Matt Slick Live

It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry found online at karm.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live! Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. The number is 877-207-2276. You can also email me a comment or a question.

Just do that by sending your email to info at karm.org and that's c-a-r-m dot o-r-g and put the subject line radio comment, radio question, either one of those and we can get to them. Alright, now we're having trouble on ClubDeck. My computer did an update and I can't get it to work so we're not feeding into ClubDeck, or Clubhouse I should say, at least not right now. I even did some tech stuff, re-editing the registry on Windows. That didn't work.

I just tried some and thought, you know, can't get it to work, but you know, that's alright. We'll work on that, but that's okay. Now, something interesting happened, a couple things to talk about. Yesterday after the show, I spent another three hours defending the deity of Christ and indirectly the doctrine of the Trinity. I had a really good discussion for three hours afterwards.

I went through some stuff with a guy and it got a little interrupted a couple, three times, but for the most part it was a pretty good discussion. He was not able to answer some of the difficult questions that I proposed to him. He had to backtrack on some stuff. But this is often the case with those who deny biblical theology, think that they're right. And one of the things that happened numerous times was him altering the word of God to make it fit, rephrasing it to make it fit his theology. And that's a sign of someone who doesn't understand biblical theology. We need to change words to change things, to make things better, to fit your theology.

And of course that's not a good thing. I remember when I was talking to a guy named Layton Flowers, he's a well-known anti-reformed individual and he and I were having a phone conversation on Philippians 1.29 where it says that God grants that we have faith. And I just read it and I quoted it to what it says. I quoted it and he said, no, God grants you the opportunity to have faith.

And it was just a subtle thing. Very, very subtle change of God's word, but that subtle change is what makes it palatable for your theological perspective. Now this is an interesting perspective because when Adam and Eve were in the garden, God said to Adam, don't eat of the tree, don't eat of this fruit. And so Adam told Eve about this and then when the devil in Genesis 3 talked to Eve and she changed the word of God because, let's see, I'm looking at it right now.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field, which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, indeed has God said, you shall not eat from any tree of the garden. The woman said to the servant, from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree, which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, you shall not eat or touch it or you shall die. God didn't say touch it.

He didn't say that. She modified the word of God or touch it. And as soon as that's done, the modification of God's word, the next thing comes is the contradiction of God's word. So the serpent said to the woman, you shall not die. So God said you will die and she altered God's word just a little bit.

Just a little. And then the word of God is contradicted. This is how it works a lot of times with those who are lost in varying cult mind traps. It happens in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, Atheism, even when they quote the word of God. And those who deny the Trinity deny that Jesus Christ has God in flesh.

Unitarians, modalists, people and things like this. So it was rather enlightening. And I thought it was a good conversation. What do you think, Charlie?

You were there the whole time, weren't you? It was a good conversation. And, you know, I know that if he's listening, that's fine. He can call in and we could have a discussion on the air even and go through some of the stuff, see if he's solved any of the problems that I gave him.

So that's one of the issues there. So I released an article today, too, and I'll talk about that a little bit. But first, let's get to Alberto from Georgia. Alberto, welcome. You're on the air.

Yeah, good evening, Matt Slick. I got a question. See, I hear I watch sometimes listen to the Christian pastors who promote Bibles word for word translations, right? And I'm watching the videos by, you know, Daniel B. Wallace, he's an expert, you know, in translations and all that executive director of the Southern Baptist. And he said, the people who say that who want to accurate word for word translation, they don't know that they're talking about is that they're two different types of questions, he said, because you can translate from idiom for one language to another language. So, so he categorizes it by what translations and three categories like elegance, accuracy, and readability. So what do you think about this? He's correct.

He's absolutely correct. So translations, you can try what I call it is trying to be literal as possible. And you can do that in translations.

And that way do not speak enough Spanish to get around. And for example, to say I'm hungry. In Spanish, you say yo tengo hombre. And, but that is interesting, because the literal translation is I, I have hunger. That's the literal translation. I have hunger. So if you want a literal translation of something, you say I have hunger. But that's not how we talk in English. So we say, I am hungry. And that's a proper and accurate translation.

