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 877-207-2276. If you're a newbie, this is a Christian apologetic show. We defend the Christian faith and answer questions on the Bible.
All kinds of stuff. If that sounds interesting, even if you don't like Christianity, give me a call. I like to answer difficult questions.
I enjoy it. Anyway, there you go. Hopefully you'll want to give me a call.
Also, you can email me at info at karm.org. You can do that, and hopefully we'll hear from you then as well. All right, so there you go.
We've got one caller waiting, and four open lines, 877-207-2276. Well, why don't we just do that? Let's just jump right on.
Let's get to Matt from Middleton, Connecticut, United States. Let's see. It should be able to work. Okay, I'm not able to get him to go. Let's try this. All right.
Well, we have a bit of an issue here. There we go. All right. Hey, welcome. You're on the air.
Hi, Matt. How are you tonight? Doing all right. Hanging in there, man. Hanging in there.
Thanks for taking my call. I just had a question about John chapter 18, verse number 9. I just wanted to know how you would interpret that verse, because it makes a connection back to John 6. Well, you know, John 6 is talking about how, you know, Jesus was secure eternally, because of, you know, we were given from the Father to the Son.
He doesn't lose any that are given to him. But then in John chapter 18, that verse, or that part of John 6 is quoted, but I just, it seems like it's talking about Jesus protecting his disciples physically in that context. So I was just a little confused by that when I came across it. Well, my notes refer back to John 17, 12. While I was with them, I was keeping them in your name, which you have given me. I guarded them, not one of them was pierced, except by the son of perdition, so that the scripture would be fulfilled. So that's what I see. You said it was going back to John 6, probably 37, 38 you're talking about, right?
No, you're right, though. He does talk about that in John 17 as well. I thought John 6 in my mind, but 17 also works. That same concept comes up.
Yeah, it does. And so he would not lose any. Of course, there's the qualification, you know, the one that was ordained to do that, to be lost.
People won't like that phraseology, but if they want to know what it means, call up and we'll talk about it. But yeah, that's what's going on, John 18, 9. Yeah.
Lost 9 to 1. Right. Now, there's an issue here, you see, because when we go to John 6, 37 through 40, you know, Jesus can't lose all that the Father's given him. Now we can see that there's two senses of which they're given. Given eternally, as in the elect, and then given in this sense in ministry to work.
And that was, Judas was included in that. So I'd say they're different in that sense. So it's basically just like a physical fulfillment. And John 18, he's just saying, it doesn't just apply eternally on a spiritual level, but also physically, their physical provision during their earthly life.
Well, you know, we did say, you know, don't worry about what you're going to bring, because they'll be taking care of you as they went out in their ministry. So that is included in it. Sure. I would say that. Yep. Well, that works for me. I just got, when I first, I think it was about a week ago, I found that it just confused me. And I thought about, because I've been watching a lot of episodes of you on YouTube.
And I was like, I'm going to call Matt and see what he would say about that. Sure. Do you like those things you watch on TV, on YouTube?
You like them? Oh, yeah. I watch, I've been watching a lot of your debates lately and Matt Slick live. So I'm definitely a fan of what you do. Well, good, good, good, good. You know, yeah, I'm curious. The reason I stopped this moment to ask is because we're moving more into video work. We're going to be doing some expansion in some various areas. So I just want some feedback on what people like, don't like, and things like that.
That's all. You know, we appreciate it. Well, I think it's really cool, those videos you're doing, the one minute. I watched one or two of those one minute videos. That's neat because that's different, you know, to be able to, you know, compress all that information into a minute.
I think that's a pretty interesting idea. And probably a lot of people watch those. I don't know, maybe Ernie, I think he knows how many you can type it in there in private chat.
Ernie, if you want, tell me how many are watching. Get some feedback on it. But that was a test run and it took so much work to produce those, so much work. And I mean a lot that what I'm going to do is I'm going to change how I do them. It'll be the same, but I'm going to change some stuff so that I get a lot more out. And hopefully I get some more out this weekend. And then we've got a whole bunch of stuff, some other stuff I haven't even told anybody about yet. So I've got some ideas.
