Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network Podcast. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, please subscribe and subscribe. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel.

Please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. If you liked the video, please subscribe to the channel. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, I want to welcome back to the show. Hope you're enjoying it. Hey, I just want to let you know that we are also now broadcasting on X or Twitter. So I went and took care of some stuff over the weekend that made that possible. So now you can watch us there as well, watch the radio show as well.

Praise God for that. All right, so there we go. And I want you to give me a call, 877-207-2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. Now let's get back on to some radio questions.

It's a little bit slow right now, and what we'll do is get on and do some more questions people have sent in. So this person who asked about Acts 2, 38 and Acts 16, 31, goes on and says, I thought it was Jesus who justified us through faith in him. That is true, and as a result, we continue to turn to him and repent and live in obedience to him as the Lord the rest of our life. Is it wrong to believe in faith justifies us and not our repentance?

Of course, that's correct. Repentance does not make us right before God. Repentance is compliance with the law. God says, don't lie.

So if you're lying and you find out, don't lie, you comply with that law. That's a repentance, but that's not what makes you right before God. The blood of Christ does that, not your repentance, though you should repent. He goes on and says Acts 2, 38 confuses me because the crowd was told to repent instead of believe. Well, let's go back to Acts 2, 38 and to remind all of you about this issue because it is worth spending a little bit of time on and about. It says, Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Now, in the name of Jesus is a phrase that means in the authority of, that's what's going on there. And so let's get into some of the Greek, we'll talk about this a little bit if I can slow down a little. So some say that Acts 2, 38 is a proof text for salvation.

Well, no it's not. The phrase in Greek for the forgiveness of sins is es afisen hermartion, es afisen hermartion. That exact same Greek phrase is found in Mark 1, 4 and Luke 3, 3.

They're found exactly there. In Mark 1, 4 it says John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And Luke 3, 3, and he came into all the district around the Jordan preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And then again, we have Matthew 26, 28, for this is my blood of the covenant that is poured out for many for the forgiveness, not forgiveness, but for forgiveness of sins, slightly different. So what we're going to focus on is Mark 1, 4 and Luke 3, 3, where it says the exact same phrase that's used, exact same Greek construction, exact same phraseology that's used in Acts 2, 38.

Now let's go over this a little. If Acts 2, 38 is teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation and the phrase for the forgiveness of sins means that that's how you obtain salvation, then the exact same phrase used in Mark 1, 4 and Luke 3, 3 about John the Baptist baptizing them for the forgiveness of sins, then that would mean then if the phrase for the forgiveness of sins means you obtain forgiveness of sins by that baptism, then it would mean then that John the Baptist baptism got you forgiveness of sins. Those people who were baptized in John the Baptist baptism were then forgiven.

This is what I ask people. Does it mean then for the forgiveness of sins means to obtain forgiveness of sins? Does it then mean that in Mark 1, 4, Luke 3, 3 that John the Baptist baptized for the forgiveness of sins, that they were forgiven? If they say yes, then I ask them, well, did they have to get baptized again in the Trinity later on? It's just a question and then we talk about what they might say, yes or no.

Or how about this question? If they were forgiven of their sins by that baptism, then did they have to go into the temple to offer any more sacrifices since they're forgiven of their sins by the baptism of John the Baptist, but the new covenant wasn't instituted with the blood of Christ had been offered that cleanses us of our sins. So what do they do? Because if they're forgiven of their sins, they don't need to go offer sacrifices in the temple. But if they're not forgiven, then they need to. So are they supposed to offer the sacrifices or not? This is a very difficult question for them to answer.

They haven't thought of that. So these are some of the things that I will quiz them on and then teach them on that stuff about what it really is getting at. So there's a lot on Acts 2-38 that a lot of people don't get and questions that are related to the Greek ephison, hamartium, for the forgiveness of sins, which is used elsewhere in Mark 1-4 and Luke 3-3 in regard to John the Baptist's baptism. Let's get to Elijah from Pennsylvania. Elijah, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt. I have a question for you. Okay. So I'm the same guy who sent you the video a few weeks ago about the preacher rapture. You said it was too long to watch.

So I'm here to present you another argument that he brought up in that video, and I would like to know what you think about it. Sure. Let's go through it slowly then.

Take a look. So I'm looking at Isaiah 26. So now where we go?

