Share This Episode
Matt Slick Live! Matt Slick Logo

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick
The Truth Network Radio
May 27, 2023 5:53 pm

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 850 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

May 27, 2023 5:53 pm

The Matt Slick Live daily radio show broadcast is produced by The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry 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---Topics include---- 06- Can women teach in the church---- 08- How does free will work---- 20- Predestination conversation with an atheist.-- 52- Holding church elders accountable.-- 56- Exodus 33-11, Coming face to face with God.


The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.

Hey, today is May 26, 2023, and if you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 877-207-2276 on your phone,, Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. Hey, if you have not been to the site, please check it out. A lot of people listening to the radio don't even know that there's a website associated. The reason we're able to do radio is because of the website. The website is where we get support. The site has had 156 million visitors, and we're doing about 30,000 new visitors a day. And that's about what it is. So there's a lot of articles.

I have about 5,000 articles and working frantically, well, semi-frantically, to get some stuff going, some new stuff, new work we're doing with video stuff, and spend some time today on that. So anyway, there you go. And now look, we have five open lines. Why don't you give me a call, 877-207-2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. All right.

Now, let's see. If you want, you can email me at info at, info at, easy to do. By the way, we're supposed to be going to Japan right around November 8th for a Christianity tour. A lot of people don't know that Christianity was very prevalent in Japan up to, I forget exactly when, a couple hundred years ago or something like that, where a lot of the Japanese saw the rise of Christianity, and they murdered hundreds of thousands of Christians. And so it's really bad. And there are a lot of Christian sites that are there.

People just don't know or are not aware of it. So we're going to be going to Japan in November and having, I think, about an eight-day tour. We have a gentleman who lives there. He's American, and he speaks perfect English, of course, and great Japanese. And he knows all kinds of stuff. He runs a travel agency.

So he'll be working it. And the information, if you are interested, all you got to do is go to, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, and just do a search in there for Japan Christianity tour. And you'll find the link and the information. There's pictures of places we're going to go, and I'll be speaking at some churches and doing some studies. And, of course, if you go, then maybe we can do little studies here and there impromptu that can teach you guys things. And maybe you can teach me. You know, it all works.

All right, so there you go, 8772072276. A lot of times, on Fridays, the calls are slow. And that does happen. So what I'll often do is simply read radio questions. People bring in all kind of stuff. They email me.

And if you want to email me, info at, if you have a comment or a question. So from a guy on Discord, is it okay for women to teach women? Yes, it is. Now, they do it in jobs. They do it in schools.

They do it in the military. Of course, it's okay for women to teach women. If you mean in the church, yeah, but women are not to be in positions of authority, spiritual authority over men in the church.

That's just how that goes. And once again, if anybody wants to do a formal debate, say you're a pastor, you're an elder at your church, and you believe women pastors are biblical, women pastors and elders are biblical, well, let's do a debate. And the debate could be titled, Does the Bible Support Women Pastors and Elders?

Real simple. Now, I've been offering this debate for, I don't know, we've been doing radio now 18 years. So I've been doing radio 18 years, and I have not had anybody take me up on it. Now, I know that pastors and elders hear me, and I know that there are some who affirm women pastors and elders. And I'll just tell you, if you do that, you are violating scripture, you're against scripture. And if you don't like what I'm saying, feel free to turn the channel, I don't care, you do what you want, you'll have to answer to God. But I'm just telling you what the scriptures say, and Paul does not allow it, and he's giving instruction to the Christian church. And you can do whatever you want, and twist the scriptures all up and down, because that's what it is. Women are not to be pastors and elders in the church. And if you want to have a debate, polite debate, hey, I'll fly out to where you are, and let's do it. I've been offering this now for 18 years, nobody's ever taken me up on it.

Why is that? Maybe because they know I'll be using the Bible, and I know what I'm talking about, and the Bible doesn't support your position. All right, let's try another email, let's see. For the Christian, how does the will work when he has Christ within? Okay, that's one sentence, it has a comma here. Does his new nature have an effect on the will? Yes, it does. Does he have more and greater possibilities than when his nature is that of the old man? Yes, all right. So how does the will work when he has Christ in him? That's a tough question to answer.

