Matt Slick Live

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

If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 8772072276, we have five open lines, and just give you guys a heads up, we're going to be moving to a new phone system radio question or radio comment or something like that, and then read them on the air. Oh, I got a yawn coming up, hold on, oh man, oh man, yawns feel good. Have you ever sneezed so hard that you hurt yourself? I've done that, I don't know why I brought it up, but it made me think of it.

All right, look, we have wide open calls. Last night, I was in an open discussion slash debate kind of a thing on limited atonement, and I don't know how many of you saw it, but man, if you did, I want to hear your comments, you can call and tell me what you thought. But we went for about three hours, and I thought my opponent, he's a Christian, so I'm not knocking him, I mean, he's a Christian, he's a star minion, but I kept saying something that he didn't like, and said he's teaching humanism. And I'm going to talk about that a little bit, because what humanism is, and we got talking in the after show last night, and I think what I'm going to do is start calling it Christian humanism. And what that is is man-centered theology. Now, what do I mean by that? You see, man-centered theology would be something like, we'll define free will by what man does, we'll define righteousness by what man does, we'll define ability by what man can do. God would not do this or that because of what we will be able to do or not do. But Christian humanism is a plague that has infested the Christian church.

And, you know, it's really bad. Now, maybe you go to a church, there's different degrees of Christian humanism, like women pastors and elders, okay, where instead of the word of God being supreme and the final authority, that culture and our expression and our feelings are the thing that you go with. I'm not saying we shouldn't have feelings. I'm not saying we shouldn't be involved with culture. I'm just saying that the Bible is the final authority on everything it addresses. In fact, two nights ago, I was in the virtual world. I have an Oculus headset VR, and so I go in there mainly for one reason, and that's to find people to witness to and to teach. And so I went into this one room, I think I mentioned it yesterday, and these two guys were talking how women can be pastors and elders, and it was just atrocious, the arguments that they were giving.

You know, Deborah was in the Old Testament, and she was a judge, so therefore women can be pastors. Just not thinking critically, not thinking clearly, and I'm finding that is the case more and more within Christian circles. And just let me say that I was on Clubhouse today. I was working on some stuff, and I get bored. I need to kind of interact with people sometimes, so I went into Clubhouse and was in there defending the doctrine of the Trinity, which, by the way, I'm probably going to open up a room tonight on Clubhouse on the Trinity, or just maybe a Q&A with me, but a Trinity talk, most probably. And, you know, it's just amazing how people will just ignore what the Scriptures say. So here's an example of something, and I'll get to the callers. Somebody comes on the mic, and he denies Jesus is Yahweh, and he says, okay, prove to me from the Scriptures that where Jesus is called Yahweh. And I said, okay. And I said, go to Mark 1. I'm going to read.

I did this. I'm going to show you the kind of stuff that happens. So, this is what it says in Mark 1. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, behold, I send my messenger ahead of you. Now, the messenger is John the Baptist.

We know that because it says so later. So, behold, I send my messenger ahead of you. Who will prepare your way?

The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make ready the way of the Lord. Make his paths straight. So, he's making way, making ready the way of the Lord Jesus, right? That's what he's doing. He's preparing a way for the Lord Jesus, right?

And that's what it is. But the quote, make ready the way of the Lord, is from Isaiah 40, verse 3. And what it says in Isaiah 40, verse 3 is, a voice is calling, clear the way for Yahweh in the wilderness.

Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. I said, right there is where Jesus is called Yahweh. And the response was whacked. And it was really bad.

It was bad. It was an attempt to say, well, it was representation. And I said, look, you ask me, I show you exactly where it says it, and you still ignore it. This is what's going on more and more in apologetics.

More and more people are denying who Christ really is. But anyway, no big deal. Just something to talk about. Let's get to Elijah from Pennsylvania. Welcome, you're on the air.

Hey, Matt. I talked to you yesterday about women pastors at my church, and I remember it was maybe a couple years ago, I had first found out about those scriptures, and I had brought it up to my pastor. And his response back then is what made me change my mind on the subject until recently, until I started watching your videos and Alan Parr's videos. So his response a couple years ago, he's not the main pastor of our church.