It's both in a sense literal, but not really literal, because you're trying to be as accurate as possible. And so this happens with one language to another language. My wife speaks French. And so we'll be watching something and maybe a little bit of French comes on Alaska, you know, was that accurate? And she goes, pretty accurate, you know, whatever. And it's just like that.

It just happens. So there are translations that are more literal, like the NESB, and there are translations that are more flowing, like the NIV. And so it just depends on what's going on and what you want. And what the intention is. I prefer it as literal as possible.

Okay. Yeah, because he was saying that he said, you see, he recommends the best Bible really out there is the net Bible. And NIV have the best top scholars, you know, translating the committee, you know, because he likes also the, the ESV and, and then you are RSV. And he said the American standard is, you know, it's accurate, very accurate, but it's not very readable.

It's like wooden. Yeah, see, that's the thing is you have readability issues. So, you know, I'm looking at the NIV in Romans 5 18, consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people.

So also when that righteous act resulted in justification of life for all people. And that's not what the word people is not there in the Greek, for example. It's not what it says. So it's actually the word anthropos, which is man. And you are right. That's what he meant. Yeah. So it's a good example of something.

So, for example, when you go to Romans 5 18, which I use that to check all Bibles with I just go right away to Romans 5 18. So what's the intention here? Because it literally, it says for all men in the Greek is anthropos, which is the plural. So if you want a literal translations, you say all men, you don't say women, you don't say people. But what's intended by Paul when he writes that the intention is all people. That's what's going on. So both translations are correct.

So it depends one is dynamic, one is more fluid, one is direct, and one is more fluid. And that and that's fine. Now for me as an apologist, I want as literal as possible, because I believe everything in the original is inspired very, very accurately. And that's how you get a more accurate understanding of what was intended.

And you can't do deep Bible study, word studies with Bibles that are not as accurate. One to one translation. But none, no translation is perfect that way. Okay. Yeah, he was saying that.

Yes, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Yeah, but he was saying that the net Bible and the NIV are the most translation to do. They're the ones the best ones to get more to the original meaning of the words, basically, right? The NIV and the Net Bible. The Net Bible. In fact, let me go look at the Net Bible right now. And I'll go to Romans 5 18.

And here we go. And it says, consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through one righteous act came righteousness leading to life. That's a horrible translation, the Net Bible. Sorry, but it is. The Net Bible?

And I know why. So you see, but the thing is, the NESB 95, which I like to joke around and say Paul the Apostle used. Well, the NIV has better translations in some areas than the NESB does, and vice versa. So it's just not that easy to say what it is that is the right one.

So it just depends on your intention. That's why I say to people, get a literal translation, get a flowing translation. And generally the King James thrown in there is good. The King James I don't use for apologetics, but it has a lot of interesting ways of saying things. And between, for example, if you use the NESB, the NIV and the KJV, I think between those, if you were to compare verses, when they're different enough that you are curious, it'll force you to go study.

And that's where the treasure is. And you'll see why one translation does it that way, why another one does it a different way. So there you go.

Yeah. He was saying that the Tyndale, half of the words in the King James, most of the words in the Tyndale was mostly towards the King James. He said he recommends the King James has more of the elegance, you know, the elegance of the, of the, but, but, but concerning to like accuracy is not really recommended so much, you know, but like you say, different depends on what you want, you know, different translations.

Some are more readable, some are more accurate, some are more elegant. So it depends what you want to get out of the Bible. Correct?

Right. And as long as you're aware that no single English translation is perfect, it just is not the case. That's why I recommend three Bibles for people. If you want to do serious study, have all three open and, uh, just go compare verses and compare what you're reading. And if there's discrepancies in your mind, go study and you'll find them. Romans 5 18, for example, and another one, let's go to here, let's go to, uh, Titus 2 13 in Annette Bible. All right.

This is important too. Uh, it says, uh, as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our, our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and savior, Jesus Christ. Now that's a good translation. It's grand sharp rule right there in Greek and that's good. But the King James, uh, for example, in Titus 2 13 says, so a great God and our savior Christ. So the implication there in the English is it separates them where the other one doesn't.

