Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of )

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

If you would like to learn more about the Truth Network Podcast, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. Please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com.

Please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. If you would like to learn more, please contact us at info.com. I think people might be interested in that.

I think they might be interested in just having an opportunity to just come on with voice and or camera. They can challenge me or just ask questions. And I really love answering questions. I do. I love doing the radio. I love going to Discord. And I go into a room and people just flock.

They just say, hey, can we ask you a question? Sure. And I enjoy that. And it's great.

So, I don't know, I'm built for it, I guess. You know, so I do what I do here. Anyway, we'll see what happens.

If you think it's a good idea, let me know. You can say, now, Jimmy Smythe says, great idea, Matt. So that's one person. I wonder what anybody else would say. Last night was a great new thing, Humbled Clay says.

Great for who, Humbled Clay? Uh-huh. Let's see.

And someone in Clubhouse says, Warren McGrew and Chris Fisher do nothing but mock their opponents in Calvinist ancestry. So, anyway, that's what he said. And so if you want to watch the show, you want to see me, trust me, you're not missing anything. But some people like to do that. They like to see what I look like. My voice matches my face, which doesn't.

People say it doesn't. So you can watch by just going to carm.org forward slash radio. And you'll see the links and stuff in there. And also you can get in by Rumble. You can go to Rumble and you'll watch the show and participate in the people who chat.

It's really nice. And a long, good conversation. Yeah, we did have that last night. So to go to Rumble, you just rumble.com forward slash mattslicklive. And there you go. See, easy peasy. Let's get to David from Texas. David, welcome. You're on the air.

How's it going? Can you hear me? Yes, I can. I can.

I can hear you. No problem. Okay. So what do you got now? So, yeah, well, so I've been an atheist for about 20 years.

I called in a long time ago and I stopped calling because I think you went off the air for a while. Anyways, I'm open to any question you have for me. But if you don't have a question, my question is, why is it that the Bible, when it was originally formulated, had the Apocrypha? I mean, this is a question of fact, so if I'm wrong, tell me. But then it wasn't removed until around 1800, meaning that the Bible would have, I guess, from a Protestant perspective, was wrong for 1400 years. Well, the Apocrypha was never in the Bible. If people tell you that it was and that it was originally inspired Scripture, then respectfully I want to say that they are misinformed. So there are, for example, I think it's in Luke 11 43.

I'll show you a couple of things here. Because the Apocrypha was written between roughly 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. Okay, so I'm trying to find this one verse and I always have trouble with it.

There we go, I found it. So this is what it says in, Jesus says in Luke 11 51, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah. That's what he says, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who was killed between the altar and the house of God. He goes on, why did he say from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah? Because Abel was in the book of Genesis and Zechariah was in the book of Chronicles. But Chronicles was the last book of the arrangement that the Jews had. We have the exact same books, we just arranged them differently today.

I don't know why it changed. But they had the same book and where we have Malachi as the last book, they had Chronicles as the last book. So what he was saying was from the first to the last book of the Old Testament and that excluded the Apocrypha. Furthermore, when you go to Luke 24, let's see, 2444 I believe it is, Jesus says, These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which were written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms will be fulfilled. So the law of the prophets and the Psalms are the divisions of the Old Testament which excluded the Apocrypha books. Because they were already known as the law of the prophets and the Psalms before the Apocrypha was ever written. So what Jesus was doing was saying what is written about me is in the law of the prophets and the Psalms. And that is excluding the Apocrypha books.

So if he would have said all about me in Moses, the prophets, the Psalms and Maccabees or whatever, but he never did that, never mentioned it. So Jesus himself never recognized those books as being authentic and nor did the Jews recognize them as being authentic. So today the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are highly misinformed when they want to say the Protestants took it out of the Bible.

It was never in to begin with. Well, if you were around back then, could you have found a Bible that did not have it in there? Oh no, they were, the King James, the original King James translated the Apocrypha with the New Testament scripture, with the Bible. But it doesn't mean that it was inspired. So it was never considered to be inspired. I'm sorry? Yeah, well I'm saying that Protestants think that it doesn't belong in there.

So I'm already kind of assuming they don't think it was inspired. No, no, hold on, we've got a break. Hey folks, we've got a break here and if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with David from Texas.

Dave, welcome, you're on the air. Thank you. I just wanted to point out something a little bit off topic, but right before I got on you were saying that people say your voice doesn't match your face. I believe I met you once when I was a little kid back in California when I still lived there on the street corner and passing up tracks. Nothing to do with anything, just that I mentioned that.