He was sent out, and he started his own church. But anyway, his response was Paul was talking, Paul in that context, he was dealing with a cultural issue back then. He wasn't talking about women all the time throughout the ages. He was just talking about a cultural context. So what are your thoughts on that? Well, when they say that, I go to 1 Timothy 2, 12 and 13.

I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet, for it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. So it's not cultural. Okay? You know how simple that is? Yeah.

They'll do that. And see, look, there's a theology behind this. Let me explain it for a second, why this is important in the Christian church. God is a trinity, and in the trinity there's a hierarchical relationship.

The Father sent the Son, the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit. And so Jesus became, under the law, Galatians 4.4. God refers to himself in the masculine. And we know that God doesn't have gender, but there's two genders, and he refers to himself in the masculine. And Jesus was a man, and he still is, both God and man, divine and human.

And this is significant. All right, now, Adam and Eve were in the garden. She sinned first, and she gave the food to Adam, and then he sinned. And sin entered the world through one man, Romans 5-12.

And as I've said so many times over the radio, they then hid themselves, and the pre-incarnate Christ came and said to the man, where are you? Why this issue of masculinity? It's because of the doctrine of federal headship. Federal headship is a teaching that the male, not the female, represents a descendants, because the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 15-22, through one man sin entered the world. I'll write Romans 5-12. But in Romans, 1 Corinthians 15-22, in Adam all die. Romans 5-18, the first part says through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men. It's because of Adam.

This is it. So this means then that the position of the man in the church is really significant. So now, I'm going to take you over to, this is for people out there listening, I'm going to take you to a verse that may not be, you think is related to this, but it is. Because it's talking in 1 Peter 3 about wives being submissive to their husbands. Now, submission does not mean slavery. It does not mean obedience.

Submission is voluntary. So, to what is a woman, a wife, submitting in regards to the husband? She's submitting to his position as the spiritual head of the family. In light of this, it says, just as 1 Peter 3-6, it says, Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. And you become her children if you do what is right. Well, Lord, not as Jesus is Lord, but calling him Lord. She was submitting to his position as that head.

She was recognizing, and let me tell you women out there, if you recognize that position of your husband, you just recognize, even if he doesn't, and you start treating him accordingly, you're going to be shocked at what happens in your marriage, what happens in your life. Because this is theologically based, but what does Satan want to do? He wants to get women into feminism and be the ones in control.

And it's really kind of interesting because in modern society, masculinity is toxic when it's in males, but it's great when it's in females, you know, the boss and leading and all that stuff that goes on. Well, this is a theological issue that's related to the nature of God himself and the hierarchical structure of the Trinity. This is why this is important, and it reflects in the church, which is supposed to be in submission to God himself. And just as in the Trinity, there is a submission where the Father sent the Son, and the Son came to do the will of the Father. But it does not mean that when the wife is submission to her husband, it does not mean that she's any less than Jesus was submitting to the Father.

He was still God in flesh, but he did it out of his love and is an example of what true submission is. And so the wife is to be an example of that to her husband. And so this is all theologically related. So when we have churches that have women pastors and elders, what they're doing is ultimately they're rejecting, without really knowing it, they're kind of rejecting the idea of a hierarchical structure and relationship within the Godhead itself, the Trinitarian Godhead.

We call this the economic Trinity. They are actually rejecting that kind of a notion of authority that comes in God and through Christ and through the man and through the woman and through the children. And so what they want to do is they want, and Satan wants this, get the woman to be in place of the man. This is more of the idea of the cultural norm, where masculinity is toxic in males, but it's good in females. It's the reversal of what is supposed to be happening. And so when the churches participate in this, they're participating in the demonic work of the evil one.

This is why women are not to be pastors and elders. Okay. All right.

Yeah. And one more question to follow up on that. I saw a video from a guy a while ago, and he does not believe in women pastors, but he said this.

He said that, yes, the Bible does teach that women are not to be pastors, but a lot of times when the men won't stand up to take the place of a pastor, then sometimes God will raise up a woman to take their place and become a pastor. Do you agree with that statement? Tell you what, there's a break right there. Let's tackle that when we get back. All right. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned.

Three open lines. 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back to the show. Let's just get back on there. Elijah, are you still there? Yep.

