right, Kevin, you still there? Yes, I am. All right. So there's a lot there. I've actually written a lot on atheism, believe it or not.

So there's a lot there. But go ahead. So before the break, I was going to ask you, see, because I have a YouTube channel.

I'm not that big yet. But I do Bible discussions, and I love talking about the gospel and eternal security and things like that. So I came into this discussion. I wasn't expecting this guy to get into philosophy, and I'm not too familiar with philosophy and different terms and stuff. So would you have a resource that you would recommend for me to better understand these philosophical terms and how to go about talking about them?

Yes. What I want you to do is email me at info at karm.org. I'll email you my Word document on philosophy that I've been developing for a while. I'll just send it to you. Okay.

Info at karm.org? Uh-huh. And it's not finished, and it won't ever be finished. And you'll find some gaps there and things like that, because it's what I'm working on. And I'm studying stuff like abstract objects, and I have spaces, which is not even filled in, analytic constructivism, anti-realism. I have Christian stuff, omnipotence, omnipresence, causation, getting into ultimate conceptualism, consequentialism, constructivism, determinism, constructivist epistemology. These are things that I've found basically from atheists and in the grounding theories.

Constructivist epistemology, I have no idea what that is. Yeah, see, if you're going to be discussing things with atheists, you're going to have to learn these things. So my document is 52 pages.

It's 52 pages long. Because I thought I could just, you know, because I'm pretty good with New Testament stuff and getting into the Greek a little bit and discussing the Gospel. When it comes to philosophy, though, it's like I'm very new to that. Well, here's the thing.

What I would do is what I do. Let's say you're talking to some atheists and they bring up some concept. I have my philosophy document open. I have four monitors, so I have it on one of the monitors. I'm talking to them and I'll say, excuse me, I don't understand what you mean by non-reductive synthetic realism, which is what one guy said.

And I don't think I got an answer on that particular one, but I'll write it down, non-reductive synthetic realism or objectivism. And then I write notes. And so if you're talking to somebody, you go in and you put it alphabetically. And then you make an outline, because it's in an outline form with heading one, heading two, so that it shows up on the left side.

If you have your view open and it shows up and you can look in the left side and you can click, it's like a left-sided index. And you can go in, like propositions. For example, I was talking to some atheists, I had no idea what they were talking about a few years, two, three, four ago about propositions. And I said, what do you mean a proposition? It's a statement. And he goes, nope, it's a shareable object of the attitudes and primary barriers of truth and falsity. I'm like, what? I had no idea about this stuff, right, these views.

I did research. Now when they come to me and they'll say, because I did my research, right, it took me a couple hours, and they'll say, well, look, the propositions are blah, blah, blah, the shareable objects. So we can have abstract objects that exist without being universals and requiring a mind. And so we believe in the propositional argument of the shareable objects of attitudes and primary barriers of truth and falsity. Well, I'll ask them, what's their nature? Well, you don't know the nature. We just define them that way. It's very difficult.

People actually talk like this. So I went and I discovered that there's Gottlob Frege is a guy, and Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore. And I found that they have different views on what propositions are. And so then when they talk about this with me, I have my notes right in front of me. I'll say, well, which view of propositional theory do you hold to, Frege, Russell, or G.E.

Moore? And they'll go, what? I'll say, well, come on, you're the one bringing it up, so now tell me, which one do you hold to, and why is that the right one?

All of a sudden, now they're in trouble. This is what you've got to do if you're going to do this kind of stuff with atheists. Okay? Okay, I mean, I can do that, but then, I mean, your personal opinion, I mean, you've been doing this longer than I am, and I appreciate you, Matt, even though I'm not a Calvinist, that you and I would agree about a lot. Oh, then we're not talking. Oh, that's it.

It's over. I'm not an Arminian either, by the way. I'm a stakeholder in the middle.

Okay, we can talk a little bit. Yeah, so from my experience, I don't know, because the Bible says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes it. Romans 1.16. I mean, so if I do learn all this philosophy mumbo jumbo and all these word salads and definitions, at the end of the day, is it really going to do any good, because, I mean, shouldn't we just focus on the Gospel? I mean, is it right for me to get pulled into philosophy where I just want to focus on the Gospel, but the skeptic doesn't want to necessarily get into the Gospel. They want to have a philosophical argument. So if I go through the trouble of learning all this philosophical stuff, how can I tie that into the Gospel where I can move it from philosophy back to the Gospel? That's the question. There you go.

You are required, 1 Peter 3.15, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you for the account of the hope that's in you. Also, don't forget 2 Thessalonians 10.5. Let's see. We are destroying- We've talked a few times before, man. I don't know if you remember. No, I talked to so many people.

Sorry, don't. I joined the second Corinthians show after your debates and stuff. Okay.

But here, listen to this. 2 Corinthians 10.5. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing.

Now, the word speculation is logismos, logics, dialogues, logismos. Destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we're taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. So you're to do that, right? And you are to, according to Jude, you are to contend for the faith, Jude 3. All right. So what we do is- But what about, isn't there also a passage, brother, that says to not get involved with vain philosophy?