So each translation has strengths and weaknesses. Okay, buddy. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

They mentioned about that James White and him. We got a break. We got a break. We got a break. Hold on.

We got a break. All right, buddy. God bless. Talk to you later, man. Okay. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages, please stay tuned. Welcome back to the show.

If you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. So I've been working on an article for a while out of an argument I've been developing. Um, when a lot of times when I release it today, a lot of times when I go online and discuss, uh, I learn things.

It happens frequently. And the reason is because I'll face different people with different, um, objections, different responses, different, uh, worldviews. And so I take the things that I've learned in scripture and logic, philosophy, science, whatever it might be, and then I'll do the best I can to discuss whatever it is I'm going to be discussing with someone. And a few months ago when I was discussing salvation with the Catholics, um, we got talking about Mary and it occurred to me then that they see her as a functioning goddess. Now they don't call her a goddess and she's not technically a goddess, but she functions as one. And when I first started saying this to Catholics, it really threw them for a loop because they hadn't heard that before, I guess.

And so I continued to pursue that avenue and it became quite fruitful because as I, as I worked on this and thinking about it different ways, uh, I discovered more and more that that is exactly the case. Now the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, what they'll do is they'll say they venerate, not worship. And the problem here is that, that you could have two people, let's just say they're identical twins, and they both go to the same Catholic church. And, or Eastern Orthodox, doesn't matter, they both go to the same Catholic church.

And at the same age, uh, they believe in the same stuff. And there's literally kneeling down before the front of the church. And the front of the church is a statue of Mary and a statue of Jesus. Okay, Jesus on the cross or they do different things, statue of Jesus, statue of Mary. And one of them is praying to Mary and the other is praying to Jesus.

It just so happens, since they're identical twins, they're saying the exact same thing. Except the only difference is one addresses a prayer to Mary, one addresses a prayer to Jesus. And in the prayer, each of them identically, they ask for intercession, deliverance, they ask for help in varying issues in varying ways. So, when they do the exact same thing to slightly different objects, are they both worshipping? The Catholic would say that the one who is praying to Jesus is performing true worship, but the one praying to Mary is not performing true worship. And so, they'll say because what she, what the one praying to Mary is doing is venerating. It's not worship, because worship only goes to God. So, the only difference is the word that they use, that they change the meaning.

They define it each this way, but the actions and the intentions are identical. So, the illustration I developed was there's a man who goes into a gym and he works out for two hours. He does bench press, he does military press, leg press, he does squats, he does biceps, triceps, delts, he works. And he does three sets of ten, then eight, then six until failure. And he does this on all kinds of muscle groups. He works everything in one day, which you're not supposed to do really, but anyway, he works everything in one day. All right, he does that, and then on the way out, someone says to him, that was a great workout you had.

And he said, I did not have a workout, I was exercising. Well, just changing the name or the word you're using and saying a slight differentiation in it doesn't mean that it's different. And that's the point I'm trying to make with the Catholics, is that they are doing this. They are elevating Mary, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are elevating Mary to the level of a goddess. But she's not a goddess, she functions as one. So, I wrote this article, and I went through quite a bit of information.

It took me about a week to write it, because I had so many other things I had to do, and I did it here and there. And I talked about veneration and worship and what is a functioning goddess. And then I broke up the work of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox regarding Mary into three categories.

Titles, characteristics, and actions. And, interesting. And so, they're very similar, slightly different in the two religions, but very, very similar. And then we talk about the issue of adoration, veneration, and I developed a table where on the left column, on the center column actually, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the right is scripture. And I compare the, I give definitions from different sources, and then go into the physical display of veneration and worship and show how the physical displays are identical to that of worshiping God. And so, this is the kind of stuff that I was working on and stuff.

And you can go check out the article and see if it's helpful. Now, I know that there's a lot of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who might be listening, and they might be shaking their heads saying, Matt just does not understand what we really teach. Perhaps that is the case. Perhaps I don't understand what you really teach. Certainly the case, all right?

But, why don't you then call me up and tell me how? And maybe you could review the article and tell me if the things that I have categorized are accurate from your perspective of you. And just tell me, is it true?