All right. So, when men don't do their jobs, women rise up and take their place. The job of the woman at that point in the church, let's just say there's a church of 100, 200 people, and for whatever reason, the pastor isn't available, let's just say permanently. And then a woman realizes that the men aren't stepping up, so she does.

Then she's in rebellion. God's not raising her up. He's raising up the men to do this. When people say, oh, what if God raises up a woman? It presupposes that he's going to raise up a woman to be a pastor and an elder in violation to the revealed word of God. So what the women should do when they go to church is nothing.

Don't do anything. Don't get up and give the men an excuse to do nothing and not step up to the plate. Men are the ones who are responsible for this. They're the ones who are supposed to be the elders and the leaders of the church. And if the men there are too weak and immature in the faith, then they need to go to another church and find someone there who can come in and be their leader, at least temporarily, while they look for a replacement. And it's not to be the case that you get a woman rising up from within to do this because, first of all, any woman who would do that is usurping the position of teaching authority. And those who would say, oh, God's raising up a woman, well, then why would God have the inspired word spoken of through Paul be contradicted by God himself? It doesn't make any sense. And you see the excuses that people use to justify their rebellion against the word of God. These excuses are many and they're varied.

And this is one of them. Well, God's raising up a woman because the men aren't doing it. Then women sit down. And when the men get up to do their job, don't complain and don't say, oh, you shouldn't have liked this, you shouldn't have that.

Don't do that. You let them do it and you let men make their own mistakes. They don't need you browbeating them and telling them anything.

They already know. The men need to stand up and they need to step up. And if they don't do it, if they're having trouble in their church, let's say there's a church out there where the entertaining of the idea of a wounded pastor and elder, you call me up and I'll help you. I'll work with you. We'll contact other churches in there. We'll find somebody who can get in there and help you out.

Because we don't want to violate the word of God and give men just another excuse to not be godly men, do we? Okay. Yeah. This is another church that my mom goes to. I think she still goes to.

It's in New Jersey. And I believe the woman, the wife, was a pastor at the time when her husband was alive. Her husband was the senior pastor. But I'm not sure. Maybe she was a pastor.

Maybe she wasn't. But I don't know. But anyway, her husband passed away. And so she took over as pastor of that church after he passed away.

But I'm not sure. The real men in the church, the real men who are godly, who study the word and believe the word and don't just go drink a beer when they get home from work. Those who study the word and who are called by God because they're submitting themselves to God, those men should have stood up and said, no, it's not your position for that. Not your place. They should have politely and lovingly gone to the word of God and said, this is what it says.

There's a problem, though. Too many people just don't study the word. They don't study. I can tell you stories of going to conferences and teaching, and to my dismay, Christians just don't know the basics of the Christian faith.

And they're not being taught these things. When I preach, not that I'm a great preacher, I'm not saying that, but when I preach, I almost always will insert doctrine into the sermon, whatever doctrine is appropriate to that topic of scripture, because I want the people to be clear and grounded in the theological perspective of what the Bible says. And I don't believe that enough pastors, or I believe, let's just say, I believe that enough pastors, let me word this properly, I believe that there are not enough pastors who have a good, wholesome theological perspective, a framework, that they can then put the theological doctrines that the Bible teaches.

They can't put them in order. And I believe this is because they're not studying the theology of scripture, and maybe it's because they're too busy doing counseling, or maybe they're too busy doing church, whatever they're doing. But the job of the pastors is prayer and teaching.

And so, in a proper church, they should do as much as they can to set him free to be able to pray and to form lessons and study the scripture so that he can better present the word to the congregation. That's how it should be. And a woman's job is not that, okay? Okay.

All right. I'm calling men to repent, calling men to stand up, calling men to be men, to act like men. This is what it says in 1 Corinthians 16, 13, be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 1 Corinthians 16, 13, let me read it again, be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Act like men, be strong, stand firm in the faith. And if you're not doing that, any men out there are not doing that, you're not on the alert, you're not standing firm in the faith, you're not being strong in the faith, then you're not acting like biblical men. So I would suggest that men in churches get together, have a weekly meeting, every other week meeting where they discuss biblical manhood, not for the purpose of domination, but for the purpose of submission in their masculinity to God himself, and that they would be prayerfully asking God to use them in their calling as men in the church, and in homes, and in society.

