Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. I am your host, Matt Slick.

Today's date is August 29, 2023. Praise God! If you want to give me a call, we have wide open lines 877-207-2276. You can also email me at info at karm.org. That should be fine. Okay. That's weird. It should be working. It should be working. Everybody should be working. Tell them they're in.

It should be working. We'll work on that too. Anyway, if you want to email me at info at karm.org, all you have to do is put it in the subject line.

Just say radio comment or radio question or comment, whatever it is. And if you want, do that. All right.

A couple of things distracting me here. So I'm going to be out of the – Monday is a holiday, so we won't be on the radio then. But I'm going to be flying to Pennsylvania to speak at a conference in Indiana, Pennsylvania on Friday. So I'll be there. And if any of you are interested in that, put an email out.

And I'll probably put it on the calendar here if you want to check it out. Maybe I'll get some information later on. So there you go with that. If you want to give me a call, like I said, 877-207-2276.

And everything should be fine there. Here we go. There we go. There we go. All right.

So what I'm going to do, because a lot of times we don't have any calls, you know, because we're in the summertime, that happens. So someone writes and says, can you please explain Genesis 1 verses 6, 7, and 8. Genesis 1, 6, 7, and 8.

Let's see if I can get to that. And God said let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters. It looks like it's the, what's interesting is, I've looked at this before. It says expanse in the midst of the waters. So look, it would be land. And then God made the expanse and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse.

And it was so. So there's a theory that goes around that's kind of about this a little bit. And the theory is that, it's called the canopy theory. The idea was that the atmosphere before the flood was much thicker, much more laden with water. And that the light that's coming in from the sun would be diffracted.

And so there would never be complete darkness anywhere in the world. And because of that, plants could grow larger in a richer atmosphere, moisture. And some think that this condition may have contributed to the idea of our oil because oil is biologically formed.

You know, it's under pressure for a long period of time in plants and animals and this happens. So some think that the heavens, not the heavens where God dwells or the planets are, but where the clouds and the stuff are, as we understand it, were full of water. Now I remember reading about this possibility that there are pilots who have recorded just going along in clear blue skies and all of a sudden they just fly through heavy thick rain and there's no cloud above them. And so this kind of stuff can happen now and so it can probably happen back then as well even more. So that's what it looks like, the expanse where the waters which are below from that which is above.

And God called the expanse heaven and there was evening and morning a second day. It looks like that's what it is, that's what I've heard about it. I don't know exactly but I think that is what is going on.

All right, there's that one. Okay, let's see. Yeah, if that guy wants to call back, he says it's been three months since he's been off the air because he always argues about everything. So yeah, call back in, you know, if you want to call back in and we can have some conversations, that would be fine.

All right, now I notice in the X screen that the lighting on the system doesn't seem to be up to par. So I guess that's working, I guess we're working and that's all right. And here's another email. I was on the phone with you earlier asking about John 18-9. I'm sorry, I think you've got to do that one. I've heard a non-reformed person try to use a proof against God.

I need more information about that, I remember we talked about that. Matt Slick, you have got to be one of the, oh I love this email, I do. One of the most stubborn people I've ever encountered. You will not give up your eternal punishment dogma and in doing so make God a liar through omission to both Abraham and Hagar. Leonard, why don't you call up, if you're listening, I'd love you to call up and tell me about your idea of annihilationism. I guess he believes that people are going to be punished and don't exist anymore. I flat out reject that and I've written well over 182 articles dealing with this topic of annihilationism. It just became a large project. I did all kinds of word studies that weren't exactly related to it but it did a lot of work and annihilationism doesn't work. It's not biblical and so if anybody wants to call me up and talk about it, that's fine too.

But there's that. Let's get on the air with, let's try Jason from Arizona. Jason, welcome, you're on the air.

Hi Matt, thank you. My question is, I'm reformed and I have my pen and paper here. I'm going to take some notes from you. What are your best scriptures proving monergism? I've been studying monergism versus synergism and obviously I'm a monergist but I want to hear from you your best scriptures and I'll go ahead and write them down. Okay, sure. One of the things I would do is just go to Romans 4, 1 through 5.

It's one of the best places to go to. I can put a bunch of stuff together but this is what it says. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For Abraham was justified, now that word justified we're going to be looking at.

If he was justified by works, he has something to boast about but not before God. For what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. So what I do with the synergists, I say what does the verse say?