Cool. Where, where in California? I was in the budget, no.

What city? I mean, at that time, I think I lived in Reno Valley. Oh yeah, yeah. Yeah, I was a pastor there. Yeah, I don't know how far we got to see it, but.

Well, I hope we weren't too traumatized. No, no. Okay.

I was with my mom, I think she just wanted to meet you because I guess she had been talking to you or something, I would probably assume. Okay. But anyway, so just to clarify what I was saying earlier, I'm not suggesting that, when I, I don't want to say Christian because that could, I want to divide context from Protestant here, so whatever you want to call yourself, if you want to say Protestant, I'll say something else. I'm not saying that Protestant ever viewed the Apocrypha as scripture, I'm just saying whatever it was, it was in the Bible.

And that was not correct, isn't that clear? You've got to be careful when you say in the Bible. And, for example, when you, there's two ways of saying, of meaning that, in the Bible as in, it was in the corpus of biblical documents, it was included in a big book of them, or it was in because it was inspired. So there's at least 21 books mentioned in the Bible that are not scripture, like the book of Wars, book of Jasher, Chronicles of David, the words of Kings of Israel, the decree of David and the King of Israel. Not to mention Paul the Apostle quotes three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander, and Erastus.

So just because they were, so to speak, included in certain quotes doesn't mean they're inspired. Furthermore, the Apocrypha is never quoted by the New Testament writers as being authentic, but the Old Testament is. And I can give you a bunch of other reasons why the Apocrypha doesn't work.

If you want, I can list out seven or eight. No one ever quotes the Song of Solomon either, but it's in there. Well, but it's included in the corpus of the Law of the Prophets and the Psalms.

And so in the categories, it is there. And Esther, they say, isn't quoted either directly. But this is why we say, as Jesus said in Luke 24, 44, everything is written about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. So that's included. The Song of Solomon is included in there.

So that's all that's going on. But the Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as scripture. And what's interesting is in Romans 3, 2, it says the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Paul the Apostle, he was a disciple of Jesus. He knew the Apocryphal books. He knew other stuff, too.

He was incredibly well educated, highly intelligent. He said the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and the Jews rejected the Apocrypha. The Catholic Church did not include the Apocrypha until the Universal Council of Trent in 1546. And it was in response to the Reformation.

They never included it and officiated it until 1546. Many church fathers reject the Apocrypha as scripture. And so, not that I believe in all the church fathers, but many of them said, no, no, no, it's not scripture. The Apocrypha contains no predictive prophecy.

None. In fact, Maccabees, which is part of the Apocrypha, says there were no prophets in Israel. If there were no prophets in Israel at that time, then how could Maccabees have been inspired? Because God worked through the prophets to write what he did.

So it would be inspired. So it has no predictive prophecy. Furthermore, it teaches giving money for the sins of the dead.

Money? That's completely unbiblical. It contains a historical error, at least one of them, when it teaches Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians in Judith 1-5.

But that's not true. So you see, the Jews knew about this and the Christians knew about this stuff. They didn't consider it scripture. It's old writings and it was cool. So when King James commissioned the Old and New Testaments to be translated, they included the Apocryphal books because there's a lot of historical information in them. They weren't considered inspired, but he just included them in the translation process because they're so valuable. But it doesn't mean they're inspired. Right.

Let's put it this way. If I see an index or a table of contents, I'm not going to mistake that for being scripture. But if for some reason I put the Book of Mormon in the Bible, you probably wouldn't like that because it kind of gives the idea that it's part of the Bible when it isn't. So if the Apocrypha is not part of the Bible, why was it in every book that someone would pick up to read? It's not. The Bible I had doesn't have it. No Bible that I have has it.

Until the 1800s when it was moved. No, no, no. Don't make the mistake of thinking. Okay. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Apocrypha was considered scripture.

I just gave you the reasons why it's not. And I gave you the reason why it was translated in because it has important historical information in it. But it has mistakes in it. God's Word doesn't have mistakes. Jesus excluded the Apocrypha and the disciples excluded the Apocrypha as scripture.

So those are the facts. So if you want to say, well, why is it included? Because if it was, I don't know if that's the case or not.

It's because it was an important historical document and they were sometimes used for references. But they understood it was not scripture. Okay? That's it.