But we're trying, you know, get out there and video. That's great. I appreciate your work and I wish you the best. Well, thanks. I appreciate it. All right. Have a good night, Matt. You too. Thanks a lot. Take care.
God bless. Bye. All right. All right. So, folks, I can't hang up. I don't know what's going on. So what I'm going to do, I'm going to talk to the producer. I'm going to tell him I'm going to exit out of X screen and then get right back.
And it won't even let me out of X screen. All right. I'll do that during the break. I'll figure something out.
I know a computer trick. So let's get to the next caller, Alberto. Let's see, Keith, if you could just kind of access that. Give it to me. Put it on. There we go.
All right, Alberto. Looking, buddy. You're in. Come on in.
I'll help you out. What's that? Hello? Yes. Yes. I hear you, man.
What do you got, buddy? Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah.
I have a question. You know, a lot of people that are Hitler, a lot of people say he was a devil. He killed so many Jews. But what about at the last moment of his death before he killed himself or if he called out to Jesus and he got saved? If he did. Or something like that. He died in a toilet seat.
Well, listen to it with one person at a time. Well, I'll put it this way. Anybody who does trust in Christ truly for real will be justified, will be saved, even Hitler, if he'd have done it. Now, I don't think he did. I think he was given over to the depravity of his heart and his mind, to kill and to murder. So, you know, I just don't believe it's the case with him.
But if somehow he had. Now, if you ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, you ever heard of him? Yeah, I know heard of him.
I know him. Yeah, he was killed in prison. He was a cannibal, a serial killer of young men and, you know, an evil man. From what I'd heard, I can't judge it, I don't know, but I'd heard from different sources that had access to him. They wrote that he apparently had really and truthfully come to Christ for real.
So, let's just assume that is the case. If he had, then he would be justified before God would go to heaven, even though he committed such evil. And this is a difficult thing for people to understand and accept, because compare him to the little old lady who, you know, makes cookies for the neighbors all the time and watches people's dogs and is just really nice and sweet and everything. And she rejects Christ.
She goes to hell. People say, well, that's not fair. Well, if you're going to say it's not fair, you can say it's not fair all you want.
But what universal standard of fairness do you have? Because of righteousness, according to Galatians 2.21, if righteousness comes by what we do in our hearts, then Christ didn't need to die on the cross. And so, he was able to cover, because he's God in flesh, he can cover murder, rape, he can cover extortion, theft, abortion, he can cover all of this. And if anybody who's committed any of these would turn to Christ and truly turn to him, their sins will be washed away.
If even for the nice people who don't, never turn to him, their sins will never be washed away, and they'll enter eternity with their sins upon them, and their sins will drag them down to the pit. That's what will happen. Okay? Okay. Now, I have another question real quick. I was talking to a Spanish pastor. I called.
I talked to him. He was telling me that, he said that Christians don't sin. That when 1 John 1 says, you know, if you confess your sin, you know, or whoever will say that he has no sin and the group is not in him, he said that applies only to sinners. That's not applied to Christians. Christians make mistakes, but they don't commit no sins.
We would think about that. Well, there's some issues there. Because 1 John 1-8, let me go to it. 1 John 1-8.
And it says, it says this, I'm just reading it. If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves. The truth is not endless. So, we have to acknowledge that we do have sin. And what the Bible talks about in the issue of not sinning is the continual practicing of it.
We don't do that. We're not in the habit of just walking willy-nilly forward into sin. Now, that's one perspective we can look at. The other one is that we can make the theological case that deals with the now and the not yet with the issue of us and Christ's federal headship and we dying to the law, to the person of Christ, and if the law isn't there, Romans 4-15 and 5-13, if the law isn't there, then sin is not imputed. So, then we wouldn't have any sin to our account. So, there's that sense in which we could say that's correct. But if such a person would say, no, we never do anything wrong. Once we're born again, we never sinned once. No, that's just not correct. We do. Okay?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I talked to him and I'm telling him, because I said Christians do sin. But he said, no, he said only that apply first only applies to sinners because sinners are the ones that are sinners. And Christians are not sinners. He said that we're children of God, but we just make mistakes.
