Share This Episode
Matt Slick Live! Matt Slick Logo

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick
The Truth Network Radio
February 23, 2023 12:11 am

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 967 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

February 23, 2023 12:11 am

Open calls, questions, and discussion with Matt Slick LIVE in the studio. -Topics include---1- Empiricism, knowledge, and God-2- Kosher -32 -3- Was Nicodemus saved-- -34-4- Gap Theory- Evolution -38


It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live!

Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at

Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at

Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at

Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Here's Matt Slick. Matt Slick is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at

Here's Matt Slick. The reason I'm saying is because apologetics, apologetic minds, I think it's apologetic right minds, plural, and let's see if that's a different one right there. No, it's there, this one, and look again. So we're hoping to get people involved with it because one of the things we want to do there is to make people aware more of apologetic issues.

We want people to follow the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, we want people to understand who Jesus is, and maybe we'll even have some teaching stuff on that as well. So there you go, and it looks like the only thing I see on it, and I can verify, can we just release this a little bit ago? And it ends with 26, let's see if that's the same thing again. Nope, not, I don't get the same one as that. Let me check this out, maybe it's not even linked up there. Can you put that in the private chat? And there it is in the private chat, and I can open it up and see. Ah, that's the one. Apologetic minds, maybe Laura can put it up on the Karm homepage or near the radio thing, and it's brand new. Oh, I like that, that's really good.

Look at that graphic. So, good stuff. And it ends in 26. We'll change the name to Apologetic Minds, or.minds, whatever it is.

So people can just, instead of typing in numbers, they can think of that. And yeah, look at all that stuff, good stuff. So we're going to try and get that going and see how many people want to join in, and we'll be using this, apologetic minds. All right, I'm rambling a little bit. All right, yes I am, it's okay.

Just kind of catching up and doing Karm business right here at the Intergalactic headquarters, that's what I call it, the Intergalactic headquarters. All right, let's go, let's see if we can get to Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, welcome.

You're on the air. Thank you, Matt. I'm the guy who sent the email about reflecting God's thoughts, and so thank you for inviting me to call. And it's my understanding that you're saying that logic is a reflection of God's thoughts, is that correct? Well, you've got to be careful how we say that, because his mind is the condition in which true logical thought exists, and since he's the ubiquitous being and we're made his image, then when we think logically and critically in a loose sense, we're thinking the thoughts of God after him.

But it is based upon him, and without his mind, the universal laws of logic would not exist. Okay, how do we distinguish between something that is a reflection of God's thoughts and something that is not? With a mirror? That's a good joke. What do you mean, reflecting his thoughts and not?

What do you mean? Because reflecting his thoughts, how do we define exactly what that is? We have to address the issue of God by analogy.

That's what we do. Okay, here's my contention, okay, that the only thing we know about God's thoughts is the manner in which God has revealed them, and he has revealed them in the person of Christ, in the scriptures, and in creation, primarily, and that we really have no knowledge at all of the thoughts themselves, only in how they are revealed. And to talk about something reflecting God's thoughts is not something that is not only not known, it's not knowable with any degree of certainty. And so the idea that logic is a reflection of God's thoughts should be set aside simply because it's something that cannot be known with any degree of certainty.

I disagree. So where do you think the universal laws of logic come from, the classical laws, law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, proper inference, where do they come from? All of logic and all of mathematics are extracted models from our encounters with the world around us. That's what the atheists say.

Well, it happens to be true, so whether it's what they say or what they don't say, it is nonetheless the truth. Can you show me where you extract from nature if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. Okay, let me give you another analogy. I encounter the world around us, let's say I take a walk in the woods, and I pick up two acorns in one hand and two acorns in another hand, and at the end of my walk I put them into one hand and I extract out from that two plus two equals four. I encounter the world around us and...