It's not scripture. Okay. Well, okay, so from here I'm going to begin the two creative things and I'm going to go to another caller again. If you have a question for me, I'll take any questions about atheism you want. Well, if you want to call back, we have three callers waiting. And if you call back, I can question you about the validity of your atheism and what justifies knowledge and rationality in your worldview. You can think about that and then call me back and see if you can come up with an answer. What day do you do?

Monday through Friday. I can show you, for example, are you a materialist? Do you believe that the universe is all there is? That's a positive claim.

I wouldn't be able to make that claim. Okay. So does everything – I'll show you something. Do you believe – I mean, just find out what you believe. Do you believe that everything operates in the universe, operates under the laws of physics? Do you believe that? Yes.

Yes? Well, that refutes your atheism. And I'll show you how. Okay. This is the kind of stuff I do with atheists. I say, look, if everything operates under the laws of physics and chemistry and motion and matter and all that kind of stuff, then that means your physical brain is limited to the physical laws of chemistry. Okay, then that means one chemical state in your brain that leaves another chemical state is a chemical necessity, which means from the atheistic worldview that you hold, which requires a materialistic worldview, that everything operates just under necessary chemical reactions, then your belief in atheism is a necessary chemical reaction. It doesn't mean it's true. Therefore, that position in atheism casts doubt on itself and its own validity.

Therefore, you can't trust it, so it refutes itself. Okay. Real simple. Call back tomorrow or later if you want me to talk to you more about it. I'll show you some more stuff. Okay? All right, buddy.

We've got a break. Okay? And thanks for being polite. I appreciate it.

Okay. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's get on with Scott from Spokane.

Scott, welcome back, man. Hey, how's it going? It's going.

It's going. What do you got, buddy? Yeah, so I have a few.

I'll start with the easy ones. John 1.25, they say to Jesus, Why then are you baptizing if you're not the Christ? And when I was reading that, it made me think, Is there anywhere in scripture that's prophesied that Jesus will be specifically coming to baptize?

Not that I'm aware of. So they were talking, I believe that's to John. John said that. Why are you baptizing if you're not the Christ? But that's a good question.

Because Christ's disciples did do baptism. That's a look at that. That's a good question. Yeah. Okay, I got another one. Or the prophet, and that's prophesied in Deuteronomy 18.

So that's a good question. Yeah, I saw that already. I was just wondering if I missed anywhere.

But yeah, so I got another one. I was just wondering if you could show me some of the verses that really show and reflect inseparable operations. Yes, for that you want to go to, let's see, John 5. Let's see if I remember it correctly. John 5, 19.

Yes. Let me explain what it is first, so as for people to understand. Inseparable operations is the position that the Godhead are inseparable, and that what is operating in one operates in the other, yet distinction is retained. So one of the verses used to support that is John 5, 19. The son can do nothing of himself unless it is something he sees, present tense.

He sees the Father doing. So that's one thing. And Jesus says in John 5, 30, I can do nothing of my own initiative. As I hear, I judge. Well, these are present tense conditions and actions that Christ is relating to God.

So therefore, these are the things that we would use to support inseparable operations. Okay. Okay, is there any more than John 5 that I haven't seen? Let's see, I wrote an article on it. Let's see if I did put more in there on that.

Those are the two I just happen to remember. And so let's see. I don't know about that one. Come on, where are you?

Oh, interesting. So here we go. I've got my article.

And come on, open up. So we have John 6, 38. I've come down from heaven not to do my own, but the will of him who sent me. So he's doing, in present tense, the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, he'll teach you.

That's a futurist one. The Helper comes whom I will send to the Father. So the Father and the Son both send the Holy Spirit. So there's an inseparability there. And John 16, 13, the Spirit will not speak of his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak.

There's some noise in the background. And so this is how the Holy Spirit contains or is said to contain the same attributes inseparably of the Father and the Son. Okay? Okay, you've got time for one last quick one?

Yes, go ahead. Okay, so the Jews, apparently, they're still waiting for a Messiah. And so my question is, at the time of Christ, they were hoping for a Messiah to take care of the Romans and establish sort of a just rule for Jews.

What are they waiting for now? I mean, what is their eschatology like for a Jew? Well, I think there's divisions within Judaism in answering that question. And from what I understand, they are still waiting for the Messiah to come here.

And some Jews just look at it as, I think what they do is they look at it as just a symbol. It's not really going to happen in the literal sense. So I don't have a whole bunch of knowledge on that. I have a friend who knows a lot about that kind of stuff.