How does it work? You mean is there a relationship between human freedom and in the dwelling of Christ? And he wants to go on, he asks, how is it affecting will? Well, let me just tell you that the will is a product of our nature. We have a will because we are sentient. We are alive, we are humans. And so we have wills, that's part of what it means to be human.

And so, hold on a sec, there we go, clear my throat. And so the will is subject to the nature. If you cannot know everything, you can't have a will that operates with the knowledge of everything.

See, we're limited by our natures. The unbeliever is a slave of sin, a hater of God, doesn't seek for God, is full of evil. And so his free will is free, he can do whatever he wants. What he wants to do is serve himself and not serve God. That's his nature, he's fallen. So he's perfectly free to act in a manner consistent with his nature.

Not a problem. And it is a problem for him, he's gonna go to hell unless he finds Christ. Does he have more or greater possibilities when his nature's out of the old man? So when someone's born again, as I was teaching in the Bible study last night, people who are born again have the ability to sin and not sin. We have the ability to do what's right before God and not right before God. The unbeliever only has the ability to do what's not right before God. Now, if you disagree with me, call me up and we can talk. But the questions I ask when dealing with this kind of a topic, when people say, well, even atheists can do good things. Well, yes and no. Yes, on one hand, on the human level, an atheist returns a wallet that was dropped, okay?

And he doesn't take any money out of it, and he returned it to the person, drives out of his way to go to the address and get it to him. Hey, that's a good thing to do, right? Well, yeah, it is on the human level, but not on the divine level. The reason is because goodness must be measured by God's character, not by our character. Our character is touched by sin, and God's character is not. And ultimately, everything that is to be done by the Christianists should be done because of the work of Christ that he bought us, he died for us, and that we want to bring glory to him. And so if your motive ultimately is to live a Christian life and to serve God and do whatever you can for him, then those things that you do that are good on a human level are also good on the divine level. Because the motive is to please God. I'm not saying our motives are perfect, that's another topic, but God filters everything through the blood of Christ.

So if our motive is to serve God and honor God, and the standard of what is right is God himself, and the revelation of God in the scriptures, we're informed by that, and we try and comply with all of it, then functionally it's a good thing that we do. But the atheist can't do that. The atheist, for example, cannot do things for the glory of God. He can't do them based on the character of God, because he's redeemed. So on the human level, he can do good, but on the divine level, it's not good.

Because it's done not for the ultimate glory of God, but for something else, which amounts to idolatry. This is why it's so important to understand biblical theology and the character and the nature of God. And as I say frequently, humanism is creeping into the Christian church. Humanism is man-centeredness. So we'd like to measure things and what God will do based on our feelings.

So, you know, how does that saying go? You do your best, God will take care of the rest. That's just not taught in the Bible at all. The Bible is our standard of truth. It's the ultimate authority for the Christian.

We need to read it, study it, and submit to it. And what God tells us in the Bible about him and his characters, he's completely different than what we are. We are obligated to follow him and to do what he wants. And as Christians, we're to do that. But within the Christian church, humanism is rearing its ugly, ugly head.

And it does it in such subtle ways. For example, following the idea that Jesus is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian surfer dude dressed in a woman's nightgown, standing at the door of your heart, asking permission for you to let him in. That's humanist philosophy. That means God, the creator, is bound by you, by what you have to do.

And I hear these statements, God will never violate your free will. Really, who says so? Where's that, in the book of Deuterectomy? Come on, give me a break. You know, second obstetrics?

I don't know, there's all these kind of fun words we say sometimes, you know, in second colonoscopies, you know. So the thing is, if it doesn't say in the Bible, don't believe it. And don't be sitting there in church and giving these nice little fortune cookie theories and then making theology based on them. It doesn't work like that. So that's one of the ways that humanism is creeping into the church, that your salvation is dependent upon you. And here's another one.

Oh, this is bad. You know, the Bible says in Colossians 2, 14, it says, Jesus, having canceled out the certificate of debt. The certificate of debt, the choreographon in the Greek, having nailed it to the cross. When's the certificate of debt, the sin debt canceled?

At the cross. It's not canceled when you believe. Oh, I tell people this, their eyebrows shoot up. What do you mean it's not canceled when I believe? I should say it's not canceled because you believe. See, the thing is, the work of Christ is effective because of what Christ did, not because of what you do. This is more humanism in the Christian church.

