Share This Episode
Matt Slick Live! Matt Slick Logo

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick
The Truth Network Radio
May 18, 2023 5:56 pm

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 998 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


May 18, 2023 5:56 pm

The Matt Slick Live daily radio show broadcast is produced by The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry -CARM.org-. During the show, Matt answers questions on the air, and offers insight on topics like The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues-- The show airs live on the Truth Network, Monday through Friday, 6-7 PM, EST -3-4 PM, PST--You can also watch a live stream during the live show on RUMBLE----MSL- May, 17 2023--Topics include---- 05- Female Pastors, gender roles in the church.-- 14- Genesis 17-20, Who are the 12 sons of Ishmael---- 20- Eternal Security, John 12-32, The use of the word -Al----- 29- The best Bible Translation.-- 31- Is salvation assurance also freedom from sin---- 32- Sprinkling vs Immersion Baptism and the importance of the topic---- 36- Are we obligated to keep the Sabbath--

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. All you have to do is dial 877-207-2276.

Man, you know I'm messing up already. If you want to call, just give me that call, that number. Alright, listen to Matt Slick live. I'm your host Matt Slick. It's my real name.

And for those who are newbies, sometimes you have people cruising around and they stop. I had one woman tell me she stopped on the radio because of my voice. It was a different voice so she said, what's this? What's this guy's voice? And then it was a Christian show and she listened and anyway, cool.

So you never know. But hey, I'm a Christian apologist. I defend the Christian faith. And if you want to give me a call, you have a question about all kinds of topics. I mean evolution, atheism, the occult, government, let's see, philosophy, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, unity, Baha'i, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Christian theology, argumentation, principles, trans stuff, abortion.

We can talk about all kinds of stuff. I've studied them all. And now I'm studying, I love science too. I love talking about science, the philosophy of science and mathematics. Why does mathematics work in the real world?

And what's behind the universal concepts of the abstract principles known as absolute mathematical principles? I love that kind of stuff and so I enjoy studying it. The average person I know doesn't even understand what I'm talking about when I stop talking about those things. So usually I just say to make myself feel superior, but I don't let them know. Wait a minute, I just said that out loud, didn't I? Dang it, now the secret's out.

Oh well, you know, that does happen. Hey, if you want to give me a call, you can, 8772072276. And if you want, you can go to Rumble and you can participate in the chat room. Matt Slick Live is where you've got to go on Rumble. rumble.com forward slash Matt Slick Live. And you can watch the show there.

There's a lot of people who can join in in the live chat area. So there you go. All right, pretty easy.

Easy peasy. All right, so there's that. Boy, the word baptism just popped into my mind. I have no idea why.

That is interesting. Why did baptism? I was just talking about something else. There's no reason, and all of a sudden it just popped right into my mind. Maybe we'll talk about baptism today. I don't know. And is it necessary for salvation?

No, it's not. I believe Jesus was sprinkled in his baptism. That's what I honestly believe. You can call me up and say, what is wrong with you? Why would you believe that? And then I'll give you the answer right out of scripture. I usually guess people go and they go, oh man, look at the list of this guy. Well, I've had people tell me that over the years.

I've been doing radio for 18 years. I've had people say, man, are you irritated when you said things? I go, no way. And then they check them. And they go, man. And then after a while they say, that's what it says.

I have a friend named Nathan and he mocks me every now and then. He goes, that's what it says. He'll imitate me. So there you go. There you go. There you go. All right. And if you are so inclined to give me a call, please do. If you don't want to, you don't feel good about that, then you can e-mail me a comment or a question. You can say, just subject radio show. And then you can do that at info at karm.org.

Info at karm.org. You can e-mail me a comment or a question and then we can deal with that. All right. Here's a question that just kind of came in, actually.

Let's see. I was recently reading this article of yours and it seems like a typo. Maybe there's a typo there. Was this meant to read groups that hold to henotheism?

That's absolutely correct. I wrote in there, handletheism. That's probably because of my speech recognition program.

I do a lot of stuff on that. So now I have to fix that. Wow.

Good stuff. Good catch. So how come Laura didn't catch that? How come Laura? See, Laura, she works with us. Laura is awesome. And I don't get a teaser about much because she's so good at what she does.

So if I take an opportunity, you know, it's because usually it's my fault anyway. All right. Let's see.