Hang on. And I've encountered the world around us, and I inspect a lot of canine species, and I say, all dogs are mammals. That is a logical statement that is extracted from the world around us. It presupposes the laws... And that's the way all... It presupposes the universality of the laws in order for you to convey that to me, because if you're the one who observes it, how do you know I'm observing it differently or the same? What you're presupposing in that is the universality of those laws and the continuity between minds in order to understand them. Since our minds are different based on our different brains, they cannot be that they are reflected accurately simply in our minds, because my mind is different in your minds. We don't know if we're seeing and perceiving the same thing. Therefore, those laws have to exist independently of us and obtain a transcendental value.

That's why I can recognize it, you can recognize it. So, would you say that... Well, you do understand that when you're talking about them being independent of nature, you are full-scale, full-stop endorsing platonic idealism. When you're talking about hardness and redness and blueness, you're talking about platonic idealism, pure and simple.

No, I reject platonic idealism. I hold to Christian necessity of God being the precondition for all intelligibility, since nothing existed. Let me ask you, before the universe existed and only God existed, when nothing existed outside of God, whatever that nothing is, it's nothing.

That's what rocks think of. Was logic true then? There was no logic because there was no human to extract it. Okay, so was God thinking logically? There was no logic? We don't know anything about God's thoughts.

We only know about the revelation of God. So, we don't know anything with any degree of certainty of the thoughts of God. Can God think illogically? Sure.

So can I. And illogical thoughts can produce logical statements. Would you agree that whatever property God possesses, he cannot possess its opposite?

Like if he's holy, he can't also possess unholiness? Okay, now we're getting away from logic and into theology. No, we're not. And we're getting into a different... Yes, we are.

Yes, we are. No, no, no, because we're one and the same. We're getting into the theological context. I asked you a question about God.

I'm going to apply it. So can God, because he is, possess the opposite characteristic of what he possesses? If he is holy, can he also possess not holy?

I don't know. As I said, the only thing that we know of God is the manner in which he is revealed. So would you agree that God is eternal by nature? Sure. That is what I believe.

Would you agree? Yes. That's his property of eternal existence. Can he also possess the property of not eternal existence?

Sure. He reveals himself in temporal patterns all the time. We're talking about his nature, not temporal pattern nature. God's nature and his essence. He is always.

Malachi 3.6. He's unchanging. Psalm 90, verse 2. From everlasting to everlasting, he is God. So he possesses the quality of eternity and aseity. Do you know what aseity is? Sure.

Okay. Can he also possess... I forget the exact definition. Aseity is his eternal non-contingency. He's eternally self-sufficient in and of himself. So can he also possess the opposite characteristic where he's not eternally ase? Where he is contingent. So if he's non-contingent, can he also be the case that he is contingent for his existence? I would say in my belief, I would say no. In the biblical revelation, of course not. In the theological belief. And so what we're seeing here is that the logic is true. That we can't have A and also not A at the same time. It's a statement that God, whatever property, whatever property God possesses, he cannot also possess its opposite. So aseity, or he is a same. So aseity is eternal. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Non-contingency and self-sufficiency completely in himself. So by definition, by logical necessity, he cannot also be contingent and dependent upon other things. It's not possible for both of those to be properties of God. So therefore, what we see is something is what it is and is not what it is not based on the character of God and not secular thought. Okay, then let me ask you this. Is there only one definition of identity, logical identity?

I don't know. But I'm telling you what we're talking about when I say the term, something is what it is and is not what it is not. And I did mention earlier the classical laws of logic. So the three main laws, you know this L-I-L-N-C and L-E-M, you should know these, and we also know that it's true that God cannot possess a characteristic opposite of what he himself is.

This is just part of his nature. Therefore, we can ground the laws of logic in God's nature. But if you say that they're just part and parcel or observations out of nature, then how do you know you're observing nature? How do you get into epistemological thing and epiphenomenalism? Hang on, hang on.

Here is the key to it. It is possible that my observations are inaccurate. Therefore, we do multiple observations and other people doing different observations, making different tests of the observations. And after doing all of those things, we can say all dogs are mammals.

We can say that if it's a dog, then it's a mammal. And those are logical statements directly drawn from the world around us. Now, the reason I ask you about multiple definitions of identity is because there are multiple definitions of identity. There are different kinds of identities.