Men need to meet with other men and pray through this, and seek this, and submit themselves to the word of God so that they can fulfill 1 Corinthians 16, 13, be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. There's nothing wrong with that, because that's the command given to us men, by God, okay? Okay. All right. All right, thank you. You're welcome. Okay.

Well, God bless you. All right. So in one of the chat rooms, someone stalked and said, can federal headship position be abused by men? Of course it can. Of course it can. It doesn't excuse the responsibility and the teaching required in that, though. Okay?

And it should not be abused, but abuses do occur. So let's get to, let's see, Gabriel from Maryland. Gabriel, welcome. You're on the air.

Hi, Mr. Slick. Thank you for taking my call. Sure. So my question is about original sin.

It's a concept that's been difficult for me to understand. So I kind of came up with my own theory and wanted to bounce it up against you, because you're better at logic than I am. Okay. Oops, there's a break. Oh, there's good timing. Okay.

Sorry about that. But I think it's good timing. We'll get back and we'll get into this.

I think it's going to be good. So hold on. Okay, buddy. So hey, folks. We'll be right back after these messages.

We'll talk to Gabriel from Maryland on the issue of original sin. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the show. All right, Gabe. Are you still there? Yes, I am. Thank you.

All right, now, what do you got? Original sin, the concept that sin started with Adam and is more or less inherited by the rest of us. I don't know if that's exactly the right word. My thought was that you could claim that Adam was in a perfect scenario. So he had the garden, he had probably millions of different trees to choose from that were lawful to eat. One tree that he already knew he was told not to eat from. So you could say, if he had not been told, he could have accidentally eaten from it and been a sinner for that reason. But he was told, he knew. And he was walking with God in the garden, probably continuously for an unknown amount of time, being given wisdom directly, which is a privilege that most people do not have. Third, he had no previous humans before him to corrupt him.

Fourth, I don't know, I guess three is enough. So he's in the perfect scenario. God compares the rest of humanity to Adam in the perfect scenario, saying, we are in the imperfect scenario, we are bound to sin. Therefore, originally, if any of us were in the original position, we would sin as well.

So we're all liable, logically, potentially liable. And then there's only one man who overcomes all temptation, namely Jesus, and he proves by the trial of temptation and the 40 days of nights in the desert, as the second and final Adam, that he is a man capable of being judged innocent, of being judged worthy, I guess. Does that sound close to what original sin is? Does that sound biblical?

Nope, not at all. Okay. Okay.

So I took notes, all right, let's work with it, okay. So Adam was in a perfect scenario, he used that phrase several times. The problem with that phrase is we don't know what that means, the Bible doesn't use that.

The Bible says that what God made was good, and so I try and tell people, stick to what the Bible says as much as you can, if it doesn't use the word Trinity, but we can use it. But normatively speaking, it just says things were good, and he said he had probably had millions of trees to eat from. Well, I suppose that's possible, but I wouldn't, I just ate lots of trees, okay.

And only one of them he could not eat from, okay. And there's no one before him, that's true. So God then compares the rest of humanity to Adam, he said, but we don't have a perfect scenario, he said again.

So we could have sinned, we would have sinned as well, all right. So this, let me just help you out here, that there are some doctrines here that you need to know about, that I don't know if you do know, and one of them is a very important doctrine I teach on frequently, it's called Federal Headship. Are you familiar with that at all?

I've heard of it, but I don't understand it. Okay, no problem. Federal Headship is a teaching that the male, not the female, represents the descendants, okay. Just look at it that way. So Adam and Eve were in the garden, she sinned first, she gave the fruit to Adam, then he sinned. They fled, and God came to them, the pre-incarnate Christ, and said, to the man, where are you? He didn't say, Eve, what have you done? He didn't say, Adam and Eve, he said, to the man, where are you? Why did he only dress the man? He dressed both of them later, but his initial thing was to go to Adam.

Why? Because Adam was the one in authority. See, when you name someone, you're in that position of authority.

He named the animals, he named Eve. So it's a position of authority. So he then is our representative. Now this idea of Federal Headship is found, and I'll also show you here, in Hebrews 7, something in verse 8. In this case, mortal men received tithes, but in that case, one receives them of whom it is witnessed that he lives on, and so to speak, through Abraham, even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. This is a Jewish concept, that the male represents a descendant. So through Abraham, Levi paid tithes, but Levi was a distant descendant of Abraham. I mean, he wasn't alive when Abraham was around, but it's said that Levi paid tithes on Melchizedek.