Yeah. Um, his verses are in Isaiah 26, 19 through 21 and there we have 19 through 21 that your dead will live. Their corpses will rise, you who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, for your dew is as the dew of the dawn, and the earth will give birth to the departed spirits. Come, my people, enter into your rooms and close your doors behind you. Hide for a little while until the indignation runs its course, for behold, the Lord is about to come out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will reveal her bloodshed and will no longer cover her slain. Okay, go ahead.

Yes, so his argument is that the chambers or the rooms in verse 20 that God tells his people to go into, he said that he believes that's referring to marital chambers, so like the marriage supper of the lamb, so God's telling them to go in there and wait, and he believes that, he said that it's clear this is talking about end times, return of the Lord, day of judgment on the wicked, and he said that this is proof that he's talking about preacher rapture, because he said in verse 19, it says the dead rise, and he says, well, the dead rises at the second coming of Jesus at the rapture, and then he also says, he also points out, yes, so he said that's the rapture right there, but then God tells the people to go into their inner rooms or chambers, and until his wrath is passed by, then in verse 21, the Lord punishes the wicked, and then it says the earth will disclose the blood that is shed on it, and that reminds me of the verse in I think it's 2 Peter, I think it's chapter 3, where it says in some translations that the earth will uncover the sins or the flood or something like that. Well, hold on, we've got a break coming up, and let's talk about it afterwards, okay? All right, we'll be right back.

Okay. Hey, folks, hold on, 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, hope you're enjoying it. Let's get to Elijah. You still there, butter?

Yep, I'm still here. All right. Okay, so I think that this is one of the better verses that people can go to in support of pre-tribulation rapture.

I think it's one of the better areas. But does it prove pre-trib? Well, some are going to say yes, and maybe not. So the chambers, come my people, enter into your rooms and close your doors behind you, hide for a little while until the indignation runs its course. That's exactly what happened, for example, in the time of God's judgment upon Egypt, when they went into their own chambers, their own homes, and they were there during it.

They were right there in the midst of the tribulation period, in the judgment of God upon the nation around them, and they were in it, but they were protected while they were in their inner chambers. So we know that's historical, now is that what this is referring to? It may or may not be. And he goes on, he says, for behold, the Lord is about to come out of his place, to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will reveal her bloodshed and will no longer cover this land. So I can see why people would go to this and say, you know what, I think this is the rapture.

Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Now, to back up, your dead will live, their corpses will rise, you who lie in the dust awake and shout for joy, for your dew is the dew of the dawn, and the earth will give birth to the departed spirits. So as you said, what they're going to say about this is, that's the resurrection that occurs of the dead before the rapture occurs. This is out of 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, chapter 5, verse 2, it says, for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

And we who are alive and are made to look out of the gutter in the air, in the clouds. So some people are relating that idea of the rapture to this, and let's work with that, let's see. Your dead will live, your corpse will rise, and you will lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, for your dew is the dew of the dawn, and the earth will give birth to the departed spirits. And then come, my people enter in your room. So they say that's the resurrection of the good, and then the rapture occurs.

They say, see, it fits the order. Well, that would work if it wasn't for Matthew 13. In Matthew 13, 30, allow both to go together, that's the wicked and the good, the wheat and the tares, all right, allow both to go together until the harvest, Jesus says, in the time of the harvest I'll say to the reapers, first gather the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them up, but gather the wheat into my barn. That's the rapture. The harvest is when God collects his people, and Jesus then interprets the parable and says in verse 39, the enemy who sowed the tares is a devil, and the harvest is the end of the age. The reapers are the angels. Just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The son of man will send forth his angels, will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness will throw them into the furnace of fire. Now, the point I'm trying to make here is that what Jesus says is that at the harvest time, which we know is the rapture, the first ones taken are the wicked, not the good. This blows a lot of people's mind when they see this, and I show it to people and they're like, their eyebrows just shoot up, and they're like, what?

There it is. So if we understand the clear teaching of what the New Testament says, that the wicked are taken first and they're taken to judgment, and then we know from 1 Thessalonians 4 that those who died in faith are resurrected and then the rapture occurs, then we know that the order here is that it looks like the wicked are the ones taken first, then the resurrection of the good, and then the rapture of those who remain. It seems to be the order from what Jesus himself teaches. Now if we go back to Isaiah 26, and starting at 19, your dead will live, their corpses will arise, you who lie in the dust awake and shout for joy. If that's the resurrection of the good, then it means then that the resurrection of the, or the judgment of the bad has already taken place.