Wait, you said something. I want to address it before you dismiss it as if you made a point, because you didn't. When you say all these people make these observations, you're presupposing the uniformity of nature, which you can't defend from your position. You're presupposing that they're perceiving the same thing. You have an epistemological thing, and you can't justify true belief with what your position is. And then you have to ask the question, are all people observing the same thing the same way so they can make the same statement?

Because what you're talking about here are particulars. And then we get into the issue of what's the ultimate nature of reality. Is it one or many?

Is it a single universal or is it particular manifestations? Are you familiar with that issue at all, the one and the many issue? Yes, I am. Very familiar.

Okay. So then are these particular manifestations of, say, trees and chairs? Do you hold to – let me ask you, which one do you hold to being ultimate?

The one or the many? The particular manifestations of chairs that you observe, and then you draw conclusions out of that which seems to be your position? Or is it the nature of chairness?

Which is it? Well, if it's the nature of chairness, then that's Platonic idealism. If it's going to be the – there's a problem going both directions.

First of all, if you're going to deduce chairness from the single chair, that's Platonic idealism to the hilt. If you're going to go from the universal to the particular, then you're going to have a problem because it's always corrupted when it's actualized in a fallen world. So there's problems going both directions in trying to solve it. Okay, but here's my point again. But you're making – wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Wait, wait, no, no, no. Because you're saying then – so which is it? Which is the ultimate nature of reality then? Is it the one thing, the universal, or is it the particular things, the particulars?

Which one is the ultimate thing by which you interpret actuality? Because what you're telling me is you observe things in the universe that's called atomism, you're looking at the particulars, and you're saying this is how we draw the universal. That's your position, right? No, that's not my position. I said that's how we draw models, how we draw logical and mathematical models. Then you have a problem.

Okay, you've mistakenly rejected – no, I'll explain what your problem is right now. You've mistakenly assumed that Platonism is the only view and that Christians can't hold to it. We don't hold to Platonism, but we certainly can hold to a Christian-based idealism, that there are actualities out there that exist in the mind of God. And we would say that one and many are equally ultimate in the nature of God since he's one being in three persons. If you're going to go with the pluralities – How do you come to that conclusion? Because God's a trinity.

One person, one God in three persons. Hold on, let me explain. If you just go with your idea that you're looking at the particular manifestations as the determiner of these universal truths, then you've lost the coherence between the particulars because you haven't presupposed the validity of the coherent nature behind them. And reality then becomes a set of unrelated items and this undermines coherence and truth values. This is what I'm trying to show you. Okay, hang on. This is a problem for you.

Okay, here's what I'm trying to show you. There are multiple logical systems that have different definitions of logical identity. Therefore, the definition of identity changes.

It varies. Therefore, it is not unchanging and not universal. The same thing with contradiction.

The same thing with the law of experimental. Go ahead. We didn't even have a break. We went through the break or something.

That's okay. What's the ultimate source of your conclusions? Is it looking at the material world and drawing conclusions out of materiality?

The ultimate source. Where I begin is with the empirical and the existential. That's where all knowing begins. Okay, so you are a humanist. No, I'm a Christian.

You're a humanist. Well, you may be a Christian but you're inconsistent because the ultimate is God himself because all reality exists because God has made it and he says, God himself says in Romans 1.20, which is something you need to study, Romans 1.20 he says the divine nature of God is clearly seen in creation, the divine nature. Now, God is one in many. He is one being in three persons.

So he had the equal ultimacy of the one in the many, which is reflected in creation. What you're doing is putting creation, a materialistic view, as the final thing and the ultimate by which knowledge is gained and you're doing it without God as being the centerpiece. That is not what I'm doing. You just said so. You said the empirical. You said empirical. That's empiricism. That's from your senses. That is where I begin.

That is not where I end. You should begin with God. It begins with the empirical justice. Romans 1.20 says it begins with creation. We see it in creation. And we observe it in creation.

No, you're humanist. I begin with the empirical and the existential but that is not where I end. I am a Christian man. Why is that the right place to begin? Because that's where the Gospel begins.

