It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at CARM.org.
When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live! For answers, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. 877-207-2276. And I want to hear from you. Give me a call, okay?
We have, let's see, three open lines. And if you want, you don't want to call, you can email me at info at CARM.org. And all you're going to do is just say, put it in the subject line, you know, radio question or radio comment. And I could do that, okay? So, okay, wow. That's interesting. So, let's see, put that over there.
Yeah, I just saw some potential whack-o-mail. So, it's a lot of interesting stuff going on. All right. There you go, there you go.
All right, so we have, like I said, three open lines, 877-207-2276. And I had an interesting experience today. So, my wife needed to go to the doctor, and a friend of mine was here, and so, you know, just appointment, normal stuff. And so, dropped her off, and then he and I just would cruise the Boise area and just cruise around and, you know, look at this stuff for a couple hours.
All right. So, I thought it was fun. I thought it was interesting. And so, we went to several places. And lo and behold, there's a Christian Science reading room.
And if you guys don't know what Christian Science is, it's a non-Christian cult. And I haven't really had to deal with them very much in the past few years, but I really, you know, I used to deal with them a great deal. And so, I went in there, it was my friend Dave, and just had a conversation. And, you know, you got to lay low. You don't want to say too much, you know, too quickly. And so, just laid low and talked and started the conversation. And from years ago, you know, I memorized stuff, and I said, yeah.
I said, one of the things I think is interesting is something that Mary Baker Eddy said in Science and Health with the Key to the Scriptures. She said, what's that? And I said, well, I said, it's, you know, page 25, line 8.
And she went and looked at it. And this is what it says. It says, the material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon the cross than when it was flowing through his veins as he went about doing his father's business. So, in other words, she just denied the efficacious nature of the atoning sacrifice. And I said, isn't that interesting? I said, she denies that the blood cleanses us, yet the Bible says that is what cleanses us, you know, Leviticus 17, 11. And other verses, and she tried to get out of it and tried to, you know, explain it away. I didn't let her know I knew too much, but, you know, okay, it's interesting. So, we went on, we went on, and we got into the conversation, and we got into the idea of oneness.
Now, not oneness, Pentecostal theology, but oneness as in monism, that everything in the universe is one thing. And that's what Christian Science and the New Age teach, it's one thing, one substance with different manifestations of it. And I said, yeah, that's a problem.
She goes, no, it's not. And I said, yeah, it is. I said, if everything is one substance, then how do you justify distinctions between objects?
Because if it's just one thing, it's just the same, different forms of the same one thing. And I said, if that's the case, how do you have truth statements since truth requires distinctions? And she didn't know what to do with that. And at that point, she said, you know, well, I don't want to, you know, debate this stuff. And I said, well, okay.
This is one of the issues that have been, you know. And so, we just talked to her, and I finally ended up with stuff saying about Mary Baker Eddy, the founder. I said, she's a plagiarist, and she had drug usage later on, and her Christian Science principles failed her because she died. And she didn't like that.
But, you know, you've got to say a little bit more as you get going because you know that the conversation is going to end soon. So that's what I did was I just wanted to hit her with something and say, you know, check this out. And it's not true. I said, oh, yeah, it is. Just go check. I don't know what sources you've been reading. She says, well, go check it for yourself. Go look. So anyway, that's what happened.
It isn't a big deal. But, you know, as my wife said to me, she said, you know, you've got it bad. And what that means is I've always got to find an opportunity, some way, to witness to people, to share the truth.
And those lost in the cult of Christian Science, it's a cult. So there you go. All right.
All right. Let's get on the air with Carol. Carol, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, how are you? Doing all right. Hanging in there.
So what do you got? Well, I heard you talking to a guy who was very adamant about the Flat Earth theory a few weeks ago. And I know that you said there were a lot of passages that would, you know, give us the evidence to be able to argue with these people. And I was wondering if you could give me some of those passages.
In the Bible? Yeah. Yeah. Flat Earth. Because there clearly was that he believed that it was good for creationalism to believe in Flat Earth. Yeah.