I don't agree with that. So, is a lie a mistake? If he says, yeah, then a lie by definition is a sin, right? Okay, then that's a sin.
If we covet, is that a mistake? So, those are the kind of questions to ask. I wish a bunch of pastors would, sorry, this sounds arrogant. But there's a lot of us who study apologetics so well, so deeply that we can answer questions like that. I'd love to be able to have a seminar where a bunch of pastors come in and we just go through some of these things and say, here's the issues.
Let's look at these things. Not that I'm better than any pastor, but this is what I do for a living and I specifically study these things. I've been doing it for decades and I get to do it full time. Where a pastor doesn't, he's got so many other responsibilities in the church. He can't do it to that level. I'm not saying I'm any better or anything like that, but it'd be great to say, well, let's deal with some of these issues so that the pastor is more equipped to accurately represent the word of God. That's what I would say.
It's not going to happen. Yeah, I agree because a lot of pastors sometimes, yeah, but a pastor, a lot of them, from my experience, especially in Pentecostal churches, and a lot of them, I don't know, most of them, basically it's all by, basically it's by performance, basically. You know what I mean? Well, I don't, yeah, if anybody does say it's by performance. But you know, like to enter heaven, you know what I'm saying?
Basically, most of the time, we listen to them all the time, most of it is all by performance or words based. That's right. And they're thinking. Hey buddy, we got a break, man, we got a break, so I got to go. Okay buddy? All right. God bless, man. We'll talk to you later, okay? Okay, Alberto. Okay, you too.
We'll get out of X screen and reboot it, and hopefully during the break it'll work. Talk to you a bit. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.
All right. I want to welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276.
We have four open lines. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. Let's get to Jonathan from Washington State. Jonathan, welcome back here. Hi, how's it going? It's going, man.
It's going. So what do you got, buddy? So I had a question about, you know, I was watching a lot of you and Dark Dawkins and stuff, and you guys kind of helped me out of, I guess I can no longer quote the atheism, you know. And I just had a question about, like, because I know he mentions, Dark Dawkins mentions that evolution is like a provisional time. Is there a way you could explain that? Yeah, provisional means, and for those who don't know, Dark Dawkins is an apologist who's highly presuppositional.
He's on the chat circuit. So, you know, science is a philosophical approach. I'm curious, I want to make sure. You said you're an ex-atheist? Are you a Christian?
What is it? What's your position? I'm just curious. Well, yeah, I grew up Catholic, you know, and I kind of had an experience with certain things, and kind of was realizing I had a doubt in God and stuff, and I would listen to a lot of Matt Delahunty, and I kind of went with his position, and I didn't see any way out, but I started listening to, like, you guys, like Matt, and Dark Dawkins, and I feel like you guys make a lot more sense.
Yeah, we do. We make a lot more sense. Atheism is untenable. It's not defensible as a position, and when they hold to materialism, then they cannot justify universals. They can't solve the one and the many issue.
They cannot account for intelligibility or existence. It's just a bag of rocks. So, anyway, science is a philosophical approach to learning about the material world, and it's philosophical because it's based on assumptions. For one thing, it's based on what's called the uniformitarianism, or the uniformity of nature. What that means is that scientists presuppose that everything in the universe always works the same way according to the laws of physics in the universe. So, it presupposes that, but it cannot prove it's true.
It also presupposes the universals, laws of logic. Now, let me explain what a universal is. Redness, for example, a red apple and a red car. So, redness has a kind of a transcendental, or I should say universal property.
Redness can exist in multiple places at the same time. So, that's kind of like a universal. The number two can exist in different places, different times, when we write down representations of it on chalkboards or paper. So, there are certain qualities of what we call universals, and in order for science to work, it has presupposed the truth of universals, in that there are concepts and ideas and actualities that exist in different places all the time, and that truth statements about them can be made. So, science is based on a philosophical approach. Along with that, what scientists are doing is learning about the material world. Now, I don't know how much material knowledge there is to learn, but let's just say there's a unit of 100%.