No. We are beginning God. Okay, so that's where the beginning is. That's the ultimate. God is the ultimate. You start with God. Okay, hang on.

The Gospel message begins with the Word. It became flesh. No.

No, no, no, no. I get you. You're beginning with the earthly. I'm saying the ultimate. The ultimate source of your truth.

You went with the physical. The ultimate source of our truth is God Himself. You're an empiricist which is based out of humanism. You're an empiricist which is based in humanistic philosophy. You just said.

Ryan, you said. Let me ask you this. Do you gather information through your senses and that's where you begin your knowledge search?

That's correct. That's where we all begin. Empiricism. That's empiricism. So, your epistemological base is empirical.

How do you know it's the right place to begin? Everyone's is. Now you're saying there's a universal truth statement that everyone is empirical and assumes empiricism. But the rationalist wouldn't agree with you and the empiricism has its own problems inherent within it.

Come on, Ryan. You're supposed to know this stuff. If you want to argue on this level, you need to know these things. First of all, when we read the scriptures, are we using our senses to read the scriptures? Yes, we use our senses. We're reading it with our eyes.

Yes, of course we are. Our knowledge of God through the scriptures begins with the empirical. Where does the scriptures come from? Where does the scriptures come from?

Obviously, they're written on a page and we can read them. That's where our knowledge of the scriptures begins. Where does the scripture come from? Where does it come from?

What do you mean? It came from the writers who wrote them and they wrote about their encounters with God. Where did they get it? They got it from their own experience in the natural world, their experience with God. No, God's the ultimate source of all things. So you don't have God as the ultimate source. He may very well be, Matt.

He may well be? You mean that there are things that exist that were not brought into existence by the direct or indirect action of God's work? No, what I'm saying is that those are things, again, the only way we know anything about God is the manner in which he has chosen to reveal them to us. We know nothing of the thoughts themselves. We know nothing of the essences themselves except how he is revealed.

We know the revelation of God. You don't realize what you're doing is contradicting yourself because you're using rationality to verify your empiricism. That's rationalism.

The rationalist would say that you have to go, even with your senses, because you can't trust your senses to know what to experience. Reality, accurately, you have to use your mind. Hence, you move into rationalism. So which are you, a rationalist or an empiricist? As I told you before, I begin with the empirical because that's where we all begin. We begin as existing things before we believe anything, before we know anything.

So you justify this. You justify your empiricism rationally. You don't begin with empiricism. You begin with rationalism. There are limitations to the empirical. There's a limitation to the rational.

In fact, the matter is both of those schools have collapsed. And also, idealism has collapsed. If you use empiricism to validate empiricism, then you're begging the question. Well, again, what I begin with is not empiricism. I begin with the fact that I'm an existing thing and as an existing thing, I encounter an existing world. How do you know you're an existing thing?

From your senses? That's empiricism again. So you're using empiricism to validate empiricism. It's a circular argument.

It's not working. Okay, if you'll stop interrupting me, I'll explain to you. I begin with the assumption that I'm an existing thing. As an existing thing, I encounter things in an existing world.

As I encounter things in an existing world, I ascertain knowledge of the world around me. Sometimes it is axiomatic, sometimes it is... There's a break. Yeah, it's a break. We've got to go, too. Sorry, we're done.

But you're just using empiricism to validate empiricism, which is circular. It doesn't work. Refuse itself. Hey, we've got to go, buddy. Okay. Hey, folks.

Three open lines. You want to give me a call? 877-207-2276. I'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. I enjoyed the previous conversation. I do that a lot in different venues. I argue like that and even deeper things.

For me, it's entertainment. I hope you guys enjoyed a little bit of it, for those of you who could understand. All right, let's get to Josh from Tennessee. Josh, welcome. You're on the air. Josh? Are you there, Josh? Okay, there we go. Can you hear me? Yes, now I hear you.

All right. So my question is, do you believe in following the kosher laws? If so, why?