Flat Earth is stupid. Okay. It's just dumb. Well, that's what I'm saying. I was hoping that you could give me the evidence that I could provide with other people who may say something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's different. Okay. But biblical evidence or scientific one? Well, no. I was just looking at some of the passages in the Bible because I think that's where the dispute is. Yeah. So what they'll do is they'll say, for example, Isaiah 40, 22, It is he who sits above the circle of the earth. See, the earth is round and it's flat because the circle is flat. That's Isaiah 40, verse 22.
And they'll say, See, there you go. That's Isaiah, verse 40, 32? 40, 22. Oh, 40, 22. Got it. Uh-huh. So I'll say, Okay. All right.
So the earth is round. Right? Okay. All right.
Then, so if you go to Isaiah 11, 12, it says, And he will lift up a standard for the nations and assemble the banished ones of Israel, and he will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. So I'll say, Yeah? Okay. So, Well, the four corners tend to indicate not, wouldn't, I think is what they were saying. Yeah.
You broke up. So here's the point. Is that when they want to go to Isaiah 40, 22 to say the earth is a circle, I'll go to Isaiah 11, 12 and say the earth is four corners.
And if they say, Well, that's just showing directions. It's just a metaphor. I'll say, Well, so is a circle of the earth. So if they say the earth is square, I'm going to go to Isaiah 40, 22. It's a circle.
If they go to Isaiah 40, 22, I'm going to go to Isaiah 11, 12. It has four corners, to which is true. Well, those are good points to read.
And I do read my Bible, you know, separately, and I would definitely want to look at that and see how I could find my own words, you know, to say that again to someone who may want to have questions. But look, here's one of the things, the very simplest thing that I can show them that disproves flat earth, and it disproves it. It proves that it's false. It's an illustration. There's lots of ways to do this, but here's another one. And so I say, Imagine a table that's three feet in diameter. It's a circle.
And on that table is a map of the flat earth. Okay. And I say, Yeah, that's it. And you hold to the dome theory, right? Because that's what the 99% hold to, the dome theory, the dome over there, right? Yes, yes. And so I'll say, Okay, so let's just say that the dome is about two and a half feet tall, maybe three feet.
It doesn't really matter. Okay. So there it is. And inside, just underneath the high part, is the sun and the moon, right?
And I'll say, Yes. Okay, good. So let's just pick the moon. All right. Let's just pick the moon. And I said, So the moon, when we see it from the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere, we see the same face of the moon.
Okay. But if you have this arrangement of a dome over a three-foot-wide something and you put a ball up in it, you would write horizontally around the equator of the ball. You would write one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten around the equator. So it's all equally spaced numbers. And then you put this ball two and a half feet above the center on this three-foot-wide or three-foot-diameter table that people on one side of the Earth are going to see one set of numbers and on the other side you're going to see a different set of numbers. That's physically necessary. Yeah.
Why is it then that we, no matter what side of the Earth you're on, you see the same side of the Moon, which is essentially seeing the same set of numbers? Why do you see that? Yeah. I understand the scientific point.
It's just that there's so many other, the firmament and the creation and things like that. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I made a point, but you've got to understand this point. I actually drew a diagram on a piece of paper while you were describing that to how I could get a visual as well. But I did hear you say that to the other persons.
I did hear you give that description before, so I was familiar with that. Okay. But it's kind of hard to reach a person if that doesn't really hold a lot of weight to some people who are determined. Can you hold on? Can you hold on? Hold on. Okay. I'm trying to tell you this proves that their theory is false. Just because they don't accept it means you abandon it and then you go to something else.
You stay on it. Oh, I see. How would they see the same face if that model necessitates they would see different ones? And what they're going to want to do is dismiss it some way. You come back to it over and over and over again so that they memorize the issue and it won't sit well with them.
It made a point with me the first time I heard you say it. I could actually visualize and understand that. I figured that, you know, people don't accept things like that very easily is all I'm saying.