Maybe we could have him on sometime and have him as a guest host and people can fire questions about Judaism on them. That might be a good idea, set it up like two weeks in advance. Yeah, that sounds fun. Yeah. Okay.

Well, yeah, that's all I got. I will go into Roscoe now and have a good day, my friend. Okay. You too, man. God bless, buddy.

All right. Now let's get to Elijah from Philly. Elijah, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, man, how you doing today?

Doing all right, hanging in there. So what do you got, buddy? Yeah, my question is about the statement where Jesus said, unless you believe that I am, you'll die in your sins. I'm going to give you my response to how I would answer a Unitarian. You're a Unitarian?

No, no, I'm Trinitarian. But I'm saying I'm going to give you my response to how I would answer them. And I would like to know what you think of my response. So if a Unitarian would have told me that Jesus in that verse is not saying that he's God, but he's saying that unless you believe that I'm the Messiah, you will die in your sins. I would respond by saying Muslims also believe that Jesus is the Messiah and they also believe that Jesus is the Messiah and they're still going to die in their sins as well.

So that argument doesn't work. So what do you think of my response? That's a good response.

I'm going to steal it, use it, and claim it for my own. That's pretty good. Did I say that out loud? Oh, man. That's pretty good. I like that. Yeah. Good stuff.

Yeah, thanks. Yeah, and I also thought about maybe a counterargument that they might throw at me. So the counterargument that I imagined in my head is that maybe they would say, yeah, Muslims do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but they don't believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day. So that's what truly damned them, not them, you know, believing that Jesus is God or whatever.

So what do you think about that response and how would you respond to that? I'd say, well, that he didn't say in John 8 24 that you have to believe he rose. He just says you have to believe that he is the I Am. So the resurrection issue isn't what Jesus clarified as being necessary. So since the the Quran uses the word Christ numerous times, which is the equivalent of Messiah, so then they're believing.

I'd say the Unitarians apparently they're believing what you believe. I like that. That's pretty good. Yeah.

Good stuff, man. Hey, I got one for the Muslims I ask. I say in the Old Testament, the name of God, Yahweh, is used like 6000 times or something like that.

It's just insane. And in fact, let me go check. So I always have to remember this.

Let's see. First Kings 8 60. And it says Yahweh is Elohim. All right.

So what I'm going to do is do a search for that exact. And it occurs six thousand five hundred seventeen times. So I say to the Jews, I say his name, I mean, to the Muslims, I say his name is I Am. That's what he says. I give him the information. I said, how come he's never called that in the Koran?

How come he's never said to be the I Am? It's a good question. Anyway, so good stuff, man. All right.

Appreciate it. Can I ask you one more question? Sure. Go ahead.

Okay. I have I have a Bishop Jerry Hayes's book called Godhead Theology. And I'm trying to find a page in here, but he had a commentary on Mark twelve twenty nine. And if I remember correctly, as I try to find it. But if I remember correctly, he said in Mark twelve twenty nine. If you look at the Greek there, he said that he said that I think he said that the word for one there is a is a numerical one. And so this is so his argument was that Jesus was saying that God is one person in Mark twelve twenty nine.

Yeah. But it doesn't say that. That doesn't say that, though.

Is there a younger year? It doesn't say God is one person. It says he's one Lord. That's what it says.

So, great. It's quoting it. And in Hebrew, you know, are different words for the word one means only one. It cannot mean composite where it can mean composite as well as being simply a non composite one. But it is used in the Shema of Deuteronomy six four.

But from what I understand in Greek, there isn't a an equivalent of Yaqid and I had distinction. So they use the one piece. So that's what I understand. And so that's why.

So I know Jerry. I've talked to him many times and he's he's he's wrong in that. It's a misapplication. Interesting. They're also in the same book. You've used nursing because also in the same book. He admits in I think it's what John 10 30 where Jesus said, I am my father, I want he admits that right there.

The one is not a numerical one. OK, well, yeah, he's got issues. I've talked to him many times. We need to have a debate. There's a break coming up. So we got to go, buddy. OK, God bless, man. Thank you. Thanks for calling.

All right. Hey, folks, we right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. Everybody, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on here. Let's get to Steve from Las Vegas.

Steve, welcome here on the air. Hey, how are you doing, man? God bless you, man. Hey, thanks, man.

OK. I want to say I want to say I thank the Lord for you and your ministry. I think you do a fantastic job. My prayer goes out for you and your wife.