If not, why? Don't need to follow the kosher laws, because the Bible says that we don't need to. I'll show you three verses. Hebrews 8-13. When he said a new covenant, he's made the first obsolete. Okay, that's Hebrews 8-13. Hebrews 9-15 and 16. For this reason, he's the meter of a new covenant. And it goes on in verse 16. Where the covenant is, there must be necessity to be the death of the one who made it.

With the death of Christ is the new covenant. Now what we do is go to Romans 14. Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat. And the one who eats is not to judge the one who does not eat, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he must stand or fall, and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Verse 5. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. And it goes on, it says, he who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats does so for the Lord, gives thanks. Who does not eat does it for the Lord. So right there, and what I've given you, is why we don't need to keep kosher laws.

You can if you want, but we're not obligated to. Hope it didn't blow his mind with all of that. I can just, you know, maybe he's one of the guys, and the line went dead, who knows? Maybe he'll call back. All right, let's go to Gary from Georgia. Gary, welcome, you're on the air.

Hey man, thanks. You know, my question is like pertaining to when Nicodemus and Jesus had met. So I know Nicodemus was a, was like a religious, you know, he was a religious leader.

What I'm just wondering is, and I know the verse, and I know the context and the text of it, but do we know if Nicodemus went to heaven or was he born again? We don't know. We don't know? We don't know.

Okay. It looks like it was Nicodemus who gave the grave for Jesus to use. So Nicodemus probably was a believer, probably. Probably went to heaven? Probably.

Yeah, I got you. That's like some of the kings, speaking of that, did King Solomon go to heaven? I don't know.

I don't know because he got the smack down from Jesus and some others. So who knows? That's what I got you. Well, I appreciate that, man. Thanks. All right.

No problem, man. God bless. Okay. I'm just curious why you asked because what's up that brought that up? I'm just curious. Well, you know what? Really, I just, I just, you know, I don't, I don't want to see anybody go to, I don't, I wouldn't want to see anybody go to hell, hell, but. Me neither. Yeah. I would never, I would never wish that on anybody, but. Yeah.

It's going to be bad. There's something I thought about. Like I said, I read about, I know that the, the sins, I've read the sins that King Solomon, you know, he got sucked into, which is, you know, with the, was it the foreign women? And I know God had warned him, you know, about that and he just ignored it.

But, um, what I took of the story, I haven't said all of this. Right. Well, he, you know, he loved God and then he wanted wisdom and, but yet it failed him because wisdom is not the best thing to have.

It's relationship with Christ. So, you know. Oh, yeah. He did answer that. That's right. Well, God gave him not just wisdom, he gave him pretty much everything, but it's kind of hard to see him fall away like that, but, uh, it's kind of hard to imagine that, but.

Yeah. All we can say is… It took a lot of years. All we can say is we don't know. We hope we see him in heaven. God's faithful and we're not and we'll see.

We'll just see. That's true. That's true.

Yep, like King David, uh, you know, King David did, uh, I'm pretty sure he went to heaven. I just, like I said, I don't really worry about it because it's nothing I can do about it anyway, obviously. Right.

Right. But, um… Okay. You know, mainly I real quick – I know that I evangelized on a website, and I can't tell you the questions on there. People were just all types of – it seems like maybe you know more about – I know some about religions.

I've never put any of my – I've never had to turn to any of that because I was just born again, and I mean I know that all that stuff. Can you, uh, send me the URL for that website so that I can look at some of the questions? Because one of the things I like to do is just read questions and then write an article as an answer. So just send it to me, sort of, because I don't want an unbelieving website to be promoted here. But send it to me, info at Okay. All right? Yeah.

Um, it's info, it's info, say again? Info at karm, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. All right. I'll send it to you, bro. All right, man.

Sounds good. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

Yep. See you, bro. God bless you, bro. Okay. You too. Thanks.

All right. Let's get on the air with Linda from – let's see. Where is she from?

North Carolina. Linda, welcome. You're on the air. Yes, sir. Thank you for taking my call.