Like you said, they're determined. I know. I don't understand. I'm 60.
I'm almost 70 years old. And I don't understand why there's such a big uproar now all of a sudden about this flatter of fame. Because people are dumb. So here's the thing. They always have been.
Yes. I'm trying to tell you that this is one of the proofs and you need to really focus on it. It's simple to understand and it's very, very powerful. Don't let them just dismiss it.
It's very powerful. There's parallax issues as well. There are the northern star issues as well. And there's all kinds of videos that disprove the flat earth. But this is the simplest and the easiest that they can get. Okay. And that's why I said when you were saying that, the three foot table and the potentially two foot dome above, that makes good sense. And I actually was sketching that out. I wish there was an illustration that could you could because people, you know, pictures worth a thousand words and people see things. They don't hear things.
I'll try that. I appreciate that information. Another thing is that why is it you can see the moon in the day and the night, but you can only see the sun during the day? Where does the sun go?
I have no idea. For their perspective, where does it go? It's a problem. So what they tend to say is that the sun acts like a flashlight. I thought it went around the world, but yeah. Okay.
I'm trying to help you out here, okay? So what they'll say is that the sun acts like a flashlight, that it only points in a certain direction. And then you say, so it's a it's a flashlight. That's what it is. Yes. But the moon is not. They're both round.
It doesn't make any sense. There's a break. We've got to go. So thanks a lot, Carol. Okay. I appreciate you. I really appreciate you.
I'm going to call that back, ma'am. I appreciate you, sir. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks.
Thank you. We'll be right back after the message with the Trinity question. We'll be right back. 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. If you want to give me a call, two open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back.
I'm just used to saying it so much for the radio show. Okay. Hey, let's get on with Samuel from Las Vegas.
Samuel, welcome. You are on the air. Hello. How are you doing? Doing all right, man. Hanging in there. What do you got?
Nice. I have a question. From Trinity perspective, the doctrine is that Trinity is God.
No, I do not. Okay. So, in Trinity, if God is equal to our Trinity as a Trinity, and the Bible says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. So, how can we have three persons in the Godhead if Jesus is the image of the invisible God? In other words, Jesus would be the image of Trinity if Trinity is God.
Okay. So, how can we have three persons? Well, that's a false requirement that you're putting on to say that God is Trinitarian in nature, so therefore he must represent the Trinity.
You could also use the same logic and say God is everywhere, Jesus has to be everywhere. So, why isn't it that? So, what you're doing is you're only looking at one aspect of something, trying to find a problem, and then creating one where there is no problem. And that's one of the mistakes you're making. Okay. No, wait.
So, you do not agree that Trinity is God? You're not listening. Why don't you listen for a second? I'm trying to show you something. I'm trying to show you a logic error that you are making. And when I show it to you, the only thing you do is dismiss it. You dismiss it. I'm not dismissing.
Yes, you are. Then what did I say? Then what did I say? Repeat it back to Jesus. You said I'm making like a false assumption about I want to know what is the false assumption.
What is it? What is it that I said? I pointed out an error you made. So, I'm going to see if you're actually listening. And if you're just dismissing what I'm saying, you're not interested in a dialogue. So, what was it I pointed out that you're making a mistake in? Go ahead. What was it? No. You said I made a false assumption, and then you gave me an example.
What was it? I'm telling you. By saying that Trinity equals God, you gave me an example. Jesus is a human, like one person, but he could be everywhere. Okay. So, I said what you're doing is you're making a mistake in that you're taking an aspect of God and saying this is how Jesus must represent.
Nothing in the Bible says this is how he must do it. I said you could easily say that God is omnipresent, and then you have to then say from your logic, well, Jesus has to be omnipresent in his physical form, because that's representation of God. But that doesn't work. I'm just trying to show you that your logic is fallacious from the beginning. It's a false argument you have. Okay.