I would say science is at 0.2%, you know, that kind of a thing, and there's just so much to learn in the world, in the universe, in materiality, in quantum physics, in everything. Well, likewise, with evolution, it's provisional in that it's only a theory that is set to explain the material evidence. Now, what you will not hear in these scientific endeavors is the counter evidence to evolution, which is there. You don't hear that, and the reason is because they presuppose materialism. They deny the universality of God's existence, and so, therefore, all facts must be interpreted in light of the philosophy of science. So, men's knowledge, and women's knowledge about this, is provisional.
It will always increase. So, there's all kinds of problems, and I can tell you a few of them in evolution right now, really quickly, to show you that there are problems. Okay. Okay?
It's up to you, but at any rate, you see the problem? Yeah, I definitely see the problem, but you say that, you would say that evolution is a provisional thing, or how would I say it? It's provisional. Yeah. Provisional. So, look, let me explain a few things, okay?
You got wind, and you got a lot of wind in your phone there. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll go on, sir. Okay.
So, evolution is an attempt to explain what is seen in the fossil record. So, are you still there? Just want to make sure.
You still there? Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
So, eohippus, for example, is the lineage of horses, and according to the evolutionary theory, small creatures that look kind of like horses, about the size of cats, and then up to the big full-blown horses, and then they have these gradations in between, and they say, see, there's the evolution of the horse. Well, I just ask a simple question, and how do you know? How do you know they're related? How do you know that one is supposed to be with that, and this is supposed to be science? What they're doing is they're saying, well, it looks like it. That's science?
Right. It's called homology, and it's a problem. Now, we're getting to something called cladistics, but cladistics deals with genetic trees, and there's problems in cladistics due to epigenetics, and it's kind of a Lamarckian kind of a thing where environmental pressures activate or deactivate genes, and so the genes manifest, and then begin into endogenous retroviruses, ERVs, and so they'll want to use those as proof, but there's answers to that, and I'm researching that.
But at any rate, so here's a, I'll show you something. This is what's really interesting. I use this as a common and easily understandable problem in evolution, and this is not just in this one creature, but there's many creatures all over the place that there's problems. How does evolution account for it? For example, the woodpecker. The woodpecker is a very fascinating creature. The tongue of the woodpecker goes down its mouth, down by its throat, by its neck vertebra, and then moves up to the back of the skull, and there's a groove in the back of the skull, and the tongue moves up between the skull groove and the scalp. It moves up with the forward of the head, between the eyes, the forehead, down into the mouth, and then comes out. So not only is that there, but there has to be a cushion in the brain, because in the skull, the brain will get, you know, knocked silly going back and forth so hard.
There's a cushion. Plus, the vertebra, when they move like an arc, where the head moves like an arc, it doesn't go in an arc like a part of a circle. You'd think it would.
No, it doesn't. The vertebra towards the retracted position far away in the back are expanded, and as it moves forward, it contracts and then expands. As it moves forward, it hits the tree, and this keeps the head level. And how does the musculature work, and the brain chemistry work, and the wiring work to develop that, along with the tongue musculature that needs to be in the brain that goes in the back of the skull? How does that evolve?
How's it? Because if the tongue, you know, one mutation, the tongue's stuck in the back of the skull, is it going to help this creature survive? No. There's lots of creatures like this, and they're called polystrate fossils. There's called the Cambrian explosion problem. There's the universality of missing links everywhere. We can talk about it so much more. Right, right. Hey, we'll be right back.
Okay, we've got a break. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. If you want to call me, 877-207-2276. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody, we're at the bottom of the hour.
If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's see. Let's get back on here. Click on that. There we go.
With Jonathan. Welcome, buddy. You're back. Okay.
Hey, hello. Okay. So, I know I gave you a lot of stuff at the end, but evolution does have a lot of problems with it, and there's a growing list of scientists who are rejecting it.
Seriously. Right. I had another question then. So, if you could say evolution is provisional, would you consider to do the same with gravity? Because I believe that Genesis does talk about the firmament and the flat earth and stuff like that, and I also believe that gravity and those types of sciences are provisional.