Saber-toothed tiger. I'm not going to get into that. Something to do with the forums. Okay, radio show question. Here we go. Love your show, sense of humor and your website.

Thanks for your service. Question. I'm concerned about my small community church not following God's instructions and commands for the church. The pastor often asks women to give brief talks about various scripture to the congregation. He also has employed a young lady who is doing a theological degree who teaches the children, writes her own songs for Sunday worship and also talks about scripture. I also see fewer and fewer men taking leadership positions in the church when there used to be quite a few.

I mentioned this to him over lunch and the short story is he said he's trying to get more men involved and sometimes we have to change with the culture. Whoa. Wow. So I would suggest that this guy, there's more in the email, I suggest what the guy do is tail the pastor. You know, just kind of don't let him know you're following him and then just see if every now and then the pastor stops and then wets his finger, holds it up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing so he can follow that direction. That'd be good, you know, to see if he does that. Yeah.

So he's going to adapt with the culture. That's why I let women do that stuff. I have a suggestion. In all seriousness, I would do this. I would gladly do this. Fly me out and I'll give a talk on the doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to federal headship and the entrance of sin into the world and I will talk about the male-female roles in the church and call the men to do what they need to do. And that's fine.

I'd be glad to do it. I can do it with authority and with scripture and with truth because the men need to do what they need to be doing. I would sit with men and teach them how to do what they need to do. Let me tell you something, ladies. You understand something about us men. We're pretty good at most everything we do. We excel at everything we do, including being lazy. If you give us the opportunity to do nothing, then hey, we'll excel at that. You see, in the church, if women are stepping up, well, the men aren't doing it, then don't let it get done. It won't get done. Women need to sit down and stop trying to make things better.

Stop it. Let the men see the failures that are the result of their inaction and let the men start standing up. Women tend to, I love the ladies, but I'm telling you, sometimes the women, what they want to do is fix the men. They want to help the men and direct the men and guide the men.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's not your job. Your job is to be a helpmate to the man. You're not a helpmate to the man if you're trying to lead him, correct him, and guide him. So women, if you're in a church and more and more women are doing stuff and the men aren't, then I would suggest you ladies get together and you strategize about what things, you know, some women should be doing things like teaching the young ladies and working with the ladies in the women's group.

I get that, okay, but aside from those things, you know, for doing the things that men really should be doing, what the ladies should be doing is getting together and make a list of those things the men really should be doing, that the women are doing, and then have the women just stop. Just stop at cold turkey. Say, that's it, we're done. Or if you don't feel good about that, give them one week notice.

You say, we're going to only do this for one more week and we're done. And if the men don't do it, it's not going to get done. That's when the men will get up and do something.

There's a lot of dynamics here. There's a lot of ladies who don't understand how men work. A lot of ladies think that they can fix the men, and they can guide them with passive-aggressive expressions, body language movements, and the whole bit. Men pick up on this and they resent it. They don't like it. Men don't want to be controlled and manipulated by your, you know, manipulation, your passive-aggressive stuff. Just drop it, okay?

Talk to them and tell them the truth. That's what men want. Talk to me, tell me, I'm not going to read your mind.

I'm not going to try and guess. That's how women need to understand that about men. You do that with your girlfriends. You do your ESP thing and then, you know, talk halfway through a sentence and then jump to another topic for 20 minutes, go back to the first sentence and finish the sentence, and all you women get it. It's all fine.

Guys are out in the cold. What are you talking about? So look, guys, we are different. Just talk to us and tell us.

In that church, you just go to the men and say, you guys need to be doing this stuff. They're not going to do it anymore. You sit down.

Done. You don't have to explain anything. Guys go, oh, they want us to do stuff.

They're not going to do anything anymore. That's what the guys take home. You don't have to lecture them. So I'm going to tell you, men need to be stepping up in the church, okay? They need to do those things that men need to do, and the women, if you step up and take the slack where the men are failing, then they'll continue to be slackers because you're helping them be that. Yeah, I know.

Let's go. Let's see, to me, he goes on in the email, to me, there are many red flags here. Can you please speak a little about this? I've read most of the articles on your website regarding women teaching from the pulpit. They should not be teaching from the pulpit.

They should not be in a position of authority. Now, I don't have a problem with a woman getting up and giving an announcement. That's fine, you know, or giving a testimony. That's fine, okay? Or she's going to talk about how they're going to teach other women.