How? I just showed it to you, because you're taking one aspect of God and representing the problem with one aspect. Well, I can take another aspect and show you that it's an improper argument that you're producing. But you're not answering my question, though. You're avoiding my question.
Because your question is the wrong question. I'm trying to show you that it's a fallacious question. I'm trying to show you how your question... Why don't you listen for a second, buddy? Why don't you listen? I'm trying to show you... You don't like what I'm asking. You're just cutting me off. Why don't you... Hey, it's not your radio show. Look, be polite, please.
Okay? I'm trying to show you the logic problem you're having with your question. Then you refuse to deal with the issue that I raised, and you say you're not answering my question.
And I'm telling you, it's a problem. Your question isn't even a good question. You still want me to ask a bad question or answer a bad question. Okay.
Let me ask you another question. Wow. Go ahead. Do you believe that God is a Trinity? Yes. Okay. So God, I could say, instead of using the word God, I could use Trinity, and it would be the same meaning.
Nope. Oh, explain that for me, please. Because depending on the context that you use it, when it says Jesus Christ is God, it doesn't say that Jesus is the Trinity. Because then you have the fallacy...
I'm not talking about Jesus. Hey, dude, look. When I'm explaining something, can you stop interrupting me? All right? Look, all I got to do is just hit drop, and you're gone.
That's all I got to do. And when I'm explaining something, you keep doing the same thing. You keep stopping me and arguing. You're not even hearing what I'm saying.
So I got a question for you. Why are you calling me up, asking me questions, if you don't want to hear the answers? I do want to hear the answer, but you're giving me an answer. I didn't ask that question.
I asked, how is that God is not equal to Trinity in the Trinitarian perspective? I was trying to answer you, and you interrupted. What church do you go to? I prefer not to say.
Well, then we're not going to talk. You answer the question, we move along, because I want to know where you're coming from. Okay, what church do you go to?
It's an Ethiopian church. I believe in one God and one God only. Well, so do I. I only believe in one God. The Trinity is one God. You don't understand what the Trinity is, do you?
I do understand. This one God, three persons. One being. How many natures exist in God? In God. How many natures is God? Just one. One nature.
What is the nature? One God, one person. Okay, if it's one person, then I've got questions for you. Logic questions, and I've got Bible questions, okay?
Let's do the Bible questions first. When Jesus says he came down from heaven not to do his own will but the will of him who sent him, who is he talking about? Who sent him? He's talking about his deity. Okay, so his deity sent him from heaven?
Okay, so he's speaking as a man. So when Jesus was on earth, he was a man. Was he God? Yes, he is God. He is the only God.
So here's a question. When he says that he came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me, who's the him who sent Jesus? The Father.
The Father. Is Jesus the Father? Yes. So Jesus sent himself? Is that what you're saying? Yes, yes.
So I, that's the Father, came down from heaven not to do my own will, which is the Father's will, but the will of the Father who sent me. That's what you're saying? You see the problem here? Okay. No, no, no, no. I will say yes.
Really? But if we take that and apply it to the Trinity, then... No, no, no, no. Hold on, hold on. No, no, no. This is the problem. Stop. Stop. Listen.
Listen. I know exactly what you believe and I know exactly where to put the pressure to show you and others that you don't have the truth. I have come down from heaven. You say that's the Father. The Father came down from heaven but says not to do my own will. Who's the my when it says not to do my own will that came down out of heaven?
Who is that? Okay. Okay. Here is the problem.
If Jesus is the second person and the Father is the first person in the Trinity... Hold on. We've got to break. That means they have their own will.
They have two wills. Hold on. We've got to break. Hold on. We've got to break. Okay, folks. This is classical oneness heresy and listen closely.
I'm going to show you by repetition how to refute this guy. That's what it takes. We'll get back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.
Here's Matt Slick. Okay, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Now, I can't get Samuel back on because we have a new system. The producer has got to get him going after I hit hold. So I'm waiting for him to click him back on so that we can get back on to the discussion.