It's humanistic philosophy. I apply the blood of Christ to myself when I believe. See how good I am? See how wise I am? See the choices that I make that make the work of God real in my life?

Excuse me while I pat myself on the back, take a picture of myself in a selfie. You see, this is the kind of humanistic philosophy that's just rampant in the Christian church. Look, if that were true, then why does it say in John 665 that, to you, it has been granted to believe?

Or it's going to ask Philippians 1 29. Jesus says, to you, it has been granted to come to Christ. Why does he say that if it's just up to you and your wisdom?

Humanism in the church, humanist philosophy, humanism is man-centeredness. I'm the standard of truth. God knows the condition of my heart. That's why God will work with me. Because look how good I am.

Me, me, me. It's a bad theology that is rampant in the Christian church. You know another thing that's not in the Bible?

Ask Jesus into your heart. Can you show me a place in the Bible where it says that? Now, the Bible says, believe with your heart.

And the Bible does say to receive Christ, but nothing says receive him into your heart. Now, functionally, it's good enough. It is. I get what they're saying. They're saying, they have Christ come into their lives, the deepest most part of what they are. And if that's what they mean by it, OK, that's fine. That's not a big deal. But the thing is that we have to be careful of what it is that we are attributing to God.

We've got to be careful. It doesn't have to be an exact phrase out of scripture. But if we're going to have a concept taught, then shouldn't it be biblically based? This idea of humanist philosophy, particularly woven into the word whosoever, which they mistakenly mean that we have the free will ability in our sinfulness. Even though we're enslaved to sin, we're able to believe because of the one word. Ay, ay, ay, ay, ay.

I wish people would just start studying the Bible and leave their humanism behind. OK, folks, you have five open lines. I want you to give me a call after the break. 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone. Hey, if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Now, I just want you to know that we have a chat going on in Rumble. We have chat going on in Clubhouse. We have chat going on in Discord. And so in Clubhouse, someone said that I didn't know what humanism was. Yes, I do. I've studied it.

I haven't released a section on Karm on it. We do have some callers coming in, so I'll tackle that. Oh, maybe this Jackson guy.

Ooh, we'll see if it's him. I'm hoping he's going to call up. Anyway, hey, let's get on the air and see what's going to happen to Jackson from Oregon. Welcome, you're on the air. Hey, how's it going, Matt? It's going. Thanks for taking my call. We told you to call. Good.

Yeah, I'm just wondering about the whole predestination thing. Sure, can you get a little closer to your mic? Because there's like a bad echo in the room or something. Do you got a speakerphone or something? Yeah, give me one second. Yeah, give me one second, actually. Sure, OK. OK, we're holding on. You have me a good cup of coffee. All right.

Can you hear me better? Oh, that's much better. That's much better. OK, thank you. All right.

So with the whole predestination, does this entail that God has made some souls in which it knew it would never have a connection with? In which it or he? Well, I mean, we can call God he, but I myself prefer to call it. OK, gentefy it.

Oh, wow, man. So you're not a Christian, then. What are you? Are you an atheist or what?

I'm just curious. More agnostic atheist, but yeah, you can see both that there. Yeah, well, the Christian worldview, God reveals himself in the masculine.

We call him he. And yes, he predestines everything that comes to pass ultimately and in different senses. But yeah, he's the one in control. OK, so that would kind of entail that he has made some of his creation in which he knew he would never be able to connect with.

Not be able to. We don't say that in Christianity, that God's not able to connect to him. He can do whatever he wants. In Christian theology, God has made everything, even the wicked, for the day of evil, Proverbs 16.4. And he even has made vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. And that's Romans 9, 22 and 23.

Yep. Even Christians don't like it, but that's what it says. What would be the purpose of making vessels? For his glory. For his glory. Does that mean God didn't have glory prior to making?

No. No, it doesn't mean he didn't have glory beforehand because Jesus says in John 17, 1 through 5, he talked about the glory he had with God before the foundation of the world. So, you know, OK. So what does glory serve as a purpose to God? It's not a purpose to God. It's a natural.

It's not a purpose. It's a natural outcome of him being the ultimate standard and the ultimate cause of all things. Do you have an ultimate in your world view, above which there's nothing and next to which there's nothing equal?

Do you have anything like that? Do I have an ultimate in my world? You could just speak of it. You're going in and out.