What does Romans 4, 3 say? I said Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. I'll ask him, well what was credited as righteousness? I've had him say his works and I just read the verse again and it says he believed God and it was credited to him.

So what was it? Finally get him to answer, it was belief. Okay, so the belief is what's credited as righteousness and then what they'll sometimes do is say but he had to prove his faith later and say whatever but what does it say right here? What's Paul the apostle saying right here? What was it that credited him as righteous and that is his faith? Verse 4, not to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favorable what is due but to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly. His faith is credited as righteousness.

So verse 5 is kind of a summation of verses 2, 3 and 4. He says the one who does not work but believes, so I say to them look, we have two things here, faith and works. Now the word faith and belief here is the same word in Greek.

We just have different ways we render it in English. So it does not work but has faith or believes in him. So we have two things, work and belief and work is removed then faith is by itself.

Faith is alone, right? Well they don't like that but that's what it says. And I say okay fine, sometimes it takes me 5 or 10 minutes to get them to admit what the text says. So they go over and over patiently, well what does it say?

If there's two things it wants removed. And I'll say it over and over again. But anyway, to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly. So here we have justification here, right? His faith is credited as righteousness. So faith is credited as righteousness.

And we see the same thing in verse 3. Abraham believed God it was credited in his righteousness. But what is interesting is in verse 2 if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about but not before God. So he's talking about being justified before God. Then he says his faith is what's credited as righteousness. And then in verse 5 he says the one who believes in one who justifies.

That means his faith is credited as righteousness. So this is pure monergism right here. It's clear. Okay? Does that help? Amen. Thank you. Yeah, I'm taking notes.

As far, what do you think? You know obviously the analogy of like our mother and father were intimate and then we were born of them and we didn't make that decision. So in the book of James 1.18 when we're told of his own will the Lord begat us.

Is that a good proof of monergism? Well because he brought us forth. Brought us forth by what? Forth into salvation or brought us forth into existence. And so because that can be interpreted different ways, maybe not legitimately, but they'll just do it. That's why I stay away from that verse.

Oh okay. And then John 1.13, not of the will of man but of the will of God. How do you feel about that one?

I use that one too. You have to go to verse 12 also. As many as received him to them he gave the right to become the children of God even to those who believe in his name. Who were born, now what's the context? Born about belief, so it's talking about being born again. Not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.

So that shows monergism there as well. I've got other verses if you want to see too. Yeah, I'm just taking notes on what you're saying. You can go to Romans 3.28, for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Now I have a slick and quick thing I do with them on this. I said, without the works of the law. So I ask them, what are the works of the law? What the law often say is Levitical priesthood stuff. That's not what it says there. It just says the law, what they'll want to do sometimes is reinterpret it or add words in to make it fit their theology.

And then I'll tell you how I work with that position. Back to this I'll say apart from the works of the law. So that's the priestly stuff. Apart from the priestly stuff, is that what you're saying?

Nothing in the text says that's it. From the law, Paul uses that phrase in reference to the law. He says in verse 31, do we nullify the law through faith?

It may never be in the country we establish the law. So it's not just Levitical priesthood stuff. It's the works of the law.

And I say without the works of the law. Now see, in Deuteronomy 6, 5, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Jesus quotes that in Matthew 22, 37. And then he quotes Leviticus 19, 18, which is love your neighbor as yourself. And he quotes that in Matthew 22, 39. And he says in verse 40 of Matthew 22, he says that this is a summation of all the law. And I said, so you're supposed to love God and love your neighbor, right?

And I said, yeah. To look at this, we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Is loving God and loving your neighbor works of the law?

What are they going to say? Because, yeah, that's a summation of the whole law. That's a summation of the whole law.

So I'm setting them up and they don't realize it. And I'll say, look, it says the whole law and the prophets depend on those two commandments. So we're justified without loving God and without loving our neighbor.

Or it says by faith apart from loving God and loving your neighbor. And there's a break. I'm going to explain what I'm saying here and why it's powerful and why it's useful. So hold on. OK. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. We'll be right back.

All two open lines 8772072276. Jason, are you still there? Yes, sir. All right. So what I'll do to them is I'll bring these up, you know, and I'll say loving God and loving your neighbor.

We've got to do these, right? Yeah, that's in the New Testament. Why does and Jesus says that's a summation of the law.