Why? Because he's in the loins of his father, not his direct father, but in Jewish thought, the father's father's father's father is still your father. This is how they call that. And so he was in the loins of his father, Abraham, when he met Melchizedek. So this is a biblical concept. So Adam represented us.

That's what the case is. Now when we go to Romans 5.18, it says, so then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there results justification of life to all men. Now verse 19 is critical, for as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners. That verse is critical, Romans 5.19. Through the one man's disobedience, that's Adam's sin. Not Eve, not Adam and Eve, it doesn't say through their disobedience, it says through the one man. So this is talking about Adam.

It says the many were made sinners. Now were made sinners in the Greek is what's called an aorist passive indicative. Aorist means past tense. Passive is called passive voice. It means you're receiving the action. So if I hit the ball, I'm performing the action, that's active voice. I hit myself with the ball, that's middle voice, I'm performing the action on myself. I'm hit by the ball, that's passive. I don't do anything, but I'm hit by something else.

So I receive it. I didn't do anything, it happened to me. That's called passive voice. So what we're seeing here, the many were made sinners, is the passive voice.

Aorist, past tense, so it happened in the past that the many, that's an interesting thing, the many, we'll get into that now, were made sinners. And it's indicative, which demonstrates that it's a fact. It's an actuality. Okay. Pause for a second please. Sure. Um, so, symbolically it's kind of like a Russian nesting ball type scenario. Yeah, you can say that.

Everybody is, say that again. You can say that, it's like that, everybody's in the first one, yes. In fact, go ahead. So then, uh, I forgot what I was going to say. You can go on.

Let me teach you a little bit more. So in Romans 6, 6 it says this, it says, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him. Well, Jesus was crucified 2,000 years ago. How could we be crucified with him? Or Romans 6, 8, now we have died with Christ.

Okay. Well, wait, when did we die with Christ? Well, we died with Christ 2,000 years ago.

How's that possible? Because he represented us. If you've been raised up with Christ, Colossians 3 says, if you've been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above where Christ is, set your mind on the things above. Verse 3, for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ and God. So there's this phraseology in the Bible about Christians having died. They died with Christ.

He represented us. When we go to Romans 5, 19, what we're seeing is original sin. The original sin is Adam's original rebellion against God. But because he represented us, then we were made sinners just as he was.

Now some people might not like that. They might say, well, I reject that. I reject that Adam represented us. I reject that his sin became mine, was imputed. It was counted to me that I was made a sinner. But what he did, it doesn't say the descendants were made capable of sin. They were made sinners. They were actually made sinners by his sin. Well, people say, I reject that.

And people are probably saying at the radio, that's right, I reject it. Well, then be consistent. Because Jesus is called the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15, 45. Didn't he represent us on the cross? If you reject the first Adam's representation, then shouldn't you be consistent and reject the second Adam's representation, Christ, as he represented us on the cross? So the reason Adam can represent people is because ultimately it rests in Christ. Because Christ is our representative on the cross. That's why Adam had his ability.

Because Adam is not the standard of righteousness, but Christ is. And so God is the one who made Jesus be the one who represented those who were given to him, that were elected by the Father from the foundation of the world and given to him. He died. We died with him. Therefore we are going to be regenerated with him. We're saved because of his work.

The original sin is that Adam, when he blew it, we were made sinners. Hold on, man. We've got another break. 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. Everybody, welcome back to the last segment of The Hour, Gabriel. Are you still there?

Yes, I am. Okay. Now, does that help? It does, in a way, but it also creates a lot more questions. So it makes me wonder what mechanism exactly it is that imputes the sin upon us. Is it just by divine fiat? That's a good question. You were saying it was a federal headship thing. But you're actually, you kind of surprised me, because you're asking a very good question, a very critical question.

Most people won't ask that kind of question. You're actually talking about the method and or work that God himself does by which this is made true. You're asking, is it a legal imputation because Adam represented us, and therefore we are imputed with the fallenness in nature, but well, also with the legal problem of the sin of Adam.