Absolutely. You see, the problem is, if you don't have an ultimate, then you can't ground anything. See, it's like, where's the chair come that I'm sitting in? Well, it was made by a factory. Where'd the factory come from?

Oh, people built it. Where'd the people come from? Well, they evolved, right? Where'd they evolve from? The universe evolved. Where'd the universe come from?

You can go back and back and back. And if there is no ultimate beginning or causation, you can't ground facts in anything. You have an infinite regression of things, and it's irrational.

OK. Why is that the case? Why do we need an ultimate to ground? And how do we formulate, say, arguments to that? Why do we need an ultimate to ground something? Because without it, you can't ground it as being true. You see, atheists have this mistake that they make a lot, in that they just assume certain values without justifying them or providing a means by which they can say that they are or are not so.

And so what they'll do is assume certain things. How about this? How about if I politely, if you don't mind, I'll try and set you up for something here, OK?

Get you to see something, OK? Is that OK? Sure. OK. Yeah.

I have to ask you a couple questions here to get you set up, OK? I'm not hating you. I'm just trying to show you that your atheism is a problem. So let's just say, do you agree that statements are either true or false? Like the statement, I'm talking to you, it's true or false, OK? The sky is blue, it's true or false, OK?

So I'm going to ask you a state, I'm going to give a statement. Please tell me if it's true or if it's not true, if it's true or if it's false, OK? Here's the statement. It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure. Would you say that's true? Because if you, OK, you say it's true. Then what you're doing is you're saying there's a universal moral absolute that's applicable to everyone everywhere all the time. It's always wrong for anyone to do such and such. So you're saying there's a universal moral absolute, right?

How do you have your own? Are you saying, yeah. You're saying that if you say the statement's true. Are you deriving that moral absolute from the Bible?

Now hold on. I'm sure we're talking about atheism right now. The thing is, in an atheistic worldview, where there is no universal mind, there are no universals like that because everything's material. How then do you say that such a statement is always morally wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure?

How do you justify the statement as having universal truth value from your atheist perspective? See, I don't expect you to answer it because you can't. You can ramble around as you strive. I mean, I could give you an answer, but it may not be sufficient what you're looking for.

You can try. I don't think it's also, I don't think it's logistical to then say we can ground our morals in something like the Bible when there's like passages. For example, like Psalms 137.9 that says, happy is he who dashes the incant to the rocks below. I don't see how that can be a standard of morality that we can then apply to ourselves if you're using an example of harmony.

Let me ask you some questions. Do you believe abortion's OK? Yeah. OK, then why are you complaining about the idea of killing little ones when you have no problem with doing it in the womb?

They're just doing it outside. So why the hypocrisy on your part? Well, it's not so much as just like a hypocrisy on my part. It's a hypocrisy. That's one thing. Yes, it is.

Because you completely, hold on. I'll explain how. You said that it's wrong. You were implying it's wrong. You went to Psalm 137.9. I'm familiar with the verse. And so you said it's wrong. But then you say abortion's OK. Well, wait a minute, both is killing little ones.

So yet you have a hypocritical view because it's inconsistent. Furthermore, you don't know the context of Psalm 137.9. It's what's called an imprecatory psalm. It doesn't say that this is what God is wanting.

It's saying that the psalmist, in his anger against the enemies, that he wishes this upon them. And there's a lot of things recorded in the Bible that are not necessarily the right thing to do. You should know that. Furthermore, if you say it's wrong, if you say it's wrong, hold on, hold on. If you say it's wrong, where's your universal moral standard by which you can say it's wrong? If you say it's your opinion that it's wrong.

I don't agree that there needs to be a universal standard. I think that when it comes to right or wrong, a lot of the time that's what we call it. We've got a break. Hey, hold on, Jax, we've got a break.

Sorry. We have a break. So hold on to the break, OK?

It's a mandatory break. So we'll be right back after these messages, folks. 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, and welcome back to the show. Hope you're enjoying it. Jackson, are you still there? I am. Can you still hear me?

Yes, I can. All right, so what I was doing was showing you your inconsistency, your hypocrisy, and your inability to provide a universal moral standard. This is why your atheism doesn't work.