It's one of the issues here with this right now. If you could activate him so I can get back in. That's Samuel on Trinity question, which I'm hoping we can get back to him. Okay, come on. I'm waiting. If we can't do that, we'll have to put him on hold or keep him on hold. We'll get to the next caller, which I think I'll have to do now.
So if you can hear me, just hold on, and they're going to figure out what happened. On air, Andrew. I can click him on, but I can't re-click him on.
Anyway, we'll get Samuel back on. Andrew, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. What's going on?
A little tech issue. That's what's going on. What do you got, man? What's up? Oh, you can hear me? Yeah. Hey, cool.
I've got a question about when atheists always ask what happens to somebody who never hears the gospel or never hears the word of God or anything like that. Yeah, okay. Do you think that Isaiah 66 verse 19 answers that question?
Can you look it up real quick? 66, 19, I will sort of sign among them, and they will send survivors from them to the nations. So that's an interesting verse for that. This is dealing with Jerusalem. So here's the thing about verses, that we always have to be careful not to take a verse that's intended for a certain context and a group of people in the Old Testament that apply it to the New. Like, don't touch my anointed. That deals with certain people, not modern-day prophets.
Or, I know the plans I have for you, to prosper you, not to curse you. And then people take that and mean it for today. But that was meant only for Israel in a certain context. So people do this all the time.
They don't do proper exegesis. So I'm saying that if we had something like this that said I will let all people know all over the world that, then you got something. But what it's talking about here in the context is the issue of the nation of Israel, or of Jerusalem specifically. So without having gone over it in depth, I would be reticent to say it would be good.
But if you were to use it contextually, then you could do it. You could say, well, this was something meant for Jerusalem that their fame would be known throughout the world. Or throughout these various nations.
One, two, three, four, five, six different nations. The distant coastlands that have never heard my fame or seen my glory. So I'd say, now even though this is specifically addressed to Jerusalem, but he does talk about other apparent nations. So I would say, now that I'm thinking about it out loud, I'd say, yeah, that might be a good verse for that.
God has his way of communicating to people about his fame and glory. So have you looked at it? Yeah, maybe so.
Because this has coastlands too, all of them. So by his glory. So maybe. All right. Are you there? Okay, what's going on? We're having a phone problem.
Let's see. Samuel, are you back on? Yes, can you hear me?
Yeah, I wonder what happened to the other caller and all of a sudden he's gone and now you're on, you're up. So you asked him about the Trinity, right? Yes. Okay, we'll just go with the flow then. All right, so I asked you a question. All right.
Yes. So if God is one person, you have a serious problem with that biblically. Because Jesus said, this is the will of him who sent me. You said the him is the father. Who's the me? Him who sent me.
Who's the me? Jesus, the body of Jesus Christ. So this is the will of the father who sent me, the human body, right? That of all that he's given me. Sorry, that was verse 39.
I'm going to go to verse 38. For I have come down from heaven. Who's the I who came down from heaven? The father? Jesus. You mean Jesus? The physical body was in heaven? Yes. The physical body was in heaven?
No, but he doesn't have to be in physical form to come down. He was the word of God. The word of God?
What do you mean? Isn't the word the father? Jesus is the word.
Wait a minute. The word was with God and the word was God. Jesus is the word. So Jesus is the word, but the word was with God. So how can it be that the word, which is God, is with God?
How is that possible? No, if you go down on verse 14, it says the word became flesh. Yes, but I asked about John 1. You brought it up. I got it, but you're not listening.
You're not listening. The question is, how can the word, which is God, also be with God? If it is God, how is it with God? Because he is God?
So that doesn't answer the question. How can he be with God if he is God? But God says, yeah, I counsel with myself. How can he say with?
The problem that you have here is because you say with. But the word is God, right? And yet the word was with God. Yes, Jesus is the word of God. Okay, so let's go back to John 6.38. So who's the I who came down from heaven?
Specifically, who is it? Jesus. That can't be the case.