I want to preface my question by letting you know that the reason I can't look this question up is because I'm homebound and 77 and I don't have any technology in my home, and none of my books address this. Can you explain what the gap theory is and give me some Bible verses that I can go back and reference it? And my last question is, I'm on a cell phone. Let's do that one. Let's do that one.

Let's do one at a time. So the gap theory is the theory that between Genesis 1, verse 1, and verse 2, that there's a gap. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and there's a gap. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness is over the face.

What they're saying is that God made everything really great, then there was an angelic fall, and then earth was destroyed, and God had to kind of remake it. This kind of thing is what the gap theory is about, okay? And no, we don't hold to it, all right? Okay? Okay. But before you made the statement that earth was the story and God had to remake it, what did you say before that line? I don't remember.

Before that line. Okay. Okay. Are you listening to- I got you. Will you- Are you listening to the shepherd's chapel at all?

Are you listening to the shepherd's chapel at all? What? Are you listening to the- No. Good. Okay, good.

Don't listen to it. Okay. Okay. So that's all it is. Just the gap theory. Okay, so- That's what it is. Okay? Mm-hmm.

So when it talks about the gap theory, is this- okay, I think I can figure it out with what you've told me. All right. Yeah, don't believe in it. Thank you so- Yeah, don't believe in it. Okay. No, I don't. I just wanted a definition of it.

Yes. Basically, the idea that between the first two verses in the Bible, that there was an entirely different creation, in Genesis 1 and 2. And some claim that Satan's fall is what wiped everything out, and God had to remake things.

That's what it is. The gap between Genesis 1 and 2, they insert a period of time where there was a great problem in the spiritual realm that affected the earth that it had to be remade. Okay? Okay. And the Bible doesn't teach it.

Right. So the truth is that there was nothing. God created it, and then that's when it started, and there was nothing before. Yeah, God started in the beginning.

God created the heavens and the earth. And then the only other in the beginning is in John 1-1, in the beginning was the word. And notice that it says, in the beginning, God said, let there be light, the word. But so there's a relationship there. So it has to do with the Hebrew and how they'll use certain words to try and say that, well, in the Hebrew it means this, but people who do that are reading into the text.

Okay? It just says that God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was formless and void, that earth was a waste. It was empty. It was formless and void, but it was there. And darkness is over the surface of the earth.

And then God started creating, or moving things around, let's just say. Okay? Yes. Okay. I understand. Thank you.

You're welcome, God bless. Bye-bye. Okay. Bye. Hey, we have, let's see, four open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276, why don't you give me a call, and we'll blab.

Or you can email me, info at, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, we'll be right back. Welcome back to the show. Let's get on the air with Chris from Idaho. Hey, Chris, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt. How are you? Busy. A little tired.

Just a touch. I didn't go to sleep. I'm busy today, and a little distracted. That's how I am. Okay.

Well, okay, so my question is regarding, this is probably kind of, I don't know if you've heard this before, but it's kind of a weird, I guess, way of thinking about things, but if you were to entertain the idea of something more negative being behind everything in life, like I guess like going, yeah, yeah, like the God is evil type. No, no, no, no. Don't do that. You don't go there. But anyway.

But I know you get it. Go ahead. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So to entertain that idea, you would be committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. No. If you were to ever, ever consider that idea.

Okay. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a sin that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the evil one. And this is something that some think only the Jews at the time of Christ could have committed. Some say it's possible to be committed now. It's a very, very heinous sin, and if anyone commits it, you're going to hell. Can a Christian commit it?

No. And so this is for those who actually did not approve of Christ, they hated Christ, what he was doing, and they accused him of evil. And that's what that is. So if you're a Christian, don't worry about it. And I had to teach it. Not teach how to do it, but I mean teach about it, the topic. And just teaching about it doesn't mean I'm committed. So just being aware of it doesn't mean that. Right. Okay.

Okay. That help? So, yeah, that helps. So that idea that I had, though, like is that, because I've listened to some philosophy debates and about God is, you know, evil, like what's your thoughts on that? I mean.