It's one of the reasons it doesn't work. Well, I don't think there's a universal moral standard to be derived from the Bible either, because it's so easy for you to brush off certain immoral passages that you'll want to prevent it and say that, oh, it means this. Wait a minute. Jackson, if you don't have a universal moral standard, you can't say something in the Bible's right or wrong. All you have is you don't like it. That's all you have.

You just don't like it. And I think that's kind of similar to the case you presented about abortion, when there's passages in the Bible that say priests can abort a baby, except for you to say something about abortion as an example. No, it doesn't. No, you got that wrong. You got that wrong, Jackson.

You don't understand this word. So look, if you don't know what's right and wrong, you can't say the Bible's right or wrong. You have to be able to demonstrate that there's a standard of righteousness.

What is yours? I don't know what's right or wrong. I don't think it's fair for you to claim, I don't know what's right or wrong, because I don't. OK. Is it right or is it wrong to destroy the babies in the womb of the mother? I think that's a very nuanced, complex argument when it comes to abortion, and one that I'm not equipped to. You mean, oh, so let me ask you. Let's do logic.

Is what's in the womb? I need to answer one thing at a time. You're not able to. You're not able to answer.

Well, I am. I guess, like I said earlier, I don't think you're going to like the answer that I give you, but it doesn't devalue them, or it doesn't also mean that I can't know what is right or wrong, just because I can just sound it in some absolute. How do you know what's right or wrong?

I think tests are based on our societal reaction or how we as humans like to be treated. That's called argumentative ad populum. It's a fallacy of logic, that the majority believe something's true or moral, and therefore it is. It's a fallacy of logic.

You have a better way of going. But truth is also provisional. Truth is also provisional. Truth is provisional?

So what if I don't agree that you're truth? Real quick, let me say this. Real quick, Matt, let me say this. Let me explain. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

Let me say something real quick. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

I'll put you on hold. If you say truth is provisional, then what is provisional on? Circumstances? If circumstances change, then has something become right or wrong? The Nazis in Germany or what? Look, dude, you have nothing to stand on of trying to ask you to justify your moral standard.

They're much. Do you think the same criteria is possible? Jackson, do you have a moral standard for your atheistic worldview that's universally true? Do you have one? I think I have a human standard, not an atheistic standard. So you don't have one.

I don't have one. When it comes to my morals, I don't ground them in the atheism or something like that. Yes, you do. I ground them in human.

Yes, you do. I guess a human experience or. Yeah, humanism is also atheistic. So you have a humanistic philosophy, man-centered, which means it's subjective based on you. So wouldn't it be kind of arrogant for you to say that your personal opinion about morality is what is right and wrong?

Well, I mean, I wasn't really. I think you're kind of holding me into a position that I never actually articulated as being my position. Well, do you think that you know what's right and wrong?

Do you? I think I can come to acknowledge what's right or wrong here and there, yes. And what standard do you have by which you judge right and wrong?

Can you say that again? What standard do you have that you judge right and wrong by? It would be a societal standard.

So typically, that's what we all abide by. So was Nazi Germany killing the Jews? That was their society? Was it good or bad? The majority of people that were not good, but not.

I'm asking, was it good or bad? And I wouldn't agree with it. I wouldn't agree with it. Oh, you don't agree with it. It doesn't mean if it's good or bad. You just don't agree with it. Is it good or bad? Again, I am not in the position of making absolute claims about good and bad, but I can come to understand.

There's anchors tied to your ankles. You're out in the ocean and trying to throw you a life preserver by showing you the problem you're in. And you just continue to reject truth. And you just desire to be drug down into the abyss of ignorance, logical impossibilities. You don't have any universal standard. You don't have any universal moral standard about which you can judge anything.

But neither do you, because the Muslim can claim the same thing and you can deny their crimes. Hold on. Hey, Jackson. Jackson, you have to be able to focus on one thing at a time.

Jackson, Jackson. And so we do have a universal standard. It comes from the mind of God himself. So he's the universal standard. Right, and that's just a Muslim of pain. The Muslim can have his day in court.

They use the same criteria as you. OK, never mind. He just keeps interrupting. He's not dialoguing. He's just interrupting constantly.

He's not a good thinker, and he needs to be able to look at the issues and examine them. Let's just move on. All right, let's get to Luke from Washington. Hey, Luke, welcome around here. Hi, Mark. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you.

Yeah. OK, so this is Luke from BC, biblical. Another verse for you today. Hebrew 11.6, Hebrew 11.6, explain to me, please. And without faith, it is impossible to please him.