You're talking about that. And it's a good thing to talk about, and this has been debated in Christian circles for centuries. So my position, and this is my opinion, so at this point, you know, it's just my opinion. So I believe that the sin of Adam was imputed to all the descendants because we were in him, and when he fell, we fell. And this is why we are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2-3, and also that his sin became ours.

Now the only problem with this is, I want to say every single sin, but certainly this initial sin of rebellion against God is for him and for those who he represented. And I don't know how really much further to go than that, to be honest. But it also makes it necessary that Adam is the first man for that. Absolutely, absolutely. Because if you were to deny Adamic representation, then you have to be consistent and deny Christological representation.

And if you didn't say that, go ahead. Couldn't you say that Christological representation was still authoritative even if you had pre-Adamism because Christ would have still created all of humanity? Adam was the first man. So we know that because the scriptures say, and God created everything, and he said, let there be man.

I mean, let there be man. He said, let us make man in our image, in Genesis 1-26. Then he goes into the narrative, and then you go to Genesis 3 or Genesis 2, and it talks about another view of the same thing from Genesis 1, and Adam is the one who's created.

So that's just how that is. So it says the first, I think in 1 Corinthians, let me find this, in 1 Corinthians 15, so the first, let's see, let me get over here, as it is written, the first man, Adam, became a living soul. So he's declared to be the first man.

All right? Now there are logical ramifications to this because think about this. If you were to assume that Adam did represent us and that federal headship and representation is true, which certainly seems to be the case, and then you also assume that Christ himself represented us, then who specifically did he represent and to what extent did he represent them on the cross? This becomes very critical because it gets into soteriology and atonement theory.

So it's quite involved, and we don't want to get too far into the air. And biblically, it is stressed that he is the final second Adam, the final Adam is the word, right? He's called the last Adam. That's 1 Corinthians 15.

Last Adam. Yes. Uh-huh. Okay.

So yeah, if you want to stay biblical, you've got to keep to that. Okay. Thanks very much.

I appreciate the help. Okay. Call back, and we'll talk some more, okay? All right, man. Thanks. Talk to you later. All right.

Let's get to Brian from Raleigh, North Carolina. You've been waiting for over a half hour. Thanks, brother, and sorry for the long wait. You're on the air. Thank you. I wanted to talk about Sound of Freedom, the movie, and I'm not sure if you have brought this up, because I don't catch you every day, about the backers of that being with the Mormon church. I don't know.

Can you hear me? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. I saw the movie. I love the movie, but I had heard that the people that they rescue, that they actually put them in with the teaching and the infrastructure of the Mormon church, and my thought was, yeah, well, I didn't know if you were aware, but you spoke of it, but my thought is, they're rescuing people from a living hell, and then they're teaching them, and they're indoctrinating them, and thus being to a literal hell for eternity. I was not sure if you've ever heard of the ministry, Lantern Rescue. They do something very similar, but when they rescue people, they teach them what we would be considered the truth of Christianity.

Good. Well, I didn't know that. Could you, if you want, I'd really like that, if you were to find some documentation that demonstrates that the Mormon church is doing this, using people, getting people out of sex trafficking, and then indoctrinating them into Mormonism, because, yeah, you're right.

It's just from the frying pan into the fire. Yeah, that'd be interesting, I didn't know that. And I would have to do some research. There's a local Christian station, I don't know if it's, it's on the same network as you're on, Stu Eferson, and I think it was him a couple days ago, they had a gentleman from Lantern Rescue, and he was the one saying, speaking about it, that they're almost like, in my mind, both organizations do the similar thing of rescuing. I know the Lantern Rescue is out of North Carolina, and they rescue Christians. They've got a lot of work that they're just waiting on funding in the Middle East, that they, I think he said there's over 400 documented and vetted opportunities to rescue Christians, they just don't have the funding, like the Mormon church does, because you've got Glenn Beck, you know, that's speaking about, and he's got millions and millions and millions of followers. So I just didn't know if you were aware of, if either one of those two does. No, I wasn't. I wasn't, but I wish that the Christian church would step up and start doing what it needs to do and start funding things like this. The Christian church has billions of dollars in its fingertips, and I wish that they would go in and support ministry. So if you could find information about that, maybe I'll have that guy on the radio here as well, and we can do an interview and get the support for that. Absolutely.