They're all all right there. Why does Paul say we're justified by faith apart from the works of the law without loving God and loving your neighbor? We're apart. In other words, loving God doesn't make you saved and loving your neighbor doesn't make you saved. It's faith in the sacrifice of Christ and what Jesus did. And this is by faith only the faith that God grants to us. Flippings 129 to you has been granted to believe and that faith, the object of the faith comes from God as well. This is the work of God that you believe on him on whom he has sent.

John 629. So I would say to them, look, the Bible clearly tells us we're justified by faith apart from the works of the law. The one who does not work but believes in him, which justifies ungodly. His faith is credited as righteousness and the summation of the law. Matthew 22, 37 through 40 is love God, love your neighbor. And that's the whole law on these two commandments depend the whole law on the prophets, Jesus says.

So if we're justified by faith, then we're justified by faith apart from having to love God. Now we do that because we're regenerate. We do it because we're regenerate.

It doesn't make us regenerate. You with me so far? Oh, yeah, definitely. And so thank you so much. I appreciate you. I'm curious.

I got more. But what's what's the reason that you just do dealing with people who are synergists? Well, yeah, I've been studying this and listening to some videos on YouTube about it and most of well from my research, it seems like most people are synergists that are Christian.

But I don't I don't agree with synergism. I agree with modernism and God's election and predestination as a reformed believer. I'm that's that's what I believe. And it's biblical. A lot of people get upset when I say it's biblical, but it is. I'll read them scriptures and they'll say, oh, yeah, that's Calvinism. That's what the Bible says right here.

I mean, reading it. Here's something to do with on the other side of the coin, so to speak. You know, someone saying that they're synergistic, whether it's the false religions of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, because they all teach, you know, justified by faith and what you do and your sincerity, your ability to stay good and say right. I say, I say, is Jesus the standard of doing what's right? Is he the standard of all righteousness? And, well, they're going to say, well, yes, I said, good.

So he's the standard of what it means to keep the law. Right. Yeah. OK, good. Good, good, good. Because you never sinned.

First Peter two twenty two talks about that. OK, good. So then are you keeping the law perfectly? Because you're doing it on the same level as Jesus.

Are you? Because if you're going to keep yourself right with God, I want to know, are you able by your goodness to keep yourself right with the infinitely holy God? The synergists within Protestantism will affirm the justification by faith alone, but then they practice synergistic soteriology. They'll say, we maintain our position with God by our goodness. And that's a blatant heresy.

It's just it's false doctrine. And so I ask, are you doing it? Oh, yeah, you know, I am. Oh, you are on the same level as Jesus. Well, no. Oh, so you're not keeping this. OK, good. So then then what do you do when you sin? Well, you repent. Oh, so you admit you're not keeping the law. You're not being good.

So wait a minute. You're saying that you have to do good things to keep right. And I think I'll say I got my fingers on my keyboard. I'm going to make a list. Can you tell me the top three things you got to do to keep yourself right with the infinitely holy God? I'm just curious.

And I've had people give me three things, you know, sometimes even more. Well, you don't lie and steal and cheat. You keep the Ten Commandments. OK, keep the Ten Commandments. What else? You got to continue to believe in Jesus. So it's OK.

Anything else? Well, you know, you have to have you to pray and read and really study and say, OK, those three things. I says, OK, so and you're doing all of those.

OK. And you're keeping yourself right with God, with those things. Yeah. It says, OK, good. You got one more thing you got to do, buddy. One more thing.

And they'll say, what's that? And I say, you need to pat yourself on the back. You do. You got to pat yourself on the back because it's amazing how good you are to be able to keep yourself right with the infinitely holy God. And you can do these things by your effort.

So pat yourself on the back. Let me give an illustration of something I've used and feel free to use this illustration because it's I've had people tell me it's very powerful illustration. And I'll say, look, I'll say, imagine the cross on a dirty, mucky, muddy hill, slight hill, very small. And you're on your knees before the cross and you're not even going to bring your face up to look. And there's blood dripping down from that cross that's mingling in the dirt and it's just flowing down slowly through the mud.

And that's the price of your redemption. And you stay there because it's it's the place of God and flesh. And you keep your face to the ground and your hands to the ground, your knees down low.

But you hear a sound and you notice that someone is next to you from behind and is slowly crawling forward. And they pass you up. They're slowly face to the ground, humbly crawling to the cross. And they approach the cross and they take a piece of paper of their things they've done, you know, not being bad, keeping the Ten Commandments, whatever it is. And their faith in God and take a little hammer and a nail and you nail it to the cross at the bottom there. And you humbly, that person humbly backs away and see what that person is hoping is that God will accept them based on the blood of Christ and what they've done. Because that's what they're saying, that God will accept them based on what Christ has done and their goodness, their list of things. And I say, of course, that's blasphemy.