For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him, Hebrew 11.6. Yes. What about it? Can you explain to me the reason? What's the issue?

There's several things we could talk about, but let me just kind of give a generic thing. It says, I know who you are and what you're coming from, and you're talking about the Indian things and the Calvinism, Arminianism, and all the stuff that's behind it. I'll go with that. Without faith, it's impossible to please him, OK? Please God. Because we have to have faith, the faith that God grants. For he who comes to God must believe that he is. Of course, you have to have faith and believe that God exists, or to come to him. And he's a rewarder of those who seek him.

Absolutely. And if we seek him, then he'll reward us. No problem. No problem there. So you're saying that the faith is granted by God, and then we seek him. That's what you're saying there.

And then another verse, 2 Timothy 2, 4. Let me go on. Let me go on a little bit. Hold on. Hold on. Hebrews 11, 6, the Arminians, what they're going to assume is that this verse, in particular, is meant for everybody universally.

Is it? That's the question we have to ask, particularly since the writer is addressing the Hebrews who were already believers. They were already believers in the true and living God.

And he is a rewarder of those who seek him. It's not saying that unbelievers are able to do it. It's not talking about that.

This is why they mess up so much, because they don't read context. OK, 2 Timothy 2, 4. No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life so that he may please the one who's listed him as a soldier. That's right. Paul's talking to the believers, and he's talking about Timothy in the pastoral epistles, and what Timothy is to do, and to know, and to teach. And that we are, as Christians, we are to focus on serving God and not serve two masters and things like that in all areas. OK? That's all.

No big deal. Same thing like 2 Timothy 2, 26. And they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil after being captured by him. Yeah, but it says before that God may grant them repentance. So they forget that. The granting is something that God does. So he is the one who is in the active voice.

He does the granting where he gives the repentance to them. So they need to do that. They need to understand everything. Yeah, I'm very familiar with them and their arguments.

The Armenians, the Armenians who work against reform theology publicly and go after it, I don't care if you're Armenian or Calvitas, I don't care. But those who do that very often don't examine the scriptures completely and sufficiently and very often just import into the text certain assumptions that they haven't validated as being true. So yeah, it's like that. OK? Yeah, one more, John 12, 32. Yeah, draw all men myself.

When I lift it up. Yeah. The all men is not every individual. All men deals with all people groups. And notice, if people want to say it's literal, let's just work with this.

I'll say to the Armenian, I'll say, is it literal? Yes, all men means all men. OK, that's women are excluded, right? Well, no, no, women are included.

I said, no, no, you said literal. Is it literally, to be understood? It says all men. And the Greek word is all. And the word men isn't there. It's actually in the masculine form. In the Greek, so it's all in the masculine ones. OK, not neuter, which could be anybody.

So why are you having a problem being so consistent with how you understand it? Furthermore, in Matthew 15, 24, Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He wasn't sent to the whole world.

A lot of people don't know that. They think that Jesus was sent to everybody. He was not. He was only sent to Israel. Israel rejected the Messiah, and we, the Gentiles, were then drafted in.

Hence, he'll draw all men. OK? That's all that's going on. Hold on, we've got to break.

OK? Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Wow, it's already quarter to tell. It's Memorial Day, so we'll be taking that day off.

It'll be a four-day week next week. OK. Luke, you still there? Hello? Maybe we lost him.

Maybe if I hit the right button, that might be it. No, no. No, I'm still here.

Matt. So the world or these are the world's Calvinistic favorite verses. I didn't understand you. Could you ask that again?

No, no, no. The Armenians always say that the world means not all. The Armenian view of all means all, every time, every day.

Yes, I understand that. They'll say all means all. And great, I'll say then what does all mean? And when they say all means all, good means good, blue means blue, round means round.

They're not saying anything. This is unfortunate, because when someone uses the word as the definition, you're not clarifying anything at all. Words mean what they mean in context. And I've done the study on the word pontos, and that's the word all in Greek. I've looked at every single occurrence in the entire New Testament, and I've written on it. And there's at least, if I remember correctly, at least five different senses of how the word all can be used. And I'll show this to people. And let's see, word studies, let's see, all.