He goes, come in by people in your rooms, close your doors behind you, hide for a little while until the kingdom runs its course, the indignation runs its course. Well, if this is the preacher rapture and seven years is going to happen, and then that's when, and then Jesus comes back for the judgment, then it doesn't fit what Jesus said because he said the first was taken of the wicked at the end of the age which is when the rapture occurs. So when we go to Isaiah 26, we have a problem making it fit into what Jesus himself taught.

And so, that's why I brought up earlier that the people of the Jews who were in the nation of Egypt during the tribulation of the people upon the wicked, the good, the people of God were in it and in their rooms in it, in their abodes, they were kept safe during that time. So if that is biblical and he says, come my people, enter into your rooms and close your doors behind you, hide for a little while until your indignation runs course. If they want to say it's the rapture, then they have to conclude from Matthew 13 that the wicked are taken first. And would they then say, the wicked are taken first here in Isaiah 26, and if they say no, the wicked are not, then it doesn't fit the timeline that Jesus has given. Because he says, behold the Lord is about to come out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth. So that's the indignation, the judgment, of which it looks like the Jews will be there, and that's what he's talking about, during that period of time. And if it's the whole world later, then the Christians are going to be there during it, just as the Jews were there during it, during the time of Israel, when they went into their houses.

Okay. See, so it's not as clear as they want it to be, okay. Yeah, I was thinking maybe the rooms could be referring to the rooms of the New Jerusalem that comes out of heaven, but I think I might be getting my timeline mixed up, because I think that probably happened after the rapture, but I'm not really sure. So the thing is that if someone were to use only that verse, they could make the case for it. And as I say to people, I think there's strength and weaknesses to every position, every eschatological position. And I think this is an area of scripture that is a strength for the pre-tribbers. However, when I show them, for example, Matthew 24, Luke 17, two men in a field, one is taken, one is left, I show them that that's the wicked who were taken. And then I show them in Matthew 13 that the wicked are taken before the good are taken, then this has to be at the end of the age when the judgment of the wicked occurs, which means it can only be after the tribulation period.

They have to fit the whole thing in, not just one or two verses, you see. Also, the other day I had read Zechariah chapter 14, and I think this is now one of my favorite chapters in the Bible, because I love reading about end times prophecy, and this entire chapter is about that. This seems to go against the all-millennial position, because I know that you accept that, but this seems to support an actual millennial reign of Christ. And I can't, oh, I think it's over here towards the end of the chapter, because somewhere around here it talks about chapter, I mean, verse 19, it talks about, it says, this will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not grow up and celebrate the festival of tabernacles, and then it goes on to say, I think in previous verses after that, about people who don't come, the nations that don't come to worship the Lord on the earth in those days, rain will not fall on their land and all this other stuff. So it seems to be that there are still sinful people on earth at this time when the Lord is raining on the earth. So this seems to support an actual thousand year reign of Christ on the earth.

So I would like to know your thoughts on Zechariah 14. Well, it says the punishment of Egypt. That means Egypt is a nation that's being discussed that's going to be punished.

Is it future? Is it a thousand year reign issue when the punishment of Egypt occurs? And if they want to say that Egypt is not literally this Egypt, well, then they can't say that it's literal 1,000 years in the millennium. If they say, well, it is Egypt, then we have to deal with what context, because it's the sin of Egypt. And what was the sin of Egypt? Well, in part, it was the punishment or the enslavement of the people of Israel. So this will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to the feast of the booths. Well, we Christians don't celebrate the feast of the booths. So now is it going to say the punishment is occurring to the Christians now?

So to say that this millennial already, just right from the beginning, has problems. Hey, we've got a break. Hold on, buddy. 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. Let's get back on with Elijah. Then we'll get to Warren, who wants to talk about baptism.

So let's give it another couple of minutes here, Elijah. Okay, so did that help any? Yeah, that helped some, but while we were on break, I went earlier in the chapter. I found Zechariah 14, verse 8, and it says, On that day living water will flow out of Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea in summer and winter. In the cross-reference here in my Bible, cross-referencing this verse with Revelation 22, 1-2-2. So that's why I say this chapter seems to be referring to the millennial reign of Christ on the earth during, like, New Jerusalem.

Yeah, I could see why they would say that. Half went one direction, half went the other, but in Revelation 22, it doesn't talk about that. What it doesn't talk about in Revelation 22 is that the river of water, of life, this is very symbolic, as clear as crystal.