It's a powerful illustration. I say, what are you nailing to the cross to keep yourself right with God? What are you putting there from your own efforts, your own work out of your own goodness, your own sincerity, your own work?

What are you doing? And I say, you need to repent and come to Christ. Amen. Amen.

Amen. Well, thank you very much, Matt. I appreciate your time. Hey, you're welcome, buddy.

God bless, man. Take care. Bye-bye.

All right. Do you want to give me a call? Three open lines, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Tom from Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yes, I can, man. Yeah, I can. What do you got, buddy?

This is awesome. My question is this. In Matthew 24, Jesus doesn't know the hour and time of his return. And he tells that to, because he has, in Philippians 2, he has divested himself as part of his right from heaven.

He made himself a man, right? Hold on. We've got a break.

We've got a break, buddy. Sorry, the timing's just a little out there. So hold on, okay? We'll be right back after the break. Hey, folks, please stay tuned.

Three open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. Let's see. Okay, let's get back on there with Tom. All right, Tom, get back on here, buddy.

What do you got? Yes, so in Matthew 24, Jesus doesn't know the hour and time of his second coming. And I understand that that's because in Philippians 2, he has temporarily divested himself of all the prerogatives of being people with God, right? Wrong.

Wrong. Let's tackle the second thing first. Jesus has two distinct natures, a divine nature and a human nature. The essence of divinity dwells within him. The necessary properties to divinity belong to Christ because the properties emanate out of the essence. So if he's divine, then the properties, omniscience, omnipotence, et cetera, are Christ's because of the doctrine called the communicatio idiomatum.

That's the communication of the properties where the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person. So Jesus has those attributes. Now, in Matthew 24, he says, you know, no man knows the day nor the hour.

And it's a wedding feast thing, but I'll explain it in a second. But in Matthew 21, 17, I think it is, is where Peter says to Jesus, you know all things. And Jesus didn't correct him.

Yeah, he does. And in Revelation 19, 12, it says that Jesus has a name written on him that no one knows except himself. Well, does that mean God the Father doesn't know? So sometimes what happens in the Jewish culture is exaggeration.

It's just how they work. And if you've ever seen stereotypical Jewish moms with their children, you know, and they're all dramatic. You never listen to me.

You never listen. You know, it's just kind of a Jewish cultural thing. You can go to Jude chapter, I mean, just Jude 3 or Jude 4 talks about Jesus being our only Lord and Master. Well, if he's our only Lord and Master, then the Father is not.

So it's not that we just want to look at something and say, oh, it's just a literal meaning. So let me give you the context of what's going on, because you're if you remember in John 14, John 15, these places Jesus says, you know, I go to make a, you know, my father's house or many mansions or many homes, and I go to prepare a place for you and I will come with you. He'll come back for his bride with the trumpets.

And that's in 1 Thessalonians 4. So what he's alluding to is the cultural norm of the wedding. And I usually talk about this about once a week on the radio here, once every week or two. And so what happens is when a man and a woman were engaged, their engagement would last about a year. And during that time, they would arrange and the families would arrange for visitation of the families outside the area to come in. They would arrange for trumpeters, you know, a band.

And we call it a band, but no musicians. They would have a fatted animal of some sort raised and to be killed on a certain day because they know when the wedding is going to be. They'd have wine and have to be gotten ready because it's a celebration. And the people in the immediate community are invited and an extended family is invited and extended family are often in different areas. And so it take time to get in. So this is just part of the whole process of what was there. Well, they had to know when the wedding was going to occur because, you know, it's like saying, well, I don't know when it's going to occur. Just prepare some wine for us. Well, what month is it going to be? I don't know.

It doesn't work like that. And so they have to know. All right, so one of the jobs of the groom was to prepare a place for the bride by building an additional room onto the house of the father's dwelling. And it was a common Jewish thing to do. And Jesus said, I go to prepare a place for you and then I will come to gather you and bring you back to where I am.

It's all wedding feast stuff. Having said all of that, in that culture and in that phraseology of speech, the bridegroom's friends would say, when's the father going to give you the word to go get your bride? And the response was a cultural idiom. No man knows a day nor the hour, but the son, but the father alone. And so it was just a way of saying very respectfully that the father is the one who has that final authority to say go.