That's wrong. Because Jesus, do you agree that Jesus has two natures? Two natures? God and man. When he lived, back in the day when he lived, yes. He was God and man, right? So, God and man, that union is Jesus. The union didn't exist in heaven, so it couldn't have been Jesus. Because Jesus, by definition, is the union of the divine and the human nature.
That's who Jesus is. That didn't exist before the... Okay, you're saying that the Father came down? No, I'm not saying that.
You're saying that. No, I think Jesus came down. But Jesus didn't exist in heaven. Jesus only existed... He was the word of God.
He did. He said, before Abraham, I am. Before Abraham was, I am, John 8.
Look, here's the thing. Jesus, by definition, is the union of the divine nature and the human nature. It's called the hypostatic union. That union began 2,000 years ago. The divine nature is eternal. The human nature has a beginning.
The union of those two natures is called the hypostatic union. That occurred 2,000 years ago. It didn't exist in heaven. It did not exist in heaven. Jesus didn't come down from heaven because he wasn't existing in two natures in heaven before he was born. But I never said he existed in two natures.
I said he was the word of God. Does Jesus have two natures, divine and human, on the earth when he was there, does he? Yes, but that's after the Old Testament. I'm talking about before the New Testament.
You're not hearing. When Jesus was born, walking on the earth, he had two natures, right? A divine nature and a human nature, right? That is who Jesus is by definition. He has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature.
That's who Jesus is. That didn't exist before that time. That union did not exist before that. This is where we differ.
I believe that he did exist as the word of God. Dude, you don't listen. The union did not exist prior to that.
You're not listening. Dude, I'll say it again. The union of the divine nature and the human nature is called the hypostatic union in the person of Christ. Yes, we agree on that. The union did not occur until he was in the womb of Mary. I never said it did. The union is who we call Jesus. Jesus in the hypostatic union did not pre-exist.
How did Jesus exist before he came down? The word pre-existed, not the union of the two natures. Jesus by definition is the union of both natures.
That union didn't occur until, yes, that's what it is. It is the manifestation of God. No, he's not. He's the incarnation. Manifestation is something that occurred in the Old Testament. Incarnation is the permanent indwelling in bodily form. That's who Jesus is. This union of the divine nature and the human nature occurred 2,000 years ago. 3,000 years ago, Jesus did not exist because he hadn't been born.
He hadn't the two natures yet. So we've got a break, so think about that when we come back and I ask you, I came down from heaven. Who's the I?
It can't be Jesus because the union didn't occur until he was on earth. We'll be right back, folks, after these messages. Please stay tuned. Welcome back to the show. Let's see, Sam, if you could get Sam back on there, Mr. Producer dude, because we have a new guy in there behind the scenes and I can't seem to reactivate.
We did have the system. It was working before that way where I could. Okay, Sam, are you still there? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Perfect. Perfect. I'm trying to show you how your position fails.
It's not true. I'm trying to show it to you. Okay, but you just told me before the break that Jesus is not the manifestation of God. No, manifestation is something an angel does. Jesus is the incarnation.
It's a permanent dwelling. He manifests God in one sense, but he's an incarnation. He's the exact representation of the nature of God, as Hebrews 1 talks about. Why does the Bible say that God was manifested in the flesh in the New Testament? Yeah, I'm being more technical than that verse requires.
That's all. So, Jesus has two distinct natures, a divine nature and a human nature. That's called the hypostatic union. Jesus is one person, right? Yes. Not two persons, but one. So, when Jesus says, I came down from heaven, who's the I that's speaking? Jesus. The person of Jesus?
Right? No, Jesus as a whole. He came down from heaven.
Yeah, Jesus as a whole. So, Jesus, the human nature came down from heaven? Did the human nature come down from heaven? The flesh came from heaven. The flesh existed in heaven? As the word, not as the flesh.
No, no, no. The flesh, the body, don't play with words. The fleshly body, did it exist in heaven? The flesh existed in the New Testament only, started when Mary was born.