And let's see if I've got a quick database chart. Yeah, here we go. And so I found it means every individual in some instances, not every individual in other instances. It could be things, it could be totality, it could be expression, not people, and not things. For example, when Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Does that mean every individual was troubled with Herod? Well, of course not.

Or how about in Mark 2.13, and he went out again by the seashore, and all the people were coming to him. Well, who's all people? All people means every individual on the planet?

No. See, right away, when you start looking, and you start putting things in context, you find out, well, all means what it means in context. And this is a principle that a lot of the Arminians, I mean it lovingly, that they don't really consider very often. They have an idea, and they just say something, and then they don't study.

They don't study. And it's ridiculous. Matt, today, I was listening. You know Greg Lorry, the radio man, he's a preacher in the radio in Washington, DC, 105.1. Greg Lorry, he's talking about the Romans 9. If you can, he's teaching his church about the Romans 9. He's completely saying there is no predestination. There's a free will. He was saying there's no predestination. That is a Calvinistic idea. This is against the Bible.

Even today's message was completely against the Calvinists. Some people like Greg Lorry, Chuck Smith, he always, he has a movie called, what is that? Yeah, it was a good movie, too. Yeah, I was baptized by Chuck Smith. My wife and I were actually baptized by Chuck Smith for himself, personally. And I like going to Calvary Chapel, but I'll just say that Greg Lorry doesn't know his theology very well in this regard. And I mean it politely and lovingly, and they'll put in the man down. He's a good man of God, and he's being used by the Lord to preach that gospel. And I'm glad for that. But when it comes to issues of Reformed theology and the critics that often get out there, I often find that they don't really have a very deep understanding of what they're criticizing. And I mean this with respect. OK, so Greg Lorry, I have a lot of respect for the man. He's being used by God.

It's unfortunate when he would go to Romans 9 and see predestination is not there. It is. It is there. And election is there as well.

And so I can show them both in the text. But anyway, it's OK. It's all right. He's a brother in the Lord. There are some opinions like Greg Lorry, Nathan Flowers, those people are against exacting Calvinism. Yeah, I know. I know, I know.

But you know, look, this is important. Calvinism is not the gospel. I know a lot of Calvinists say it is. Calvinism is just simply an arrangement of theological understanding based upon scriptural revelation that elevates God to the extreme, to where God belongs.

And people often react in negative ways to that. And they insert ideas into the texts like John 3.16. God's loved the world. He gave his only begotten son.

Whoever would believe in him? Well, God's loved the world. That means every individual. Well, how do they know that's what it means? People assume so many things. And it says, whosoever will believe. It doesn't say that in the Greek. It says, all the believing one.

And there's all kinds of stuff like this. And when I show people, Christians of all sorts, these things, a lot of them are shocked. And the issue here is that too many pastors and elders, unfortunately, I mean, they're Christians, OK? But I mean, they're just reciting what they've been taught for years. And they don't have a comprehensive biblical soteriological system, in my view. Now, I'm not saying that in a derogatory sense, like Greg Lorre or anybody like that, OK? But I just don't believe they have a very comprehensive understanding of God's election, predestination, justification, imputation, things like that.

I think it's rather limited. And that's OK, because they need to do other things in their ministries, like preach that gospel, OK? Thank you. All right, brother. God bless. OK, let's get to Alberto. Hey, Alberto from Georgia. How you doing, buddy? All right.

May I ask you a question? What does it mean when a pastor tells a member he needs to experience the love of God? What does he mean by that, Zach?

Depending on the context, it might mean different things. It might be an unbeliever he's talking to who needs to experience the loving forgiveness of God. He might be talking to a believer who needs to also experience the loving forgiveness of God, because sometimes believers will hold on to sin that they need to let go. And they hold on to guilt that they need to let go.

And they need to experience the love of God in that way. So it can mean different things in different contexts, OK? But what about if a pastor tells that to a member, yeah, you found something, and the pastor was doing something really wrong, worse, what he considered us doing bad, but you found something. OK, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Alberto, you have a habit, and I love you, brother, but you have a habit of asking these complicated questions about people's feelings and comparing them to something else, another feeling situation, and then say, what about that?

And these are not very, let me just say, not very easy to answer, let's just say it that way, OK? You've got to be more specific in your question. But example, if he tells that church member, and he says, he's in the presence of love of God, right, because that person is, like you said, because the church member is in, like, the goal of sin. But what about the pastor himself is sin? Dude, dude, I can't talk about, wait, listen, you're saying, what about the pastor himself? He's in terrible sin. Look, you have to learn how to distinguish between specific issues and generic ideas.