That's fine. But she's not to get up and exegete scripture from the pulpit on a Sunday morning. That's a place of exegetical authority.

It's for the elder. It's for the pastor doing that in a teaching context. And any pastor who allows that for a woman to do that, you've got two options.

Repent now or step aside and stop being a pastor because you're not qualified. All right? See, that's how we men are. This is how it has to be. If you don't like it, not my problem. If you don't like it, I can tell you what scriptures to go to in the Bible to black out with a marker so that they don't bother you anymore because while you're taking your finger, looking at it and going up to the doctrinal wind and the culture and see which way it blows so you can follow that direction, go ahead and do that and follow a different master aside the Lord Jesus Christ. But women are not to be pastors and elders. They're not even supposed to be deacons, okay?

The Bible says a deacon is supposed to be an ermias gunaikas, a man of one woman. And that's what the Bible says. If you don't like it, that's not my problem, but that's what it says. And if you want to argue with me, you want to debate me, you want to talk about it politely, that's fine. I'll listen and I'll say, here, think about this, think about that, let's go through it. For 18 years now on the radio I've been talking about this and I politely, and here I'll do it again, politely offered anybody if you want to debate me in a formal debate, you fly me out to your church or maybe I can raise the funds to fly myself out to your church. We'll have it recorded and we'll do a formal debate on the topic, does the Bible permit women pastors and elders? I'd be glad, I've done this for 18 years, not a single person has ever taken me up on it in 18 years. Why do you think it's because they know what scriptures I'll go to and I'm going to hold their feet to the fire and say, why are you allowing this when the Bible says, ermias gunaikas, an ermias gunaikas, a man of one woman, the elders to be a man of one woman.

I'm not going to do that. See this is the thing, and tie it into federal headship and tie it into the doctrine of the trinity because that's the foundation of all truth. I guess we're tired of this heresy. Men stand up, and look, if there are women in the church doing the job of preaching, teaching, and being elders, deacons, you need to do your job in the church, study up, go to my website, go to karm.org and read up in the women ministry stuff, read up on what it actually says, check out the scriptures, and then you call the women to repentance after you repent yourself from being apathetic and lazy and not doing what's necessary. Men, you've got to understand something. Adam and Eve were in the garden. She sinned first, and sin entered the world through Adam, not through her. And when they fled, the pre-incarnate Christ came to the man and said, where are you? They didn't say Adam and Eve. He didn't address her first, but the man, where are you? That's because the men are the ones responsible. You've got to understand this. That's biblical theology.

If you don't like it, change your channel, don't read the Bible, do whatever you want, but I'm just telling you the truth. Hey, we'll be right back. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show.

I wonder how many people are limping right now because I step on their toes so hard. Let's get to Herb from North Carolina. Herb, welcome, you're on the air.

Hey, Matt, always good to talk to you, buddy. I had a question about Genesis 1720. Can you explain that, what it really means? Well, okay, it says, as for Ishmael, I have heard you, behold, I'll bless you, and make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I'll make him a great nation. So I believe the context, it says God said, let's see, the context is God establishing the covenant, and he promised the covenant to Abraham and said, your descendants will be many. So Ishmael is one of Abraham's descendants, so he was under the promise. And so the angel of the Lord blessed him.

So here's how it goes. Okay, so the context, of course, is Abraham was old, he didn't have any children, so Sarah, his wife, gave him Hagar to go into and plant seed to raise up children, and so he did that. And so 13 years later, Ishmael was born. Now, 13 is the number of sin. Now, what's interesting is not that Isaac was the issue of sin, but Ishmael was because God had promised Abraham that he would be the father of many.

To him, all the nations will be blessed. Genesis 12 talks about this. So what he did was he took matters into his own hand, and the result was another child, Ishmael. And then Hagar was kicked out of the area because of Sarah, who became jealous of her later.

And then the promise was, yeah, you're going to be blessed, don't worry, descendants will be blessed as well, because of the covenant faithfulness that God made with Abraham. Now, that's just the main part, the main story, okay? Uh-huh, okay. So do you want any more info, or what? Well, I guess what I wanted about the 12 princes. Who are the 12 princes? That was the main thing. I should have been more specific.

All right. I don't know who the 12 princes are. Let's see.

That's a good question. Descendants of Ishmael. I'm looking for a cross-reference.