What do you think about that? Well, the Bible does not teach flat earth. It teaches, if anything, it's round and things like that. So, gravity is provisional in the sense that we're learning more about it. Now, what some of the atheists would say is that, yeah, science is provisional and so is evolution, but it's pretty well established just like gravity is. We're learning more about it, but does it mean gravity is false anymore? It means evolution is false. And I say there is no counter evidence to gravity.
I mean, it's there. You walk outside, jump off a roof, you're going to find out there's no counter evidence, but there is counter evidence in evolution. So, we have, like I said, polystrate fossils. There are trees that are growing vertically through what's supposed to be hundreds of millions of years of rock strata. We have layers of rocks in different parts of the world that are absolutely smooth, and they're hundreds of millions of years thick, but how can that possibly be?
Because if the weather movement of rain and earthquakes will cause lines, the geological lines, to be jagged at points, but you find places where it's just absolutely horizontal perfectly. Well, that's explained by a great flood. You find the Cambrian explosion. Now, a phyla is a body type, like a horse is a body type, a snake is a body type, a bird is a body type.
So, there's many body types in the world. There's insects, there's arachnids, there's fish, there's crabs, mollusks, humans. So, at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion, which is about 500, there's a range, but it's about 520 million years ago, for about 30 or 25 million years, as an average. So, during this 25 million year period, a lot of fossils appear. Well, people say, well, that's okay, new phyla appear. And they'll say, well, the Cambrian period can account for that, 25 million years. The problem is that the fossil records at the beginning of the Cambrian strata instantly show all kinds of new life, new body types, new phyla. There's not enough time for them to form, just not enough time. It doesn't work, even in the theory of evolution.
So, then there's also the issue of missing links. It's so bad that a guy named Gould, Dr. Gould, he invented a theory called punctuated equilibrium. Well, that just says, well, the reason that there's so many gaps between the fossils, and we don't see gradation, is because of punctuated equilibrium. It just happened really fast. Okay, so then, what's fast? And fast, geologically, is like 5 million years, okay, or 2 million years.
Whatever, they'll say, that's fast. All right, well then, let's say a million years, that the species changed to another body type. Okay, so in a million years, all over the place, we don't have fossils?
For a million years, that showed the... So, it just doesn't work. There's just too many problems with it.
There are lots of problems with evolution. And why is it you don't hear this stuff in school? Because secular schools preach humanism, which is a religion. Humanism is a religion recognized by the United States Supreme Court as being a religion. It is.
There's a court case. And yet, humanism is what's taught across all our schools. And yet, they want separation of church and state, which means no religion at all in it. What we really mean is Christianity. And we're going to replace it with humanist philosophy.
That's what's going on. Okay, so when you say there's no discrete of gravity, what would you say to someone that says that gravity is nothing more than density and buoyancy? That's a Flat Earth thing. And I hope you're not getting into the Flat Earth stuff. Flat Earth people, they don't have all their paws on litter box. I can prove Flat Earth is wrong, if that's what you're getting to. I can show you how it's very easy to show it's wrong. Buoyancy and density is not what gravity is. Scientists think it might be waves that are emanation. I don't know too much about this at all. But to prove gravity, wouldn't you need something larger than this?
For what? Wouldn't you need something with enough mass to prove that gravity is real? Every body, every b-o-d-y, every mass has a gravitational force upon every other mass. It's inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
That's one over d squared, roughly. And so I am physically exerting a gravitational force upon you wherever you are. But it's so minute that it's undetectable. But mathematically, we could predict it. So it's just the nature of mass.
It's not like saying it's a property of. But mass apparently does something to the space-time. And it warps things so that gravity has an effect. I've read different theories about it and they're still working on it.
And we're going to learn more. But gravity outside, I'm sitting in my chair. I'm not floating. Gravity is real. And you can't falsify gravity. If you define gravity as that pulling effect towards the center of the earth, well, by that definition, it's a given fact.