I think it would be worth a gander. Because I am very concerned about the idolatry that's presented in the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches. And it is idolatry. Let's get to Eric from Ohio. Eric, welcome, you're on the air.

Hi, Matt. I called yesterday about the personhood of the Holy Spirit. And I had a few questions about the... Well, for example, what is exactly meant by the baptism of the Holy Spirit? And why is the term baptism used?

And what does it do? All right, so let's go to the scriptures. And we'll talk about what the Bible says. We go to Acts 1, for example. Now, some people say the word baptism, or baptize, in Greek, baptizo, or the root bapt, always means immerse.

That is just blatantly wrong. It might mean it, but it certainly does not always mean it. And I'll show you. I'm going to do is look at Acts 1-5 after the break, because we've got a break coming up right now.

And then we'll get into the issue of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and what it generally is agreed to be. Okay, so hold on, buddy. We'll be right back, folks, right after these messages, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. If you want, you can give me a call, 877-207-2276. And you can also email me, info at CARM, C-A-R-M, info at CARM.org.

And you can put the subject line radio comment, radio question. All right. So let's get back on with Eric. Eric, you still there? I'm still here. All right. So I wrote an article on this, let's see, when did I write it back?

2008, I guess. And so we don't know exactly what it means. And when I mean exact, I mean exact. We don't know exactly what it means. The phrase is used several times in the Bible. In Matthew 3.11, for example, I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who's coming after me is mightier than I. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Mark 1.8, I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. And it goes on in Acts 1.5, for John baptizes with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. So I was talking about Acts 1.5, for John baptized with water, but you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Okay, now, so before I kind of delve into possible answers, let me give you a little more background. To be baptized with the Holy Spirit. When we are anointed with oil, that means the oil is applied to us. When you are anointed with blood, it means the blood is applied to you.

That's how it is in the Scriptures. I've done a lot of research on that, and I did some deep studies on the word with, like with water, with blood, with oil. And I did, like, baptized, let's see, I get a lot of references here. But baptized with water seems to imply the application of water to a person.

Now, this is not popular within Christian circles. Most people say, well, when you're baptized with water, it means you're immersed in water, and that's what it means. Well, it says in 2 Chronicles 28, 15, anointing them with oil. Ezekiel 16, 9, I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you, and anointed you with oil. To anoint with, you're anointed with oil to the sick, Mark 6, 13.

I can go on. God anointed him with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was applied to. You were cleansed with blood. The blood is applied to you. You're filled with the Holy Spirit.

We'll get to this in a little bit. And I did a study on verb with object occurrences, baptized with water, and things like that. He struck him with the edge of the sword. The sword is applied to this person. He struck him with the spear to the ground in 1 Samuel 26. He healed him with the sword. And so I really was curious about this, and I went and did this really in-depth study.

So I did this about a year or two ago, this kind of thing. So it certainly seems to be the case that when you're baptized with the Holy Spirit, it is the case that the Holy Spirit is applied to you. And this is true because the Bible prophesies about that very thing. And in, let me go to it, let me go here. In Acts 2, 17. And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will pour forth my spirit in all mankind. Pour forth.

So I thought, okay. So I went and did a study on to pour regarding varying things, particularly the issue of the Holy Spirit. And I found out that the New Covenant is poured out.

I found that in the Didache, which is not scripture, but it's written in the year 60 to 65 A.D. range, that you pour, baptism is talked about, pour water three times on the head. There are, let's see, some other ones here. Let's see. Pouring, here we go. So until the Spirit is poured out on us, that's Isaiah 32 and Isaiah 44, I'll pour out my spirit. And I've got eight references like this.

No, nine, ten references were poured out. Well, what I'm seeing is that it's the application of the Spirit too. Just like you're anointed with oil, you're anointed with blood, you're baptized with water. I see, this is my opinion, I see the issue of baptizing with water as the application of water to the person.