So let me just read. These are the records of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, Hagar, et cetera. These are the names of the sons of Ishmael.

The names and order of the birth, well, I can't remember. I'm just going to count them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Interesting.

Yeah. That is interesting. The reason I say 13 is the number of sin is because people don't know, generally they don't know that Hebrew and Greek only have one set of characters that they write with. We have two sets of characters, alpha and numeric.

They use one for both. So when they write words, they're also writing numbers. And in the pericopes where Satan is mentioned in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, in the pericope, all of the words added up are divisible by 13. And so it's called the number of sin. It doesn't mean everything with 13 is sinful, but it's interesting that there are 13. I think I miscounted.

The firstborn of Ishmael, I counted Ishmael in that. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I got 11, isn't it? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Okay, so I've got a little homework to do. I can learn how to count. Thanks a lot, buddy.

You did it live on radio, too. So I'm thinking that the 12, I'm going to do it one more time, I'm going to count it carefully, but I'm thinking that the 12 princes would be 12 of his children. Let me do this one more time. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. There it is. I did it carefully.

I got 12 that time. And narrow it down there. Okay.

These are the sons of Ishmael. Oh, see? Wait a minute. There it is. I'm sorry. I should have kept reading.

These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names by their villages and their camps, 12 princes according to their tribes. Right there, Genesis 25, 16. Now, did you notice how quickly and efficiently I came to that? Did you notice that? I sure did.

I didn't have a clue about that. I didn't read far enough, and you picked up on it right away. That's why you're the man on the radio and I'm just a listener. Well, see, the difference between us is I don't mind messing up in public. Most people do. Hey, it's okay with me.

I do it all the time. So there we go, okay? Well, at least we had a good laugh and I learned something. I did, too. I did, too. Yes, we did.

Yes, we did. So that's good stuff. Appreciate that. Well, Matt, God bless you as always, and we're always still praying for your family and your wife and your ministry, and God bless you all. Well, thank you. Appreciate it, brother. Appreciate it. All right.

You're welcome. Bye-bye. Okay.

Thanks a lot. Well, how about that? Well, I don't mind messing up. I do it so frequently.

I'm quite comfortable with it, so no big deal. All right, let's get on the air with Eric from Charlotte, North Carolina. Eric, welcome. You're on the air.

Yo, bro. Good to hear you. Always appreciate your praying for you. Oh, thanks.

Thanks for what you do. My question is one that is troubling me for a while in terms of how to understand it. I do believe in eternal security, but this verse in John 1232, where the Lord says, If he is lifted up from the earth, he will draw all men to me.

Gotcha. And I'm just curious as to how you respond to that verse, because obviously it's not saying Jesus is not quoting or believing or promoting universalism, but that part where he says, I will draw all men, what is your take or understanding? How do you address that verse?

There's two ways. One is when we understand covenantally that Jesus was not sent to everybody. Now, that's a shock to a lot of people, but he was not sent to the whole world, because the Bible says, Jesus says in Matthew 15, 24, he says, I was sent only to the lost shape of the house of Israel.

Okay. I want everybody to understand this. Covenantally, the Messiah was sent for Israel.

Israel broke the covenant, so we, the Gentiles, were grafted in. That's why it says, Gotcha love the world. So, one way to understand that is that the all men is, as all men, well, I guess these women, yeah, these women too, because, well, hold on. So, if they, if you look at it literally, all men, then that would exclude women and children.

So, it doesn't do that. They're saying all men is a phrase used to represent all people, all that kind of a thing. So, now who's the all people? Well, I would say it's all, not just the Jews, all people groups, all people that he's drawing from everywhere. That's a legitimate interpretation. And the other legitimate interpretation is that the word all is only in reference to the elect.

It's a bit more complicated, but I can make the case for that from scripture easily. Hey, hold on. We've got a break. Okay.

We've got a break. So, hold on. We'll be right back, folks, after these messages.

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

It is Matt Slick, and welcome back to the show. All right. I want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's get back to Eric.

Are you still there, buddy? Yeah, man. Thanks. That makes sense.

I kind of, that makes sense that it's referring to all from all peoples, that he would draw all peoples, meaning from every group, be they those who are naturally born Jews and those who are not. Right. That's interesting. I appreciate that. Did you want to add, I had another question if you had a moment, but did you want to add something else to that? No. No, that's good enough. Okay.