Yes, Colossians 2.8. So what we do, look at it this way. The field that you're- in the center of this big field is a garden.

It's got a wall around it, and the only way to get into the garden is through the one door. This field is the world, and this field has thorns and thickets and thistles and rocks and crevices and varying dangers and snakes and vipers and poisons and stuff. As an apologist, what we do is we navigate people through all of that and bring them to that door, and say it's between you and God here. That's what our job is.

That's what I do. And so I get to the point, and if you've listened to me in varying views, varying apologetic, social stuff, I'll say to people, and what do you do with the resurrection of Christ? I'll talk to somebody about propositions for a half hour, and I'll say, now, I've got a proposition for you, and I'll say it like that, because I'm changing the meaning of the word a little bit.

Jesus Christ rose from the dead according to the eyewitnesses. What do you do with that? Now, I've had a serious discussion with them. They realize I'm not stupid. I'm informed, and not that I am super informed, but I certainly make my mistakes, but the idea is, now let's talk about this.

And it always comes down to one thing. They just don't want to believe it. Their presuppositional worldview doesn't allow it, and I attack their presuppositions and say, now you've got to defend your presuppositional view to me. And so I will go in this and do this and point them to the cross and say, and I actually say things like, you are working hard at damning yourself. The truth of the word of God is before you. You have spit upon the cross of Christ, and you trample underfoot his blood by which we are justified. So you have done this, and you're continuing to do this, and the proof of the judgment upon you is that God has given you over to more of these lies, and that's Romans chapter 1, verses 18 through 32.

You should read it because it's about you. And I'll do this and say, and you need Jesus, and you need, because when you die, you're going to either be alive or not alive. You've only got two options. If you're not alive, you don't continue.

It doesn't matter, does it? The only one you've got to worry about is continuing. Then what?

Well, I'm going to put my trust and faith in Jesus Christ, who died in that cross and rose from the dead three days later, and you should do the same thing. That's what I'll do with them. Okay? Okay. Okay.

You can do it. So you entertain their philosophy for a little while, but then you draw it back to the gospel by saying, I have a presupposition for you, or I have a supposition for others. Yes, I have a presupposition for you that Jesus Christ indeed rose from the dead. And then you say, what do you do with that? And then you wait for their answer, and then you would respond.

Mm-hmm. And then I'll show them that their assumptions are unfounded. Then they have something called grounding theory. You've got to ground something as being justifiable. Now, some of them are more articulate and challenging that of Christians than others, and you have to be very astute to find out what presuppositions that they have, and I will undermine their presuppositions.

This is why you need to get into a little bit of transcendentals, and you need to get into the issue of the one and the many and universals. Okay, sorry, but it's in this document, all right? It should help you. Yeah, yeah, I will read it.

How long is it, man? It's 52 pages. But it's just an outline form. It's not anything for narration. It's just for my notes. Like transcendentals, second in general ontology, we study general principles of being general features that are true of all things whatsoever.

I had the documentation in the footnote where it comes from. Universal is a principle of being true of all things applies to all being. Truth, unity, beauty, goodness have been said to be examples of transcendentals.

The transivity of identity I've got in there. The nature of truth. Like, what is truth? The Christian theory of truth is that truth is what conforms to the mind of God. That's what truth is.

They go with what's called the correspondence theory or then there's the coherence theory. So when you're talking to them, this document is very useful. And I keep expanding it. And I only expand it when I'm talking to them.

And it's already 52 pages. Okay? All right, buddy? Wow, okay. All right. Email me.

How long did it take you to? Okay, I'm sorry. All right, no problem. That's okay. Call back Monday and let's talk some more about this.

I've been doing this for years and years. All right? Okay.

All right, Matt. God bless, man. Thank you. You too, Kevin. God bless. All right. Sorry for the wait.

Chuck from Burlington, North, whatever. Give me a call. You're on the air. Sorry. Bessed up. What do you got, buddy? Yes, sir. I'm from Burlington. I'm calling from North Carolina. All right.

And I know we don't have much time. But 2 Thessalonians 2 13 says, But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters, beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Now, I believe I'm not a Calvinist. I believe he chose us because of our faith in the truth. No, that's wrong. The reason it's wrong is because that would mean God's choice depends on your choice and your action. That's favoritism. Favoritism is rejected by God in James chapter 2 verses 2 through 4.

A man comes in. He's got this quality, this ability, this riches, this that. You put him at the head of the table. Now you're judging. You're showing favoritism based on a quality that he possesses or has. If God is going to choose us for salvation based on whether or not we're going to believe, then God's choice depends on our goodness. That's a problem. But Christ talked to the Pharisees about not believing. You know, he says, You won't come to me.

Yeah, because that's the penalty, the consequence of their depravity. You can only come to Christ if it's been granted to you from the Father, John 6, 65. Call back Monday. We'll talk about it, okay?

It's an important topic. Okay, thanks, Matt. Appreciate it. All right, buddy. Okay, hey, folks. Have a great weekend, everybody. We'll talk to you Monday.