Because that's what it is, by definition. But evolution, there's different theories about what it is. Macroevolution, microevolution. You have cladistic-based evolution. Epigenetics, it affects that. You have homology theories. You have the genetic and homology trees, which don't match a lot of times. You have lots of issues that the k-brane explosion, for example, the Big Bang problem, it doesn't give enough time for evolution to work.
There's mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. There's all kinds of stuff. You just don't hear about it. Okay? Right. Are you getting into the flat earth thing? I honestly am, because I believe that Genesis does talk about the firmament, and it never talks about space or anything like that. And I think it would give a lot of credence to the creationist, how would you say it, to creationism. Because I think it would just give more credence to it. No, it doesn't. Flat earth is ridiculous.
Okay? I've studied it. I've written on it. I regularly watch stuff refuting flat earth. There's so many proofs against it. And I've debated impromptu discussions, let's just say, with flat earthers who want to use a biblical argument and then talk about the firmament. And I talk about how it has different meanings in different contexts. And you can't say that the earth is just flat and it doesn't work. And here's an example of why it does not work.
Okay? The dome theory of the flat earth model. So let's picture, for example, a circle, a table that's three feet, or one meter across.
Let's just use that as an example. And then the dome over it. Let's say the dome is like two feet high in this relationship, okay? That's a general model of the flat earth, okay?
Now is that the one you kind of lean towards with the firmament, right? Okay? Yeah, sure.
Okay. The reason that can't work is because let's just hang a ball, like a tennis ball in the middle of that in the top of the dome in the center and have it hang down. So it's something that size. But let's just take it because a tennis ball has fuzz. But let's take just a ball. And we write on that ball, around the equator of the ball, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, all the way around. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, okay? So you have ten numbers there because it's one, two, nine inclusive. So you have ten numbers there. That means from one side of the ball of the flat table, when you look at the ball, you're going to see the numbers one, two, three, four. On the other side of the table, you're going to see the numbers six, seven, eight, nine. Are you with me? Right.
Yeah. But this relates to the moon. Everybody sees the same face of the moon. How is that possible in a flat earth model?
The only way it's possible, and I'll show you, is if you take that in that three-foot diameter thing with the dome, is you take the ball and you move it upward and upward. And it has to go like 100 to 200 feet before everybody on that three-foot thing sees the same face. That's how it has to work. Some people say that. It has to work that way. This proves the flat earth model doesn't work.
The moon proves it. Okay? Hold on, buddy. Okay? Okay. Hold on. We'll get back to you afterwards. Hey, folks.
Hope that was making sense. 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. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back in here with Jonathan really fast. Jonathan, you still there? Yes, I am. All right. You're going to see one last thing. We've got callers waiting, so what do you got?
Okay. I was just going to say about the moon. In the flat earth model, they say that it wouldn't be a ball. It's like a luminary. It's made out of plasma.
Yeah, I know. It's a luminary, and that it has its own source of light. And that the moon and the sun are orbiting around each other. And if gravity is something to do with, what was it? I said the phrase you used, which clued me in, buoyancy and stuff, then why is it that the sun and the moon, as they orbit around each other, they have to have gravity so that the buoyancy thing doesn't work? Furthermore, why is it that from the flat earth model, why is it we can see the moon all the time but not the sun?
We can see the moon because it orbits around the earth, and we can see it in the night and in the day. But the sun you can only see during the day, and yet it disappears. In the dome model, where does the sun go?
The other side. Well, then what they do is they say that the sun is not like a flashlight. Well, why is it a flashlight and not the moon? Why does the moon then have different shapes to it according to the effect of light upon it? And how do you account for eclipses, where the moon totally eclipses and things like that? And the flat earth model can't account for those. It also cannot account for what's called annular.
I believe they're called annular eclipses, which is going to happen pretty soon, where the moon is closer by its orbital necessity, orbital patterns, perihelion, aphelion, and it's closer to the earth, and so when it gets in front of the sun, we see a ring instead of a totally blotted out. Well, this is explained by the round earth model. Look, let me tell you, flat earth doesn't work. It doesn't work, okay? If I thought it did, I would tell you, but I've studied this, and for entertainment I listen to flat earth stuff being refuted. That's what I do for entertainment. And there's just so many reasons. It doesn't work.