Okay, I'll try to look it up. Another thing, and this was just while I was listening, and I'm sure you're aware of this lady's name when it comes to women in ministry, I've had this debate with some of my buddies, is it Theobbe or Phoebe that was mentioned to be a leader in the early church? What would, and maybe you've spoken about this, what would her position be if they call her a leader, but yet still not going against the principles of God's Word? What could she be a leader of that they couldn't be in today's church? No, no, Phoebe was just, in this, Romans 16.1, it says, I commend you to our sister, Phoebe, who is a servant of the church, who's at Centuria, and, okay, so she's a servant. The word in Greek is diakonos, and Jesus even said to be a servant, a diakonos, it just means a servant.

That's all that's going on. Okay, I thought, and I don't have my notes in front of me, I actually just got done driving a truck, but I thought there was another reference farther into the New Testament about her, and it said that she was something related to leadership, which then I thought, well, and I don't know if there's another reference to that, or if I ought to do a little more research. Well, the only, I'm looking, and it's only one reference, just right there in Romans 16.1.

Okay, that's fine. Now, some say junius, because junius is set in Romans 16.7, greet Andronicus and Junius, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. Well, the word junius is a feminine form word, but what's interesting, it says, greet Andronicus and Junius, my kinsmen, and that is plural masculine.

So it's a bit of a, it's kind of a puzzle, all right? So and it says, who are outstanding among the apostles. So then what's an apostle, there's seven kinds of apostles that I've discovered in scripture. There's apostles who, of the 12, there's apostles who just are sent, because the word apostolo means to send. Jesus is called an apostle of the faith. And then there's false apostles. So I'm just saying here that they're apostles. And what kind of apostles? Are they doing miracles?

No, of course not. So we have to really look at this and understand it. And when we're not sure of something like junius or phoebe, and we're not sure, this is what the bad exegete people will do, is they will take these areas, we're not sure exactly what it means, and then they will submit the very clear scriptures to these. And the only reason to do that is because they have an agenda. In the very clear scriptures, women are not to be pastors and elders. I mean, I've gone through it so many times over the past two decades. It's just not the case.

And those are very clear. I don't doubt that. I guess a secondary question would be, if you're head pastor in the church, and then there's women in leadership, whether it be admin or whatever support structure, they are not leading the church, and they're under the authority of a male who is the pastor of the church, can he not delegate the authority for them to speak if he's out of town, just like a female deputy has all the authority of the sheriff? No. Okay.

No. Because if he says, I'm going to be out of town for a month, I'm going to have my wife or Miss so-and-so come up and give the sermons, I'm giving her the authority, no place in scripture has it ever said that a pastor has the authority to violate God's word. It's just that simple. Okay. Well, yeah, I wasn't necessarily thinking about it as violating God's word. I was thinking she was under his authority. Oh, so then, the logic then would be, well, if she's under his authority, then she can exercise a teaching authority over men in the church.

Right? Well, yeah, I mean, I wasn't talking about... Okay.

But you see, what they'll do is they develop a means by which the word of God can now be submitted to their preferences, and this is just part of the apostasy, and it is. Okay. All right. Thank you for your time. Thank you. No problem, man. God bless. All right. Let's get to Danielle from Georgia. Danielle, we have less than a minute. What's up, ma'am?

Hi, I have a question. So my husband was looking up on how to be a man of God in a family setting, and he came across something regarding Christian domestic discipline on how to discipline a spouse. With my research, I've come to terms that it is not biblical, the Christian Domestic Discipline Act, because they twist scripture. My question is, what in the Bible states how a husband is supposed to be a disciplinary to his wife biblically? Wow. That's a good question. Get the call back tomorrow, because we're out of time, and I don't know of any place that says, in the Christian context, a husband disciplines his wife.

What he does do is go to the church, and then the elders will examine the issue, and then the discipline usually comes in the context of communion and other issues, and stuff about the bed and things like that, but we can get into that tomorrow. Okay? We're out of time. Sorry about that. Hey, there you go.

There's another show under the... Well done. If you want to, you want to give me a call, I've got to wait until tomorrow. May the Lord bless you, and by his grace, be back on earth tomorrow. Talk to you later. Bye. Bye. Bye, The Truth Network.