Thank you so much. Makes sense. The other issue is a real comment. You sometimes have had this guy who calls in and talk about, you know, if someone has premeditated murder, murder someone with premeditation, that, you know, will they go to heaven or something? You know, can they lose their salvation or something to that effect? That guy's called in a couple of times asking this question and it was a verse that always comes to my mind and I don't know if you ever replied with this verse to him.

Maybe you did, but I didn't hear it the couple of times he called in with it. But the one in 1 John 3.14, it says, we know, we know that we've passed from death to life because we love the brother and he that loves his brother, abides, loves not his brother, abides in death. And the next verse, verse 15, whoever hates his brother is a murderer and we know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. So you could quickly answer this guy by saying, no, that guy is not a saved person in the first place.

He's a fake. He is a murderer in his heart from his soul. And if he claimed to be saved, he's among those who obviously they went out from us because they weren't of us. If they had been of us, of course, they would have continued with them. So that guy, you know, we know that the whoremongers and murderers and idolaters and those who love and make a lie, you know, as in Revelation it says, they don't have eternal life.

So those are the ones who are without. And the last one, of course, being what you know, Revelation 21, 8, but the fearful, the unbelieving, the abominable, the murderers, the whoremongers, the sorcerers, idolaters, and liars shall have their part in the lake, so lake of fire. So this guy, I don't know what his motivation is, why he keeps trying to trap you with that question.

He doesn't know the word of God, obviously, and he's trying to jump in. But here's the thing, is it possible, now I work in technicality sometimes, is it possible for a Christian to murder somebody? A real believer to actually do something like that. And I believe it is possible, but I believe it's possible under certain circumstances. So, he may become so angry that he did something bad and killed somebody. It's possible. So, that's what I talk about sometimes, I'll say, on those exceptions and things like that. But normally speaking, no. People who are murderers that go around doing that, that's not a sign of Christianity, it's not a sign of redemption.

But people can make mistakes, and certainly blow it in the heat of the moment. So, that's the caveat. But what they'll try and do is they'll say, well, you have a Christian, and they just do what you're suggesting can't be done. They'll say, he's a real Christian, and then he commits real murder. Is that okay? Is it okay to go to heaven now, Matt?

But they don't understand the issues, and you're getting in this way to let you talk, because you are nailing it properly. Well, another thing, well, see, he might as well ask the question about, well, it says liars don't inherit, and you know, kind of Christian lie, of course. It goes on with other, can a Christian commit high number three? Yeah, that's when they say the word Christian. I think they're using it in the general sense of the term. But we know there's a two-fold nature of the Christian.

The old man, which is always in man, and the new nature. Well, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm going to interrupt you there. So, there's some ambiguity in that kind of a position. So, instead of opening that can of worms, let it go. But, yeah, Christians aren't going to abide in these things, and they're not going to abide in murdering and lying and sorcery and things like that. When Paul's talking about this and John in Revelation is talking about it, he's talking about those who abide in it, not those who are Christians. So, certainly. And the people who deny eternal security, I like to ask them, well, then what are you going to do to keep yourself right with the infinitely holy God? And then give me the list, because then they're in the works of righteousness.

All right? Say that again. That's an interesting part. Yeah, when people say they can lose their salvation, and they're Christians, and then they say, you know, it's always possible. I say, okay, then what do you have to do to keep yourself saved?

Because if you lose it by what you do, you keep it by what you do. And so, what they'll do, the smart ones will say, well, you just got to believe. And then I'm going to ask them a question. Do you take credit for your believing?

It's a trick question, because there's a yes and a no to it. If they say yes, they take credit for it. I'm going to say, then why is it that God granted that you believe?

It depends on 129. Are you taking credit for God's work? That you, by your ability to continue to believe, you are the one keeping yourself right with God? Is that what you're saying?

Or is God the one who's working in you and through you to do that, which is good? Flippage 2, 12, 13, it goes on. Wow. Okay? That sounds good.

Yeah, I debate this a lot with people. All right, man. Sound good, buddy? Move along. Thank you so much.

You're always welcome. God bless. All right, man. God bless. Okay. Moving on with Ron from Wake Forest. Hey, Ron, welcome.

You are on the air. Yes, sir. I wonder, what's a good Bible translation to use? Because, you know, the church I go to, they use King James a lot. But when I preach or teach, what's a good translation to use? Depends on what you want.