And the exact second the son wouldn't know, but they would know the day and the hour, but not necessarily the exact second, that kind of thing. Okay? That makes sense?

It's just an idiom. All right? So you're saying that when Jesus was walking the earth the first time, he already knew when he would return the second time? Yeah, of course. Okay. Okay. So right now in heaven, there's no question in Jesus as being when the hour is, right?

He knows. There's another doctrine that's important called inseparable operations. In the Trinity, in the divine simplicity of the perichordic relationship, and what that means is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one being. And they are distinct within the one being, and they live in a perichordic, or they exist perichordically.

Perichoresis is a mutual indwelling. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each mutually indwell each other. It's just the nature of what the Trinity is. So divine simplicity means that all of them are involved with all the work that they would manifest in creation. So when Jesus is on earth, he existed, and still does in the human form, but he existed then walking around with two natures, he still does. And the divine nature is still in a perichordic indwelling in the Trinity.

And the attributes are ascribed to Christ. This is why Jesus would say in John 5.19 and John 5.30, I don't have those particularly memorized yet, but John 5.19, Jesus says the Son can do nothing of himself unless it is something he sees the Father doing. Sees is present tense. He's seeing what the Father's doing, and Jesus does it. And in John 5.30, I can do nothing on my own initiative, as I judge, I hear.

My judgment is just because I do not seek the will of him, my own will, but the will of him who sent me. He says, I do nothing present tense on my initiative, as I hear, I judge. So he's talking here about the Father who sent him, and the Father and he are the Father and me, and I and you.

He's talking about this indwelling. He says I and the Father are one, John 10.30. This is perichoresis and divine simplicity.

So Jesus has to have those attributes of divinity. Now here's the question we can ask. Did he, and I don't know the right answer, did he access all the information all the time? I'm not saying it's a right question to ask because there's a lot more to study about this. So did he have the ability to know all things and just didn't remember it on purpose, bring it up? And in that case, is it possible? I would like to talk with some Christian philosophers about that and the logic that deals with some of the ramifications of that and work through it.

And that's one possibility. But generally speaking, what we say is that, yeah, he knew everything because he read people's minds, or not read their minds, but he knew what their thoughts were. Well, how could he know what their thoughts are? If God indwells all people in the sense that he's everywhere and Jesus knows their thoughts, then we have in that sense the indwelling that's shared by the divine nature of the Son.

Now this gets into some really interesting discussions about this because to what extent was the word incarnate? And I don't have any answers for that. Can I ask a quick question? Sure.

Okay, so I'm going to look into that. I'm going to accept it as fact, what you're saying, that Jesus knew. So in Revelation 1, when the revelation of Jesus Christ is given to John from God to Jesus to the angel, it is basically just the announcing by the Father of the time of the wedding, I guess.

Well, yeah, it's a generic kind of a thing. If you understand the Jewish culture and these things, then it just makes sense. No man knows what day of the hour. It's like saying, man, he beat him until he's black and blue. And then someone a thousand years later says, was he literally black and was he literally blue? That's not what it was meant by.

It wasn't meant to be taken that way. And so that's what's going on there in that culture. I've had two Jews who were Christians now, two different conferences I did years apart, two different ones that said, how did you know that? Nobody knows that. They said they were very impressed that a Gentile would know something like that. And I said, I don't know where I picked it up.

I just studied it. But here, look at John 16, 30. It says, now we know that you know all things and have no need for anyone to question you.

By this, we believe you came from God. So that's the disciples saying that Jesus knows all things right there in John 16, 30. And he doesn't say, no, I don't. OK, so this is not an easy topic to wade through. So Revelation 1, Jesus didn't need God to give him the revelation.

He already had it, right? We've got a break. What we'll do is we'll address that afterwards. OK?

OK. There's some more stuff to this, but OK. Hey, folks, we have four open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on the air here with Tom. Tom, are you still there?

I am. All right, so you're asking about Revelation 1-1, OK? And it talks about the revelation which God gave to him to show the bondservants of things which must take place. So why would God have to give that to him if Jesus was God, right?

That's the question. Yes, sir. All right. Well, we've got to remember that Jesus is forever a man and will be forever a man. And he is given that which is appropriate in his state of incarnation that also designates the distinction in the persons of the Trinity and shows the continued work of Christ as our intercessor. So therefore, the revelation is given to us through Jesus from the Father.