Now this is referencing, in the Old Testament, of Exodus 24, 9-11, where Moses, Aaron, Nabon, and Abba, who went up and saw the God of Israel, and his feet were on a crystal sea. So this is referencing the throne work of God, and it's very important for that, the tree of life, the spiritual aspect. So in Zechariah, that day, living waters will flow out of Jerusalem.

Now we have to ask the question, is it literally the city of Jerusalem? Because if they're going to say in the millennial kingdom, and they say Jerusalem is literal, and waters go north and south, or excuse me, east and west, they're living waters, well to be honest, what does it mean to say living waters flow out of the city of Jerusalem, and one goes towards the western sea, and one towards the eastern, and they're living waters? So if that's the case, that we ask these questions, I don't see it being literal, in that these waters are living, and that if you drink them, you're going to have life, or whatever, because of it. And to relate it to Revelation 22, which speaks about this spiritual aspect of God's throne, and the water of life, which is symbolic, I have a problem connecting them with a cross reference. And if we go back to Zechariah 14.8, and we say, if it's a literal, like I said, a literal Jerusalem in the literal waters, then why are they called living waters?

I mean, these are just questions you've got to ask. And what I notice a lot of people do, is they don't ask very many questions. They'll say, for example, like in the cross reference you cited, well, the day the living waters flow out of Jerusalem.

So you see, that's about the millennial kingdom, and it's referenced with Revelation 22, which is the water of life, well, then they stop thinking, start asking questions. And see, well, wait a minute, do they relate to each other? Are they just using symbols?

Is it identical, or what? And people, I'm amazed, they just, they see what they like, I'm done thinking, that's what it means, and then I come along and ask questions, and they don't know what to do with them. Do you see the problem there? Okay.

All right, buddy? Yeah, and also, some people think that the river of the water of life, or Revelation 22, is symbolic of the Holy Spirit. What do you think about that? I don't know, because it's symbolic. They can think it's symbolic of the Holy Spirit, maybe it is, but maybe it's not. This is why I say with people, if you're gonna make an eschatological position, don't use it, don't develop it out of the places of symbology, develop it out of the places that are hardcore direct. This age, the age to come, when the trumpet occurs, when the voice of the archangel occurs, what happens at the end of the age? You just map them out, and that changes things.

But what people do for the rapture, pre-trib, that I've found, is go to places that are symbolic, and then they try and read literalness into the symbolism, instead of going the other way around. Okay? All right, buddy? Okay. All right, man. Okay, God bless. Have a good one. Thank you.

You too. All right, now let's get to Warren. Thanks for waiting, Warren. So what do you got, buddy?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir, you were talking earlier about the book of Acts, baptismal. I actually enjoyed hearing your previous caller there, there were some good points you brought out there.

And I've listened to you very frequently, quite a bit, I've never called in. I am in ministry, but I just want to get your viewpoints to possibly help the body of Christ, that in that Acts 2.38 baptism, like you were talking about earlier, did that some people have to go back later and get baptized in the Trinity. And because of the doctrines that we have all across the body of Christ, across the world, we're separated when Psalms tells us the Lord wishes that we would all dwell in unity. So for the edification, I wanted to get your viewpoints on, if I have an apostolic ministry and somebody that's come in has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Personally, I don't think it's right for me to not receive them in love as a brother or sister in the Lord, to encourage them to be baptized another way, because I think doctrinally, according to the Word, it is biblical, it is written, shouldn't the body receive one another in love? Hold on, you're confusing me a little bit. So yes, they should be baptized, if they're baptized in the Trinitarian formula, then they don't need to be baptized again, not a problem, so I'm not sure what you're getting at though.

Right. My question, in relation to what you just understood what I was stating, is that I think as a man of God, as a Christian, in ministry, I should receive any person that's been baptized that's already received the Lord as their Savior, confessed Him as God, Lord, came into flesh, you know, I think if I'm an apostolic doctrine church, or even if I'm a Trinitarian church, that someone comes into a hold of the ministry. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. You said if you're an apostolic church, or even a Trinitarian church, that implies then that the apostolic church you're affirming in is not Trinitarian.