I know it's kind of difficult, you know, with the ministry and her being sick and also really appreciate it. I got a few questions. One question is I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. I may not know it as deep as you do. I know in one one of the debates I watched you debate.

You said you've been studying it since 1980. So where does God fit? So my question is, yeah, my question is, is usually when I, you know, talk with people that deny or reject the deity of Christ, they'll bring up Mark 13. And the objection usually sounds like this. They'll say, well, if Jesus is all God, how does it not know that they are the hour of his return will be your best response back to that question?

Well, there's two responses I give. One is to go to John, I mean, Revelation, 1912. And it says there, it's talking about Jesus. His eyes are a flame of fire and on his head are many diadems. And he has a name written on him which no one knows except himself. Well, wait a minute. Does that mean that Jesus has a name on him which no one knows except himself? No, that means God the Father doesn't know, so therefore the Father doesn't know everything, so therefore the Father is not God. You see the problem with that logic that they're using.

So that's a problem. Are you with me? You see that? Okay, okay. Revelation 1912. That's right.

Revelation 1912 has a name written on him which no one knows except himself. So the point in that text is it can't mean no one because that would exclude the Father there. Right.

Right? And it's just a simple, see, they would often exaggerate. I'm going to give you another answer to this thing about Jesus, but this is a quick and slick answer.

If their logic is Jesus isn't God because he didn't know something, then the Father's not God because only Jesus knows his own name. Oh, so it's the same logic, so it's a problem. So that's another issue. Okay, that's one.

Here's another issue. In the Carmen Christi, which is Philippians 2, 5 through 11, it says, Have this attitude in yourselves, which also is in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be graft, but he emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant. He humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a cross. Okay, so one of the questions is what does it mean to say he emptied himself? So what I say is that he cooperated with the limitations of being a man. He cooperated with them.

Now we can discuss what that means and different nuances. So could it be that he cooperated with the limitations of being a man while he was under the law? Because he was under the law in Galatians 4. And so in Luke 12, 52, Jesus grew in wisdom and stature.

So this is in reference to his humanity under the law in reference to his childhood in relation to Mary and Joseph. So we see something going on here. And so there's something else going on there. So there could be something that's going on that we're not familiar with that's related to the incarnation and his humility in the incarnation as it relates to being a man. That's a second answer.

Here's a third. This is a little bit more complicated. In the ancient Near East, particularly in Israel, when a person got married, they were usually engaged for a year. And if that engagement was broken off, they had to go through a divorce-type agreement. So in that year period, they would plan a party. Depending on the level of guests and the level of money that they had, it could include a lamb, a fatted calf, a wine, and all kinds of stuff. As you go to John 2, you'll see Jesus at the wedding of Cana. And there's barrels and barrels of wine because they would have these parties. It was a big deal for someone to get married.

It was carrying out the requirements of God in the Dominion Mandate when God said multiply, fill the earth. So this is a serious thing to the Jews. So they would send out word to the relatives in different parts of Israel.

At the month of Tishri, on the 15th day, we're going to have the wedding. And so please let us know if you can make it because they needed a head count in order to do things. And plus the people would have to make arrangements to where they're going to sleep, where they're going to stay, how much food, how much wine. This was a big deal and it took a while to prep. They had to know what day it was in order to do this. But because of the nature of the culture, it might be a day in advance. It might be a day later even because maybe something didn't quite work out. And that was okay in that culture because you had a lot of family and a lot of fellowship and party time and just enjoying each other. We're going to put the wedding off one more day.

Okay, just more time together. This kind of a thing was common back then. Furthermore, in that context, the groom had to build a room onto the father's house given that there was room to do that.

They're in a city that really couldn't do that. But this was part of the custom. You'd build a room on or modify something inside the house so that the groom would then go with the trumpeters through the city streets to go get the bride. And the trumpeters would play music.

There would be celebration, dancing. And when I was in Jerusalem once, I saw it. We were not too far from the Wailing Wall and there was this party coming through, a big crowd of people. And it was the bride and the groom and it was awesome. They were just, you know, tambourine I think it was and music and people were cheering and we got to see it.

And I was just, I felt myself privileged to see that because there it was. Alright, so we're building the room onto the father's house. Now in the Jewish culture, the father is the patriarch, the father is the final authority, except for, you know, God of course. But you don't mess with the father. So, having all this set up, so the wedding is there, the bride is getting ready, the trumpeters are there, everything's been there, it's been planned for a year.