It was given to Jesus and he shared it to John. All right? So that's what's going on. OK. OK. I didn't mean to monopolize your time. I'm trying to get a solid picture of, you know, that I know time doesn't mean anything to God.

No one can say that. I mean, in the sense that tomorrow is the same as today and a hundred years ago. That's not accurate either. I know what you mean.

I'm a little more technical than most people. There are differences of things that occur in different time. But God relates to time differently than we do. That's what you're getting at. OK. Yeah.

Again, a thousand days are like a day. Right. And so he's not contained in the same continuum that we are.

I guess that's what I'm saying. And so he's able to do these things. I'm just trying to understand. I mean, this is for my Sunday school class. I'm trying to understand the role that, you know, Jesus plays. You know, obviously he was in Revelation because it's all about him. But he still, if I'm not incorrect, he's still in a station of, you know, sort of as his office as part of the Trinity, allowing God to direct things. Right.

He's still in that office. And he forever will be as a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, who forever lives to make intercession for us, Hebrews 6.20 and 7.25. And so what I see in Revelation 1 is that God gave it to Christ.

I see a couple things in there. The issue of intercession, well, and distinction. But a third thing actually is it's written in such a way that those who don't have eyes to see will not. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, will say that Jesus is not God because the revelation had to be given to him. But they fail to understand that he was and still is a man and that he is in subjection to the Father, being sent by the Father to do the will of the Father, not his own will.

So in that office and in that state, God the Father would give stuff to him because he's still our intercessor. OK? OK. Well, thank you for spending so much time with me. Sure. I really appreciate it.

No problem at all. All right. Praise God. All right. Well, God bless.

OK. Folks, we don't have anybody else waiting right now if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. So if that helped, I hope that helps. Theology is interesting.

I enjoy it. And as I think about these things and deeper kinds of things, I get more reticent to go very much further because I don't want to conclude things that are just wrong. I mean, I don't know everything. I'd love to sit in a room with some real serious theologians, Christian theologian, philosophers, and just sit and discuss issues like this. I would love that because there are men and women out there who are far more knowledgeable than I am and who have been teaching theology and seminary level for decades.

I'd love to sit with them and just say, what about this? What about that? And let's talk about some things. But I have read a lot, and I have talked about these things a lot, and I have a pretty good understanding of a lot of it. And so I hope that that helps in that discussion. All right.

Well, anyway, so we don't have anybody waiting right now in the last ten minutes of the show, so if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. All right. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. We'll get some emails.

Let me try this one. Ooh, it's kind of a long one. We'll get to that. Man, hello, friend, can you please stop misrepresenting what they don't understand? Oh, this is, I think, this is the stuff about Catholicism. Yeah, how to be a Christian.

That's what the link is. I'm not going to get into where it is. And this series, Authority in Christ's Church. Christ's Church. Yeah, people in Christ.

I wonder what denomination or whatever this is. Okay. So I'm trying to figure it out. Anyway, no big deal.

Because a lot of them are Catholics, and I get a lot of stuff, and people say I misrepresent them. And this is what I say to people. Well, if I do misrepresent you, show me exactly how so that I can correct it. And you need to show me what I said, where it was, and what the correct position is. And it shouldn't be a difficulty to just document it.

But a lot of times people just say, hey, you're wrong. You misrepresented us. That's it. Who's the us, and what was it?

Hey, it happens. Let's get to Elizabeth from North Carolina. Elizabeth, welcome. You're on the air.

Thank you. I just have a question. I'm curious as to what you think about the ever-popular chosen. Well, it takes a lot of liberty, and that's not a problem, because it's called fictional license and things like that to fill the time. And there's been a couple of controversies here and there, the last one being with a pride flag on the set. That's an issue. And I understand they have the policy that everybody can wear what they want, so that's their thing.

And I don't know if I would allow that, but that's their thing. And then the guy who plays Jesus is a Roman Catholic, and he's basically into the occult, grave-sucking. It's called some other stuff. He does some weird stuff. So I don't like any of that stuff.

Yeah, I just found that out, actually, that he is a Catholic. So I was just wondering, you know, it seemed to have touched a lot of people that, you know, it wouldn't have touched. So I think there's probably some good, but also... I do have some more to add about this, though, because I want to lay that basis out. Once we have the basis out, then we apply a logical issue. We want to make sure that we don't commit what's called a genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is that the murderer next door taught me algebra, so therefore I can't trust algebra.