Let's try this. You said it. It started when Mary was born. So, Jesus said, I, but that's Jesus, who has two natures, the human nature and the divine nature. Did the human nature exist in heaven? No. Okay.
So, then, how is it, then, that Jesus, who is speaking as a single person with two natures, is speaking about coming down from heaven? Do you have an answer for that? Yes. Okay. So, Jesus existed prior to the New Testament, but not as a person. Not as a person. Not in the flesh.
Wait a minute. Jesus, by definition, is a person. How could he?
You don't make any sense. Jesus, by definition, is a person. You say he pre-existed, but not as a person, but it was Jesus. But Jesus is a person. You say he existed not as a person. You're contradicting yourself.
No. He did not exist as Jesus. For example, he was not in a flesh. He did not have the name Jesus. He was the word of God. So, when God said, let there be light, Jesus was the word.
That was the word. So, when Jesus says, I came down from heaven, who's the I? Is it the Father? Jesus. But Jesus didn't exist until he was born, until he was in the womb.
The union. As a man. He did not exist as a man. Dude.
Dude. Think. Jesus is the union between the divine and human natures. That began 2,000 years ago. Jesus did not pre-exist.
The word did. But not the person of Christ, because the person of Christ is an incarnation. The incarnation didn't occur until 2,000 years ago. So, when he says, I came down from heaven, is it the person that's speaking? Yes.
Jesus came down from heaven as a man, but before that he was the word. Okay. So, the answer is in the communication of the properties.
The attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person. So, is the word also the Father? Yes. Okay. So, the Father came down from heaven, right? The word is one of the characteristics of the Father.
Okay. So, the Father? The word, intelligence, everything is the characteristic of the Father.
Okay. So, the Father came down from heaven not to do my own will. Who's my will that he's not doing, that the Father's not doing? Who's the my that is not doing the will of the Father?
But he's speaking as a man. Oh, so it's just the human nature speaking? Is that what it is? Is it the human nature not to do my own will?
Is it just the human nature speaking? Is that what you're asserting now? Yes. Well, then you're an historian. How? An historian is a heresy.
How? Because now what you have is the one body of Christ has two persons. A human person and a divine person. That's an historianism because that's not what you're saying now. You're saying not to do my own will. That's the human nature will. Because now all of a sudden, I, that's the Father, that's the divine nature, the Father speaking, came down from heaven not to do my own, and then the my is now the fleshly nature. So now you have suddenly the two natures speaking alternately.
Okay. I don't understand what you mean by two natures speaking alternately? You said already that he has two natures. So how can you say you don't understand what he's saying by two natures? As a man?
Yes, he does. Yes, as a man and in his deity. Right, that's two natures. So as a man, he needs an example for us to follow.
Got that. But in his deity, he is God. Which nature was speaking according to you? I came down from heaven, you said that's the Father, that's the divine nature. Not to do my own will.
I did not say that. That's just the Father. Not to do my own will.
Who's the my? Is it the divine nature or the human nature speaking here from your perspective? As a human, he's saying that I'm not doing my own will, but I came down to do my Father's will. Oh, but he is the Father. Jesus.
Yes, he is the Father. So how can he not do his own will if he's the will of the Father? You came down to do his own will but not his own will? Can you make sense of that? This is why your position doesn't make any sense.
That's just one of the areas I can show you. This is what I do with one of the Pentecostals of the same argument with the same position you do. I just go through here and I just show them how ludicrous it is for your position to hold any water. Because you are in the story and you're a heretic.
Okay, if that's the case, I'd like to apply the same thing to both sides of the story. If that's the case, how does that make sense in the Trinity? Easy. How can Jesus have his own will and the Father have his own will?
Easy. The Father is a person. The Word is a person. The Holy Spirit is a person. It's called the doctrine of the Trinity.
Now, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, we have the union of the divine and human nature. And the one person, by definition, Jesus has one will manifested as one person. Now, there's what's called diethylatism, where there's a will of each nature. And that's called diethylatism. But they're manifested as one will.