Well, here's the thing. What is the most convincing thing for you to believe that he's good, because you can kind of reverse everything? Whatever attribute God has, he does not possess its opposite. Do you understand that principle?

Yeah. The attribute God has, he doesn't possess its opposite. So if he's eternal, it cannot also be the case that he's not eternal. If he's good, it cannot be the case that he's bad. Okay? Right. You talk about essence, right?

Yeah, that's right. If he's bad, it cannot be that he's good. So if he's bad, then how could it then be known that he's bad? We would have to have a standard of goodness by which we could declare it. But how would we know? Is the goodness decided by what we think, what we observe?

You'd never know. When someone says, well, God might be evil, well, then how do you know? What's the universal standard of evil that they have?

They don't have that. But evil is self-contradictory, because evil is do what I say, not what I do, hypocrisy. Evil is lying when something is not true and says to be true and other things that evil is, you know, harmful. So can God say something that's not true? Well, if he does, then he's contradicting his own ultimate nature.

If he was pure. Now, the devil is fallen, and his nature is evil, and so there's no good in him. So what we have here is a contrast between the very nature of good and evil. And only in Christian theology, hold on one second, is it the case that God has self-revealed himself as good? It's the Christian worldview that says that God is good.

The unbelievers, what they're doing is they say, well, how do you know God is evil? Well, I'll say to them, what's your standard by which you would judge that? Because to ask a question means you believe there's a universal good. But if there's a universal good, how are you going to know there's a universal good?

What's the standard you're going to use? If you use your own standard or a standard of vote, then that doesn't tell us anything. The question ultimately becomes meaningless because they can't determine what is good and what is not good. So therefore, we have to go to the self-revealed will of God. If he's evil, then how is it then that the greatest act of love is a sacrifice of Christ, which is other-centered? If everyone acknowledges his good, not that we define it as such, how could that be an evil thing to bring to the betterment others through your sacrifice? It certainly seems intuitional to say that such things are naturally good. Now, then we have to be careful that we don't want to use that as a judgment of how God is good because then we're saying God subject himself to our goodness. And then that's evil to do that because he's a standard of good. So you see, this whole thing becomes a difficulty when the people ask these questions.

They don't know how to get through the difficulties associated with the question. Okay? Right. Well, and then I heard Lane Craig say something like, only a being that is perfectly good would be deserving of worship. Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not God is good or bad, but yeah. Right, right.

It doesn't. But yeah, yeah. He brought that point up. Yeah. Yeah.

I guess it doesn't really drop that, but I appreciate you touching on that for me. Now, there's also a, let me see if I can find it. Let's see. On Karm, I'm trying to remember an article. It's called, what's it called, what's it called? Oh, it's right there. A deceptive, I'll get it here in a second, a demon.

Let's see. There's a word for a scenario. Decartes?

Decartes? No, it's something he came up with. And it's- Yeah, it's the evil demon scenario. Right, the evil demon thing. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's called the Cartesian scenario.

And this would, if an evil demon is deceiving us, or if God himself is evil, for example, that would necessitate that evil demon is greater in scope and knowledge than the Christian Trinitarian God, who by definition is everywhere. So this question essentially becomes an external critique, not an internal one. Does that make sense? Okay. Yeah, yeah.

This is why a Cartesian- And I- It doesn't work. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah. Well, and I think he, but he was Christian. He just kind of brought up that scenario, just to point out what you just said, right? Like that was kind of- Right. Yeah, I get it. So I think I wrote an article on the Cartesian scenario on Karm, and let's see if I did. Okay.

Because there's so many things I write. Yeah, yeah. So it's- Yeah.

Argument against God's existence using Cartesian scenarios. And then do I just type in Cartesian? Yeah.

Just look at Cartesian scenario. And I have some analysis of some stuff on there. Okay. Okay. All right, man.

I'll take a look. I appreciate you answering that. Hey. No problem, buddy. Okay.

God bless. Yep. Okay.

All right. Let's get to Janet from Ohio on evolution. Hey, Janet.

Welcome. You're on the air. Oh, I am?