Good for what reason? A tool is, there are different tools that are good for different purposes. So, as an apologist, I need a translation that's good for apologetics. So I want it as literal as possible, NASB 95. If you want a translation that is just kind of getting the meaning out, generically, not very deep, that would be the NIV. So it depends on what you want. If you want kind of a more accurate and still a little bit smoother, the ESV.

Of course, I don't think the ESV is as accurate as the NASB in a couple of areas that I think are significant. But only someone like me who's anal retentive and an apologist would pay attention to things like that. So that's what it is. The King James, I tell people, stay away from the King James.

If you like it, that's okay. But don't do apologetics with the King James and don't memorize King James verses if you're going to be witnessing to people. Don't speak in 1600 Elizabethan English. It's just not what works.

Talk to them normally. So that's all. Yeah, stuff like that. Okay? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, thank you. You're welcome. All right, well, God bless. All right, let's get to Levi from Dayton, Ohio. Levi, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, it's a pleasure. Okay, good. So I guess we jump right into starting off with the previous caller about the murder. I guess that would, me personally, I view it as standing versus faith. And it sums up to the fruits of the Spirit. I agree from what I understand and my experience is once saved, only saved because it's not by our works. It's by faith and through grace and all that. But the thing is, and so that ties in with the fruits of the Spirit, which is going to kind of be right there in Galatians 3, 4, and 5 chapters. And then you have the rest of your walk and stuff like that.

But real quick, I think a lot of us get confused of that because we're not aware of our dispensation. Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Okay. Okay. You know, that's okay.

People can come on and make comments. That's fine. You know, I just, I always listen. Two things. One, it's singular in the fruit of the Spirit, not fruits. A lot of people know that. But in English, yeah, it's just one in the Greek. No big deal. Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no. In English, the word fruit is both singular and plural.

That's why people don't call it singular. Okay. That's all.

So no big deal. And what do you say in our dispensation? So dispensationalism, eh. So, you know, I don't, you know, promote that at all. It's a weak, exegetical form of scriptural examination. But aside from that, what's your question?

What do you got? Okay, so you said the Baptist and, which I'm not a hyper-dispensationalist, just clear the air, but anyway, you said about baptismal and sprinkling versus full submergence. And my thing is, why do we get baited into that debate?

Because look at the thief on the cross, you know, and it's, what is it? John? What debate are you talking about?

We could just get taken into what debate? Oh, we got a break. Oh, man. Oh, darn. Hold on, Levi. There's a hard break. Okay, we'll get back to you after the messages.

I want to know, what debate are we talking about? Hey, folks, we'll be right back. Three open lines, 8772072276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking a call at 8772072276.

Here's Matt Slick. And welcome back to the show. Let's get back on here with Levi. Okay, Levi, so we're back on.

What was your question? Okay, my question is, is with baptism, was Jesus sprinkled? You said you personally believe, which is great, that Jesus was sprinkled and under his baptism with John. And then I go, I circle back to, or I go forward to the thief on the cross. He was never submerged nor sprinkled. But, you know, and he never got the tithe.

He never got off the cross and got a good job or did one, you know, act or maintained, so to speak, his salvation. Okay, so what's your question? So what's your question? My question is, is why are we baited into this? Why are we, what does it matter? What does it matter whether he was sprinkled under rain?

Oh, it does have, let me explain. How does that help us as a Christian today? Why do we bake in these debates?

Because they're necessary. We want truth. If someone says that baptism always and can only be done by immersion, let's say someone says that, then would they then say that a baptism done by pouring is invalid? Let's say there was a man who believed that the scriptural position of pouring is a biblical form of baptism and he submitted to it. He goes to a church and they say, nope, it has to be by full immersion.

Now we have a problem, because if that church would not recognize his baptism, but he recognizes it, and Ephesians 4-5 says, one faith, one Lord, one baptism, and because of that he doesn't want to get re-baptized, thereby saying that his first was invalid, then we have a problem. Okay? So this is why these discussions need to be had. For the average Joe, we don't need to really get into that too much, but for theologians and these difficult issues and situations, they need to be understood. And they need to be dealt with.