Now, this may be really surprising to a lot of people, but I've done a really deep study on this. In fact, when Jesus was baptized, according to the law, he was made under the law, Galatians 4.4, he had to fulfill that law, Matthew 5.17. Well, he was entering into the priesthood at his baptism. And we know that because he's a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 6.20 and 7.25. But also, he had to fulfill righteousness, because that's Matthew 3.15. When he said to John the Baptist, you need to baptize me, and John said, nah, you've got to baptize me. And Jesus says, we need to fulfill righteousness. He's talking about the Old Testament law. The places, and I did an in-depth study on this too, the places in the Old Testament that you see the chapters, that you see that deal with the things that are recorded in Matthew that Jesus had to fulfill, like being 30 years of age in order to enter the priesthood, that's in the Old Testament. Anointed with oil, that's the Holy Spirit, that's in the Old Testament.

Doing various things. And one of them was sprinkled with water. And that's Numbers 8.7. The priest had to be sprinkled with water. And I could find no place at all where the priest was immersed in water.

I could not find it in scripture. In fact, we'll find that some of the priests, they would go to the tent door, and they would have water applied to them, and it was called washing. And I could go through this a lot more too. So when we talk with all this background, you're baptized with the Holy Spirit. The implication certainly seems to be that the Holy Spirit is applied to you.

And that something happens in that context. So now, having said all of that, let me go to some scripture. I want you to see this from scripture. It says, Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Well, the gift here seems to be the charismatic gifts, because that's the context, because they're speaking in tongues, which is a fulfillment of Joel 2, 28, 29, that Luke quotes, or Peter's saying here in Acts 2, It shall be in the last days God says, I'll pour forth My Spirit on all mankind.

You'll pour forth His Spirit. Now, when we go back to Acts 1, 5, Jesus says, John baptized with water, you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If baptized there means immersed, John immersed you with water, you'll be immersed with the Holy Spirit. That is not how the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit.

It's an application of work of the Holy Spirit coming upon a person and anointing them and sending them to do a work. And that's what it seems to be, and it says also in Acts 2, 38, you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is in the context of them speaking in tongues.

Now, I'm almost done here, it takes my being patient with me. Acts 10, 44, while Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came to Peter were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. So we see here the gift of the Holy Spirit seems to be the charismatic movement. Now, having said all of that, it appears to be the idea to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is that very thing of the unction of the Holy Spirit upon you that moves you in a more powerful spiritual way. To some it's speaking in tongues. To others it might be moving in other charismatic gifts. Exalting God, as it says, because they were hearing them speaking in tongues and exalting God. That's part of the gift of the Spirit's work.

Personally, now I'm just going to stretch a little bit here, I'm going to break them in common and get back. Personally, I suspect that the baptism of the Holy Spirit on me was anointing me to study, to be able to teach and see things in the Word of God. Now, hopefully I'm correct. Maybe I'm boasting and arrogant and claiming things that aren't true. I don't know.

But it seems to be consistent with what the Holy Spirit does when He guides and anoints people for something, some way, somehow. Hold on, be right back after these messages. Okay, buddy, be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. Now, before we get back to him, I know a lot of people probably raising their eyebrows to what I'm saying, but I've done a lot of study on this and I think it's interesting. Maybe we can extract that section and transcript too so others can go over it again. All right, let's get back on with Eric from Ohio.

Hey, Eric. Okay, did that help any of them? A little.

That's a lot, but it helped. That is a very interesting point with the how of the baptism. It aroused a question of at salvation, at that moment, is there a simultaneous occurrence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Are those two inseparable?

Yes and no. So I can't say for sure because as I've looked through the Scriptures, I've not been able to prove that they happen at the same time. I can't prove they happen at different times.

So that's a great question and I'm really trying to review some of the studies I've done on this to try and remember more information because I've studied it. And so we know that in one respect, we receive the Holy Spirit when we are justified, when we're saved. We have the Holy Spirit, that's it.

It's a guarantee and we'll never lose that. But there seems to be something later on that can occur to somebody and that some people call that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that extra oomph. It's like putting nitrous oxide in your engine.

It really makes it go fast. And so it's like that, okay? It seems to be, okay? Yeah, a lot there, man.

I wish I had really definitive answers. Okay, well, God bless, man. God bless.

All right, we'll see you. All right, hope that was interesting and informative. I try and be as accurate as I can and as biblical as I can and I would love your feedback on all of that. I know it's not what the average pastor is teaching, but you know, I got a lot of notes. I do a lot of notes on stuff.