Trust me, you'd be better off not putting your hope and your trust in that. Then there's the parallax issue. Parallax has to do with things seen against the moon.
You can measure angularity from perpendicularity as it relates to the position of the moon. It only works on a body that is curved. It's more complicated stuff.
So I'm just saying, if I were you, I'd go to the web. There's a guy I watch, he's got a dog in his lap. I watch him and some other guys, and he's from Britain, and he just dismantles the flat earth model.
There's another guy, I forgot where he is, and he does it too. Just look it up. You'll see stuff.
It doesn't work. Yeah, I'll watch back and listen to what you said. All right, sounds good, man. All right, buddy. God bless you. And you need to receive Christ.
I hope you are trusting in him. I wouldn't even ask about that. Have you done that? What's the difference? You have? What's the difference? What do you mean, what's the difference? So you're saying receive Christ as in the bread?
Oh, no, no, no, no. Stay with the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy and stuff like that. No, to receive Christ is an act of faith, where you trust in what Christ Jesus, God in flesh, has done on the cross, where he bore our sins at his body. 1 Peter 2.24 says, He died in that cross as a sacrifice for sin, as a payment for our sin. And then he rose from the dead three days later. And that by trusting in what he has done, and him alone, not your baptism, not taking Eucharist, not doing tradition, not doing church membership, that's not what saves you. Not being good and not being bad, but faith alone in Christ alone.
And to receive him, as John 1.12, that means to trust in him and receive his offering on our behalf by faith. Okay? Have you done that? All right.
How would I do that? Just believing it, right? How do you say it? What I would recommend is that you pray. Talk to the Lord Jesus, because according to the Bible, he is God in flesh. Pray and ask Jesus to forgive you. Trust in what he has done on the cross. You've got to recognize that you're a sinner, like me, you're a sinner.
You've done things wrong and you ought to be punished. And neither one of us can please the infinitely holy God. We're not good enough. We're just not.
False religions say that we're good enough to work with God and cooperate and show him and things like that. But no. So you trust in Christ and I'd recommend you praying to him and asking him to forgive you and to be the Lord of your life. But I have to warn you. You have to count the cost. Because to follow Christ means to not follow the world and your friends. And it means that you do what's right before him first. It can cost you. You have to know what you're getting involved with. Jesus will take you as you are, but he won't leave you as you are. He'll change you. And it's sometimes quite difficult and other times it's wonderful.
But overall, it's well worth it, of course. But he won't leave you alone. He will take you and he'll change you over a period of time.
Slowly, but surely. You have to know what you're getting into, okay? Have you trusted in Christ?
Have you received him? I mean, yeah, I prayed and stuff like that, but I'm going to keep doing it. Okay. I'd recommend you find a good church wherever you are also. You can always call me at the office here. We can talk.
You can call on the radio again another day and talk. But find a good church, okay? Get a local church. Stay away from churches with the word United in them, okay? Try Calvary Chapel. If they have women pastors and elders, stay away from them.
They're liberal. Find a good church and start going and read your Bible. But the bladder stuff is going to mess you up. It's going to mess you up later, okay? Yeah, I understand. All right, brother. We've got people praying for you now, okay?
We'll be praying for you, Jonathan. All right? Awesome. Thank you. All right, man. All right. Well, God bless. Okay.
Yeah, God bless. Thank you. Bye. Okay. Bye. Pray for him. He needs it. Let's get to Tom from Utah. Tom, welcome.
You're on the air. Draper. Oh, Draper.
He lives right there in Sandy. Yeah. Well, that was a great call, Jonathan, there. Some good questions on evolution and the Flat Earth. But, man, listening to that whole conversation, the last thing you said, Flat Earth will mess you up. Like, how so? By holding the Flat Earth, you're going to hold to an overly literal interpretation of certain things inside the Scripture.
Depending on the individual, by defending it, you will then have to compromise other areas of biblical revelation as well as just common sense knowledge. All right. Common sense knowledge. You were just talking about the horses and the evolutionists.