That's an example of the genetic fallacy. The source is bad, so therefore it is bad, and that's not true. So the information that's coming forth on that show is interesting. And I've watched every episode so far.

I haven't received it for a couple of months, don't know if it's been off for a couple of months or whatever. And I'll continue to watch them because I want to be up, because this is an important topic, so I have to be informed about it. So then in Philippians 1.18, Paul says that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice.

Yes, I will rejoice. What he's talking about is in verse 15, he says, Some preach Christ out of envy and strife, and some from good will. Some do it in order to cause him harm with impure motives. And so there's a lot of problems that people might have preaching the Gospel. But his conclusion is, I praise God that it's done. Even if they're not doing it the right way, it's done. And because of that, that's why I've reassessed some stuff recently, that's why I will say I'm glad it's on the air. I'd rather it was on the air than not.

Even if one of the Catholic guys praying Jesus, and even if the pride flag was there, I'd rather the stuff get out. And so there you go. That's what I would say. Okay. All right, thank you. You're welcome.

Just wanted your take on it. Okay, no problem. All right, thank you so much. God bless you. You too. All right, let's get to Jamin from Utah. Jamin, welcome, you're on the air. Hey, Matt, how are you? Hey. Hello, son, how are you?

Hey, man, how are you doing, buddy? Anyway, I had a quick, I'm good. Well, hold on, we're going to catch up a little bit. I was just thinking of you a couple of weeks ago. Oh, I know, but we only got four minutes. I was thinking about you, it wasn't good stuff, but at least I was thinking about you.

Yeah, I know, I appreciate it. I've got my plumbing test going tomorrow. I'm pretty excited about it, my state test. Well, hey, I'm supposed to come on down there in a few weeks because I know your dad's going to have an opening and stuff like that, but we'll all get together and do something. Yeah, it's exciting. It's going to be great.

I hope it's going to be awesome once it's all done. I've been helping him with some of the kind of design of some things just with my former film production design stuff that I know. You should come up here and help me with mine. You should come up here and help me with mine. Oh, sure. Let me know, let me know.

Yeah, you can sleep on the tent in the back, you'll be fine, but yeah, no sweat. Nice. That'd be great. So what do you got, man, what's up? Yeah, yeah, I got a question.

You know, it might be a real simple question. I'm just trying to understand in terms of, because I'm not sure to pinpoint a verse on it, because I understand women authority in terms of teaching and everything. And if I understand two areas where women are permitted in terms of teaching, it would be like other women and youth.

What does that look like? And correct me if I'm wrong on that, but what would it look like also if there's like a youth group and a student gave a lesson to the other students that is female? Would that be problematic as well? Or is that the same as a headship in terms? And what are your thoughts on that?

And if there's any other things on that? Yeah. Well, the way I would look at it is I'm trying to be as gracious as possible while also being as biblical as possible.

So I hope I can do both. And the Bible says that women are not to teach or there's authority over a man that remains quiet. So the issue is of maturity and manhood.

They're not to be in that position of authority. So I would say that as long as they're not teaching young men, a young man is still a man. And so they're not teaching young men, but are teaching boys and girls, then I would have no problem with that. Gotcha. Okay. So like if it was like the youth mixed together, obviously the boys and girls in their audience, if it was like a girl doing a lesson to the girls, that wouldn't be problematic.

But since they're mixed, that would be problematic. Well, if there's young boys and young girls in a single room in a woman's teaching, I don't have any problem with that. I think it's fine. The idea is that you're not to teach men. You're not to be in authority in ecclesiastical sense. You're not to be in authority over men in the church.

So that's what I would just stick with. But then we don't want to get so close. Where's the gray area?

Let's push that gray area. Well, what is exactly the right age for becoming a man? 17? 18? And then I would say, well, that's up to the elders of the church because you could have a 17-year-old who's not much of a man at all.

He might have emotional difficulties, some mental difficulties and not qualify because manhood is not just physical. There's more to it. And so we've got to look at it that way.

And there's the music. Hope that helps, buddy. Yeah, sounds good. No, good answer. You have a great afternoon, man. Take care. God bless. All right, Jamin. God bless, buddy. All right. All right. Bye-bye. That's Jamin.

He's the son of Bill McKeever. I've known him since, I don't know how many years. Anyway, hey, may the Lord bless you by God's grace. We're back on there tomorrow. Hey, we'll talk to you then. God bless you, buddy. Have a great evening.