I'm listening to the radio and- You're on now. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So I was wanting to know why we are so insistent against people who believe that they were made out of animals or whatever, yet we can believe that Adam was made out of something, not the word of God, and that Eve was made out of something preexisting. And we have Genesis 1 that is so beautiful of the entire creation of the entire world, and yet we get to the point where he made man in his image. He just spoke- I'm not sure I understand the question. What's your question again? What's the- I was wanting to know why we believe Genesis 2 and 3 versus Genesis 1 being created by the word in Genesis 1.

Okay. I can't answer why people believe certain things, so I'm still not sure what your question is. Well, I was just wanting to know why everyone keeps preaching, all the churches keep preaching, that Jesus made Adam out of dirt and Eve- Technically, that's not accurate. It was God- That's preexisting. Yeah, the preexisting of Christ, yeah, because Jesus came into existence 2,000 years ago when the human nature and the divine nature became in union. He was not preexisting as Jesus to that, prior to that. So what we would say is simply God created, that's just what it says, so just leave it at that. God created, and said, let us make man.

Okay. Well, in Isaiah 9-6, it says, for unto us the child is born, and unto us the Son is given. His name shall be called wonderful. Yeah, I get that, that's a prophecy of Jesus' birth. But you're talking about Genesis 1, okay, I'm still not following you. Oh, well, just that he's trying to explain about himself, and how much he loves us, and he made us in his image, and then we forget that Satan said, I'm going to screw up God's image for mankind, so they won't know God from me, and I'm going to be God.

So that's where I believe. You have a question, because it sounds to me like you're trying to teach, and I don't know who you are, I'm just being cautious, I don't know what your question is, so what's your question? Well, I just want to know why we believe in Adam and Eve being evolved from some preexisting material versus Genesis 1 spoken into existence. We believe what the Bible says, science is provisionary, what that means is it provides something until something better comes along. So science can't produce absolute truth that exists independent of the scientific method. But what the Bible says is that Adam was created by God, and there's plenty of stuff against the theory of evolution, but it's suppressed in schools and universities. But there's lots of information out there that exposes it and problems. And you can go looking on the web, and you can look up information disproving evolution, and you can find all kinds of books and articles, but they're not allowed. One of the things, unfortunately, for example, the intelligent design community was supposed to have a discussion lecture debate at a certain university, and the students rose up and said don't even allow them to speak, because they were suppressing a counter view.

Schools are leftist factories. So there's lots of evidence out there, to the contrary. I collect evidence like that on notes and stuff.

But anyway, okay, I don't know if that helps or not. Not really, but yeah, I believe some wonderful things about God that no one else believes. So I just wanted to share, I guess, with you, and see, I mean, when Jesus was born, she said, let it be according to thy word. I mean, he wasn't made out of, Jesus wasn't made out of pre-existing material. He was spoken. That's a non sequitur. It's a non sequitur. It's a wrong question. Don't say he wasn't made out of pre-existing material.

Jesus is like a human being, but he has two natures in it, a human and a divine. That's all. Okay. Yeah.

According to him, we do too. No. We did not pre-exist. Okay. I thank you very much for your time. No, we did not pre-exist. Thank you for your time. All right.

Wow. You know, no, we did not pre-exist, folks, and that's just, it sounds like she talked with the Mormons. Mormons erringly teach we had pre-existence in heaven between God and his goddess wife who came from their planet, and then they have relations, produced spirit offspring, and we inhabit human bodies when we're born on earth. That's what Mormonism teaches, and it's absolutely not biblical. And if any Mormons are listening, they say, is that what we teach? Absolutely, yes, it is. You just don't know it. The Mormons officially teach that.

That's what their official documents and stuff have said for years and decades. Okay, folks, we're out of here. There's the music. May the Lord bless you, and by his great grace, we'll be back on here tomorrow, and hopefully we'll talk to you then. And remember, tonight, in two hours from now, 9 p.m., I'll be on Clubhouse answering questions. God bless.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-02-22 18:13:22 / 2023-02-22 18:33:18 / 20

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