Like, oh, it looks like there's little horses and that and that. And then you said, how do they know? How do they know? How do you know about whether the moon is a light or not a light?
You're relying on common sense knowledge or mathematics. I don't know. It just kind of caught my ear. When you look up in the sky, you look up in the sky. Yeah. So I've been on both sides of the planet.
I've been in Turkey and Israel, I'm here in Idaho. Yeah. And when I look up at the sky and I see the moon, it's the same face.
Right. One side. How come it never turns around?
We're flying around, it's slowly spinning and we're spinning and it's spinning and it stays the same and all the stars are in the same place over thousands of years and we're all spinning and flying and twisting. I'll explain if you hold on. Okay.
The reason we see the same face of the moon is because it is in rotational amounts. Exactly. Yeah. Well, let me finish.
Who said? Okay. Do you believe in the flat earth? Do you believe in the flat earth? I kind of do, actually. And I'm also a full-blown precept Calvinist to the preceptor, so there is that. That's good.
And I'm not in any trouble. But then why is it that the same faces or the same face of the moon appears all over the world? Why does that work? Because I think that God made a light for the night and a light for the day. And I think when he held the sun in place, he literally held the sun in place as if the sun was moving. Can you hold on? Tom, Tom, Tom, you're not understanding the question. I think I am, but... No, you're not. You understand the analogy I gave of a three-foot-wide table with a dome over it, right? Yeah. Maybe I didn't.
I don't know about that one, but... Do you believe there's a dome over the flat earth? Yeah. Okay.
I kind of do, yeah. Okay. If that's the case, then...
If that's the case, you need to do some thinking, some logic thinking. Oh, yeah. I'm good at that. So, Tom, can you hold on? Can you stop making so many interruptive comments, okay? I'm going to explain something. We only have a couple of minutes.
I'll try. Okay. All right. If you have a three-foot diameter table and you have a dome over it, the dome is about two feet high, and you put the moon in the middle of the dome in the center, then everybody can see it all the time. If the sun is there, then everybody can see it all the time as well, but the sun disappears at night.
Why? If it's right there and it's a luminary, why does it disappear at night? That's one question. It goes far away. It goes out to the outer edge, in a circle, around the circle edge, so you don't see it anymore.
Tom, Tom. I'm just saying. Not in the dome model, which you just said you affirm. Well, I'm not so sure about that. I don't think we know, because I don't believe NASA and all that. I think pretty much the government lies about everything, so there is that. Hey, let me ask you this.
Okay, no, get out of your hair. How come in the day I can see the sun up at the top of the sky and the moon eclipsed, and yet I can see both of them at the same time, and supposedly the Earth is in the middle? But I see half of the moon.
I see it all the time, every month. The Earth is not in the middle at that point. Okay, what's blocking the half of the moon then? If the sun's up there, why is it only half blocked? What do you mean half blocked? What's blocking the other half of the moon? What do you mean the other half of the moon?
What do you mean? I'm looking up at the moon, and half of it is dark, and half is light, and I'm also seeing the sun rising in the morning. They're both right up above me.
The Earth is not in the middle, and supposedly what eclipses the moon is the Earth in between. But obviously I can see both of them up above. Okay, well, Tom, look, I can tell. Well, that's the question.
Tom, Tom, Tom, I got you. We don't have that time to get into it, but I can tell you don't understand basic physics. You don't understand the basics. No, I'm serious, I'm serious. Well, yeah, you believe the experts.
It's like the evolutionists. Tom, Tom, okay, we got to just go. We got to go, because you won't let me talk. Okay, we got to go. Hey, Martin, sorry, buddy.
Call back tomorrow about the gravity question. I know you waited 18 minutes, 19 minutes. Sorry about that, bud. Hey, we got to talk, so call me back tomorrow, okay? All right, buddy. There we go. May the Lord bless you. I'm out of here.
There's the music. Got to go, and oh, my goodness, flat-earthers. Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye. We'll be right back tomorrow, by God's grace. We'll talk to you then. We'll see you. Bye. We'll be right back.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-08-27 08:07:18 / 2023-08-27 08:26:55 / 20