At that point, I've got to stop and say, what do you mean? Yes, sir, exactly, some of the comments earlier that you were making, because of the doctrinal differences of the different denominations in today's body of believers across the world, if you go to Acts 238 baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, you were just talking about that. That's a false baptism. If they do the formula in the name of Jesus, and that's how they're baptized, then that's a false baptism, it's not obeying Christ. If you're talking about apostolic stuff, like United Apostolic, where they deny the Trinity, they're not even Christian. Right, because they encourage people to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.

I think you just explained that to a decaler before, yes sir? No, I'm saying that the one that's Pentecostal, the people who deny the Trinity and believe that God is only one person and add works to salvation by baptism and or speaking in tongues, they're not Christians, it's a cult, that's what I'm saying. Right, I understand what you're saying, that's the reason I'm approaching you this way instead of just asking you a simple question, because I do value your intelligence and how you help so many people, so I was just trying to get you, because you are on the air, to bring clarity to people that are believers and descriptors in that area, I appreciate it, I do. Well I do try and teach the truth to us. Well you're awesome, like I'm saying and like you're saying, there is a lot of division because of lack of clarity of the proper understanding of the word of God.

I'm just asking this so people will think about where they are so they can come more wholeheartedly with the clarity of thought of where they are and who they are in Christ. That's right, that's one of the things we're hoping to do by teaching the word of truth on the radio, so praise God. And you're doing a great job, and you are right now too. Well I thank you for taking my call, Lord bless you. Sure, no problem.

God bless. All right, now let's get to the next longest waiting is Mona, Mona welcome, you're on the air. Hey, can you hear me? Yes I can.

So what do you got? All right, I don't know how much you're going to let me say on the air, but if Kamala Harris gets to be president, the heads of these other countries are not going to deal with her because she's not acting like a woman, and she's not dressing like a woman. And my proof of that is when, sir, I went to Abram and said yes. Do you have a question about this though, or what?

No, I just wanted to approach women at large and say that we need to start acting like women and start dressing like women and not acting like what God would call a harlot. And we're going to see this if Kamala Harris gets to be president. Wow.

And the countries are not going to deal with her. But I tell you what, if you can form a question though, we can talk about something that would be worth doing. So why don't you review all that and then develop a question out of it and call back and we can talk about it, okay? We appreciate that. Let's get to Leroy from Virginia. Leroy, welcome.

You're on the air. Leroy. Leroy, buddy. Hey.

Leroy. Yeah. You're on the air. How you doing? I'm doing all right, man. What do you got, buddy? Yeah, buddy.

Your name's Max Slipp, right? Yes. Okay, okay, okay. So I've been listening for a while and can you explain about Acts 238, please? Because I heard a lot of people ask a lot of questions about baptism and there was, you know, a couple of people at the last one talking about Acts 238 and the Trinity. I mean, it's between Acts 238 and the Trinity.

Can you explain both of them, please? We only have two minutes, so it's going to be difficult to get those. Okay. Well, two minutes because you... Go ahead.

I was going to say, you could call back tomorrow, we can talk about them. But in the meantime, Acts 238 is not a formula for salvation. A lot of people say it is, but you ask a question. Is it a formula for salvation?

If they say yes, then you ask them. If it's a formula for salvation, then why is faith not mentioned? If it's a formula, if it's what you do to get saved, why is faith not mentioned in there?

That's the first question you got to ask. If they say it's implied, you say, but it's not mentioned, you say it was a formula, but it's not, is it? If they say baptize in the name of Jesus, that's simply a phrase that's used in Acts 47 to designate the authority of someone, like stop in the name of the law, baptize in the name of Jesus. And how they're baptized is by quoting what Jesus said to do in Matthew 28, 19, 20, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. And it says, for the forgiveness of sins, it doesn't mean you obtain the forgiveness of sins there, because the phrase, for the forgiveness of sins, is used in Mark 1-4 and Luke, I forget where it was, Mark 1-4, specifically, where it says John the Baptist baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Does that mean that John's baptism gave them forgiveness of sins? And if so, did they need to get baptized again later in the Trinitarian baptism?

Did they need to offer sacrifices? There are all kind of problems with that position, and we're out of time, brother. Sorry about that. Call back tomorrow.

We'll talk a little bit more about it, because it's worth getting into. Yes, brother. Okay. Yes, sir, I will. All right. Okay, brother. God bless.

Okay, Alberto. Got to call back tomorrow also. Hey, may the Lord bless you all by His grace. We'll be back on there tomorrow, and we'll talk to you then. Have a great evening.