And that's just one issue. So here's another one. Some people say water baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation, because they think that baptism always means immersion, it's a symbol of your death by immersion, and therefore it's necessary for salvation to have these verses they go to. Well, no, it's not necessary. Not necessary for salvation. Furthermore, what if I could show that baptism was by pouring in several verses? What if I could show that? And then I'm talking to someone who believes it has to be by immersion for salvation. That would really throw them into a spiral.

They wouldn't know what to do with that. And then we could refute their doctrine and their false teaching by further clarification. Plus, if Jesus was fulfilling the law, and there's another thing, to understand what Scripture teaches. Jesus fulfilled the law, Matthew 5.17. He came to fulfill all righteousness, Matthew 3.15, about getting baptized. To fulfill means the Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament law. What did Jesus do at his baptism? What was required according to the law? That's the question.

Nobody asks the question. What were the requirements? He said it is expedient that I fulfill the law. That's why he had to get baptized, which means he is fulfilling the Old Testament requirement. Well, if you go to Leviticus 8, Numbers 4 and Exodus 29, you'll find that in order to enter into the priesthood, Jesus was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 5, 6, and 7. If you study that, you'll find out what was necessary to enter into the priesthood.

A man had to be 30 years of age, and Jesus was 30. He had to have a verbal blessing given. My beloved son in whom I am well pleased, anointed with oil, which is the Holy Spirit coming down upon him, and he had to be sprinkled with water, Leviticus 8.7. So this is what the Scriptures teach as the legal requirement for entering into the priesthood.

This is what Jesus was doing at his baptism. He wasn't identifying with sinners. He was complying with the law as he entered into that phase of his earthly ministry and work by which he would then be the priest, the high priest's sacrifice for our sins, fulfilling the law perfectly, thereby being a perfect sacrifice, going to the cross where our sins were imputed to him.

To impute means to reckon to another's account legally. So we had our sins imputed to him. He bore our sin in his body on the cross, 1 Peter 2.24. Well, this was all in fulfillment of the requirements of the Melchizedek priesthood to be a high priest's sacrifice. 5, 6, 20, 7, 45 talks about this, he's a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, living forever to make intercession for us. Well, then how did he enter into the priesthood?

If immersion by baptism was necessary, then it has to be fulfillment of the law. You've got to find that in the Old Testament. And it's not there.

But what is there is sprinkling. And so this is why this stuff is important. Another advantage to this is that when people find this stuff out, it forces them to go look at God's word and stop believing denominational tradition.

Just because someone says it doesn't mean it's true. Just like the issue of two men in a field, one is taken, one is left. People unanimously believe that it's the rapture. It is not the rapture. The rapture occurs elsewhere, but those verses are about the wicked being taken.

Two men in a field, one is taken, one is left. And I try and get people to be broken out of their malaise, out of their fog of going to church, mouth agape, just listening, and they believe whatever is told and they go get lunch. I want them to study God's word. This is not a reason to shake them up with the truth.

This is why these topics are important, okay? Yeah, so real quick, just out of curiosity, what about the person who's not, and I believe in salvation once I believe it. The relevant kind of thing is, what about the people in the cross, what about these people who are being supposed to be duked out of their salvation? What if a person is never baptized by sprinkling or pouring or submerging? Well, baptism is not necessary for salvation.

It's a public declaration of identification with Christ. People don't understand that that's what baptism is. If you go to 1 Corinthians 10, I'll explain.

Yeah, 1 Corinthians 10, because we're getting low, oh, we've got eight minutes, another caller waiting. In 1 Corinthians 10, 1, I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea. They're baptized in the cloud and in the sea, but they didn't get wet by the sea.

They weren't immersed by it. The baptism into is an identification with. So when you are baptized, you're fulfilling the covenant requirement.

I believe baptism is related to circumcision. That's another topic. I'm right there with you.

I am right there with you. Good. So the identification is a public thing.

It's not necessary for salvation. If a man is on his deathbed, and I used to work at a hospital. I've seen this. I remember seeing one particular man. He had tubes everywhere, and he was minutes or hours away from dying kind of situation. I don't know when he died, but he was that dire. And I remember seeing his face and him looking at me.

I'll never forget it. But I talked to the pastor, the chaplain of the hospital who went to our church. Do people receive Christ on their deathbeds and then die right away?

He says, yes. Well, these people aren't baptized. Are they suddenly not going to heaven because they didn't get water sprinkled on them or poured on them or they're immersed? Of course not. They're justified by faith, not by baptism.