Here it is. The room addition is fixed. What Jesus says, he says, you know, in my father's house are many mansions I go to prepare a place for you. This is him alluding to the wedding feast ideology and practices.

Okay, having said all of that even, the groom's friends would say to the groom, when will the father let you go get the bride? And he would say, no man knows a day nor the hour with the father alone. It was an idiomatic expression, just like this guy beat, you know, Bob beat Frank until he's black and blue. Well, it's an idiom.

It was raining cats and dogs. And so, that's the kind of expression. And what it meant was that we're right there, we don't know the exact moment because it resides in the heart and the mind of the father. Now go get your bride.

So the idea here is not being that Christ doesn't know things exhaustively because he's God in flesh, but that in the wedding feast and the culture of the time, that privilege was resting with the father who would then make the declaration to go get your bride. Amazing. And this is what he was alluding to. Amazing. Thank you so much, man. You're welcome.

I appreciate it. So I've actually told this at different conferences when people have asked me this, and I've had two Jews come up to me who are Christians, raised in Judaism. I remember one guy very specifically, he sat down next to me at a table afterwards. Everything was over.

We're just kind of fellowshipping and having something to eat. He sits down and he says, where did you get that information? I said, I don't remember. He said, I'm very impressed. He said, Gentiles don't know that. How did you find that out? Because he said, because you're right. It's true.

I said, I don't know where I picked it up. He said, I'm impressed. No one knows this. So two Jews had told me that. And you also said, according to Galatians 4 and Philippians 2, he was cooperating with the limitations of being the man, correct? Yes.

Now, when I say that, I can't really exegete totally what that means. But he was walking on the ground. Made footprints. He had to eat.

He had to go to the bathroom. So there's a cooperation with humanity in the divine essence that is in union with the human nature and the one person of Christ. So we see the divinity operate through the humanity. So we see Jesus walk on water as a man. We don't see divinity. We see humanity. But the divinity is there within him. So there's a cooperation there.

So what I'm asking is, because I know a little bit about the hypostatic union, one person, two natures. Would this text prove his humanity? In other words, as a man, he would be perfectly well off saying he does not know.

But as God, he does. That would work. We could then work in the issues of what's called the communication of the properties. That's a little bit more complicated.

And see how it relates in that teaching, too. But you're on the right track. Yep. Okay? Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome so much, buddy. God bless.

God bless you. Bye. All right. All right. All right. Now let's get to Alberto from Georgia.

Alberto, welcome. We've got about three minutes. What do you got, buddy? Okay. Okay. Can God speak things into existence or the Word of his power? Can the Father speak himself out of existence and still remain the Son and all his Spirit still remain? No. The Father cannot speak himself out of existence. Okay? I'll explain why.

Okay? So, the nature of God is that he is triune. That's the nature of God. If God is triune, then it cannot be divided and the essence of the Father cannot cease because it would mean the triune nature ceased to exist. But if this triune nature ceased to exist, then God himself, period, in his totality, would cease to exist. So, we cannot have it be the case that either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit could speak themselves out of existence so that there's only a binitarian view of God.

So, it's just not logically possible and it's not ontologically possible. It's not logically possible because it's not possible for God to contradict himself. And since he says in Malachi 3.6 that he is unchangeable, therefore, he cannot change and his nature, which is triune, cannot also not be triune, which would be a self-refutation, a logical impossibility. And I've already quoted the scriptures, for example, in Malachi 3.6, that says that God is unchanging. He cannot change. It is his nature to be eternal. And Psalm 90, verse 2, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God and God is by definition triune so it's impossible for God not to be triune or to alter his triune nature in any way.

Okay? So, I mean, he's in one word, you cannot completely, he says this, as God or neither as an individual person of the Trinity, correct? Right. God is not a single person in one sense, but he, God does speak as a single person, but he also speaks as a plurality. So we see in the nature of the Trinity, singularity and plurality, and the nature of the triune being is plurality, that's his nature, so it cannot change.

So, either member of the Godhead cannot speak themselves out of existence. It's impossible. Okay. Okay. Okay. You've got a break, buddy.

You can work out of the show. All right, man. God bless, buddy. All right. Hey, folks. Hope you enjoyed the show.

If you want to give me a call tomorrow, that's your opportunity. I hope you have a great evening. God bless. God bless. God bless. God bless. God bless.