You kind of mix them when you're talking. So you're talking about a specific pastor is what you're talking about, a pastor's in sin. So now what you're doing is you are thinking, and almost publicly going against any particular pastor, and you're bringing an accusation, and this is something to be careful. Because if people know your voice and they know who you're talking about, then you need to address this. You need to go to the elders first, the pastor second.

You need to get elder counsel. There's a methodology of doing the things that are right. And I'm going to urge you. Yeah, but what if I do do it, and I know for a fact that they're not going to listen to me anyway, because they're going to deny it. Well, here's the thing.

Here's the thing, Alberto. You've called so many times, and I'm complaining about that. But I've gotten to know you to the point where, if you're going to say something like that, I have to filter what the facts are out of what it is you're saying. Because you put things together in such difficult ways that I don't know if what you're doing is representing somebody accurately.

And I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong on purpose, I'm just saying you've got to be really careful here. And I would urge you to be more specific. You seem to have problems with people's motives. And then you raise those motives up, say that they're sinning, and that nobody wants to listen to you. And since what you've said so commonly is that people don't want to listen to you, maybe you might want to consider something. You told me once that you've talked to different people, and they say the same thing. So that tells me that maybe the issue might be aligned with you. But they're going to say, oh, I'll be gossipy. They're going to accuse me of, oh, you're gossipy.

You can't. If that's the case, you might. Well, we're going to move along, OK, Alberto? So I hope you have a great weekend. All right. Let's go. I'll let you go. All right, thank you. All right, man. OK, God bless. All right, let's get to Pearl. Pearl hasn't called for a while. Pearl, welcome. You're on the air.

Thank you, sir. When Moses was in the mount with the Lord God Almighty for 40 days and 40 nights, and then he asked God could he see his face, and God said, no, man shall see my face. And live. Could I be wrong in assuming, I'm speaking spiritually now, that when God really shows us himself spiritually, I believe we have to die. The flesh has to die.

I don't think it can live. OK, OK. People have seen God in different levels in the Old Testament. Now, you're talking about Exodus 33.11. No man can see my face, for no man can see me and live. And then it says in Exodus 33.20 that God spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks with his friend. So face to face is dealing with the personal aspect of encounter. Now, the Father dwells in unapproachable light who no man has seen or can see, 1 Timothy 6.16. So to be in the presence of God in the pure sense, I would agree with you.

I think that such a person would be vaporized. It would seem. I don't know. But I just don't know. So I don't know. How do you, sir, put this together with Matthew 5.8, which is the pure in heart shall see God?

Yeah, that's just generic wisdom stuff. They'll see God. They're not going to actually see God the Father, because that's a more doctrinal aspect, that you're not going to see God the Father. So it says God here, who's he speaking about?

Well, the God of Israel. Well, they can see Jesus, for one thing, who's God in flesh, they can be able to see him. And they'll be able to dwell with him, and maybe even in the presence of God in a better way, and maybe even see the glory of God, as Stephen did.

So that's how I would respond to that. I believe Jonathan Edwards said that he thought that we would see God, because we would be in the spirit when we get to heaven. It's a possibility, but from what I understand, in 1 Timothy 6.16, no man can see God. God dwells to be of the Father, dwells in an unapproachable light who no man has seen or can see. That seems to be the specifics of the Father. And so if this is talking only about the pre-resurrection condition, then I'd want to see a verse that says that. But I don't know of any verse that says that, so I'm going to stick with it, that that's going to continue in the afterlife as well. All right, would you please tell me what you think it means when it says the pure in heart shall see God? There's possibilities. They'll see God in their understanding, his character, in his heart. They'll understand him in a deeper way.

They can see God that way. There's several possibilities like that, but we're out of time, sorry about that, OK? I know, thank you, sir. All right, Pearl, God bless. And Aaron from Florida, want to know how to get back to God, call back Tuesday because Monday we're off. Call back Tuesday. Let's talk about it, OK? But read your Bible and pray. God bless everybody. Another program powered by the Truth Network.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-27 10:16:47 / 2023-05-27 10:37:36 / 21

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