But baptism is an important obedience sign. Okay? Thank you. Stay blessed. Okay, brother. All right, man. You too. God bless. All right.

Whew. Quick and slick. Hey, let's get to Ty or Tim from Charlotte, North Carolina.

Welcome. You're on the air. He meant to write down TJ. TJ?

Charlotte. Oh, I don't see the whole screen. So I only see the top half of letters because of the screen resolution issue I have. Okay.

So I'm sure he typed it in right. What do you got, buddy? Matt, I'm a first-time caller and really, really appreciate your style publicly showing your mistakes. That really goes very well with me.

I got lobbed. Keep listening. You'll fight a lot more. It shows that the truth will reveal itself, whether it's in error or not. It will reveal itself.

That's right. Amen, brother. So my question is this. I was born and raised a Seventh-day Adventist, but I've long time left it. But this one position that the church takes to this day still surprises me and shakes me up. And that is the position of the Sabbath day. The Seventh-day Adventist church claims that they are the true church because they observe the Sabbath day correctly. So, therefore, everyone else who does not obey the Sabbath day literally won't be saved.

It will only be the members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Yeah, that's a cult theology to teach that. That you have to obey certain aspects of the law in order to be saved. That's what they're teaching. But the Bible says that we have died to the law, Romans 7, 1 through 4. In Colossians 3, 12, I think it is. But we have died to the law.

We're not under obligation to keep the law as Christians. These guys who are SDA, and I'll publicly challenge SDA. You want to debate this? Let's do a public debate. Okay?

Let's arrange it. Public debate on this. But they don't understand theology very well. And because they're so fixated on this problem that they add works to salvation.

So here we go. In the Old Testament, the requirements of keeping the Sabbath were there. Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus teaches it. But nothing in the New Testament says that we are obligated to keep the Sabbath. You won't find a single verse. What you do find is that of the Ten Commandments out of Exodus 20, 1 through 17, nine are reinstituted in the New Testament.

There are six in Matthew, 1918. Murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, honoring parents, and worshiping God. In Romans 13, 9, there's coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments.

That one is reiterated. But the Sabbath is never reiterated. Jesus says, He is the Sabbath. Come to me, all who have you laden.

I will give you rest. Matthew 12, 8. He's the Lord of the Sabbath.

This is what's going on. This is what the Bible says. So there's nothing in the New Testament that says we have to keep the Sabbath.

Now, here's another thing. I've already said we're not under the law. We've died to the law. This is a doctrine of federal headship, which the SDA don't want to deal with. Federal headship is at the...

I'm teaching quickly because we only have a couple minutes left. Federal headship is a teaching that the male represents a descendant. Jesus is the male. He represented his descendants, those in him. I can go into Romans 5, 18, 1 Corinthians 15, 22, and I can expand on this but don't have time. So when he died, we died with him. And if we died, we are freed from the obligation of following the law. Those who say that you have to keep the Sabbath in order to be saved are still under the law and are designated in themselves as not having died with Christ. They're in the works of righteousness. Furthermore, therefore, Colossians 2, 16...

I'm sorry I'm going so fast here because we've got one minute. Therefore, do not let anyone act as your judge in regard to food or drink or respect to a festival, a new moon, or a Sabbath day. Don't let anyone judge you on the Sabbath day. Colossians 2, 16.

That's exactly what they're doing and they're in sin for it. And here's one last verse. Romans 14, 5. One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. If we're supposed to keep the Sabbath, Paul should not have said, hey, one man regards one day above another, the Sabbath, and another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.

Whoa, whoa. He should have said for the SDA, one man regards one day above another and that's how it needs to be. You need to repent and believe in that. Okay? But it doesn't say that. The SDA are bad. Do not trust what they say. Okay?

They have other problems too. Wow. All right?

And there's the music. Yeah. Thanks.

Hey, T.J., man. Thank you. Sorry I had to go so fast, but I wanted to get it out. So call back tomorrow if you want and we can talk more fully about this issue and go slower.

Okay, buddy? All right now. Okay. Appreciate you so much.

God bless, T.J. Okay. Hey, folks, there you go.

I know that was quick and slick. Hey, by God's grace, we're back on here tomorrow and we'll talk to you then. Have a good one. God bless you.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-18 10:28:06 / 2023-05-18 10:48:16 / 20

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