I'm trying to explain it. They are manifested as one will, and Jesus as a person has that one will. And he's speaking because of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, which is that the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person. So Jesus will say, I am thirsty, human nature.
I will be with you always, divine nature. He's claiming the attributes of both. So he speaks from the single person, and he says not to do my own will. So even from heaven, he came down to do a will different than the Father's. So they have two different wills. There's a distinction of wills. So there's a distinction of wills and the Trinity from the Father and the Son.
That's right. There's a distinction in wills. But then there's another doctrine called the... How can there be a distinction in the will of the Godhead?
I'm trying to explain. There's a doctrine called the divine simplicity and another one called perichoresis. The divine simplicity says that God is one substance, one thing, but the one thing is Trinitarian. And the perichoresis says that each of the members of the Godhead, the persons, are mutually indwelling each other because they're the one thing. So they ultimately have one will, but they also have distinctions of wills within them. So if their will is one, then apply the same verse you applied to me, to the Trinity. What would be your answer?
I just gave you the answer. But earlier you said they have distinct will, and now you said they have the same will. They have distinction because they are distinct persons. But yet, because of the perichoretic relationship, they all mutually exist, and the manifestation of all the distinct wills is as well. Wait. The distinction is like their person, not as being their deity. No.
You're not hearing. Divine simplicity says that God, the divine being, is one substance. The one substance is triune. That's what it is.
Okay. The one substance, like the fool, like the Godhead, is triune. That's exactly right.
That's what you're saying. That's why Jesus can say he came down not to do his own will, but the will of one who sent him. He was sent by the Father.
Jesus, if he is the Father, can't be sent by himself. Okay. So in the Bible, yeah, it says the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus. Yeah. Colossians 2.9. Okay. So if the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus, there is no distinction, like there is nothing left.
Everything that makes up Trinity or God is in Jesus. No. You don't understand what you're criticizing. I would suggest, because we're almost out of time, but I would suggest that you really start studying the doctrine of the Trinity in depth because you don't understand these levels of doctrine.
No. I do understand it. Look, I've been teaching it and defending it for years, decades, decades. I've had thousands of conversations on the Trinity. I'm telling you, you have a mediocre understanding of the Trinity, and for this kind of discussion, you need to have a better and deeper understanding. You need to study divine simplicity, perichoresis, you need to study these things.
And, oh crud, there's a third doctrine. Oh, man. I hate it when I do that. You're relying on things that you did. Like, I did this for a decade, I did this for that, but for me, that doesn't mean... No, I'm not relying on it. I'm just telling you, I know what it is. I'm defending it a long time. You don't know. If it's not in the Bible, I would not accept it. Just like my stance. I don't care if someone did it for 60, 80 years.
People could live in this earth for 90 years and could be wrong. Okay, you're wasting time. And the other doctrine you need to study is called inseparable operations. So it's the Trinity. You need to study that. You need to study the divine simplicity, the perichoresis, and inseparable operations. These are the doctrines you need to study, along with the aseity of God and the immutability of him. And you don't understand these doctrines well enough.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, okay? I'm just saying you don't understand them well enough to be able to discuss them on this level. And you need to, if you discuss it, you need to. No, you don't. What's inseparable operations?
I've spoken with many Trinitarians, okay? What's inseparable operations? To answer the simplest questions. Inseparable, I never heard that before. Yeah, but you say you know this stuff. By the way, I want you to know English is my second language. So there are so many words that I do not know.
What's your first language? I'm hard. I'm hard.
I'm hard. Okay, sorry. I don't know what it is.
But hey, look, there's the music. Call back tomorrow and do some research so we can talk. And you need to study John 6.38.
That's just one of the verses I've got. You call back tomorrow, I'll show you something even more difficult for you to answer if you are interested. Okay? But hey, thanks for talking. Got to get going. May the Lord bless you. We're out of here, everybody. Talk to you tomorrow, Becca.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-09-28 10:43:53 / 2023-09-28 11:02:56 / 19