My notes on baptism are 51 pages. Okay, so not very big, but I'm learning. Let's get to Patrick from North Carolina. Patrick, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt, how you doing? I'm doing all right, hanging in there. And thanks for taking my call.

Okay. I have a question about Luke 18, 9, and 10 about the Pharisee and the tax collector when they went up to pray. What was the difference between their prayers? Well, one was arrogant and the other was humble. That's one of the major differences, okay? Yeah, my question is, I don't mean anything bad about this, but you know, when the Pharisee had said, I thank you, I'm not like those other men.

That's true. Now this, I'm going to ask you, when you talk about Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, do you believe that you're saying, I'm thankful I'm not like those other religions? No, not in the sense that the Pharisee was saying it, because he was saying that this tax gatherer is no good.

He can't do anything right. No, when I expose the heresies of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, it's just what it is. It's heresy. And the only reason I am saved is because of God's mercy and grace, and that's it.

Okay. Yeah, but like you say that Catholic Church isn't a Christian Church, but according to Google, it's the biggest church in the world for Christians. Yeah, Google is not known for its accurate theological perspective, okay. But, okay, one thing about the Catholic Church is, I think you've misunderstood, is when they say you have to be baptized, I believe they're talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You have to be baptized with the Holy Spirit to be saved. And would you believe that a person must be baptized with the Holy Spirit to be saved? It depends what you mean by baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Well, you just described it with the previous caller, and I believe that, you know, when the Spirit was poured out at Cornelius' house in Acts 10, it was the living water, which is the Spirit, happened there at Cornelius' house. So they were saved with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But my question again is, the Catholic Church, when they say you must be baptized, if they were referring to baptism of the Holy Spirit, that would be a true statement, right? Depends what is meant by it.

That's the thing. What does the Catholic Church mean by it? Because, you know, Catholic Church do not have baptismal pools in their church. Yeah, they sprinkle and pour, and they say that you obtain salvation through faith, baptism, and the observers of the commandments. So they see it as a necessary element of salvation, to get baptized in order to. They're requiring an addition of a ceremony in order to be saved, and that's not it. Baptism isn't that. Baptism is a covenant sign of God's faithfulness to us, not our ceremonial participation by which then we are justified.

Okay? But in Acts 10, when Cornelius and the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit, would you believe they were saved at that point? They had already, yeah. Anyone who receives the Holy Spirit that way is manifesting those gifts. They're saved, absolutely. Yeah, and see, the thing, I don't want to get too deep into this, but I believe Peter should have never water baptized them because they were already saved with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

They didn't need any kind of ceremonial washing. Okay, so you're saying Peter was wrong, and I have a problem with that. Do you have any other questions? We've got callers waiting, and you've had 100 conversations already.

Well, if you could give me a few minutes. I mean, I listened to you last night. We're just going to move along, sorry.

Let's get to Siam from Alaska. Welcome, right here. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. I guess I can't hear you.

Okay. I have a question, a couple actually, but do you believe Jesus was fully God? Not was, is. He has two natures, divine nature and a human nature. It's called the hypostatic union, so yes, he's fully God and fully man. When he was on Earth, do you believe he was fully God?

And fully man, yes, and he still is, yes. Okay, so would you say that God is omnipresent, like he's everywhere? The nature of God is, such that he's everywhere, yes. Okay, would you say that Jesus was everywhere when he was in Mary's womb?

There's a yes and no, because the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person. And Jesus did say in John 14, 23, that he and the Father would come and make their abode in you, which means in multiple places at a time. This can only be done by the actuation or the realization of his divine nature and essence. So how could he be fully God if he was not all of them inside the womb of Mary?

If he was also outside of the womb, how could that be fully God inside the womb? Okay, if I had a glass sphere, and the glass sphere is just pure glass, okay, I don't know the formula for it, just glass. I take a hammer and I chunk out a chip of it, and I hold that chip in my hand. Is that chip by nature glass?

The answer is yes. So the whole thing is glass, and the part is glass. So when Jesus, he's the second person of the Trinity, and when he was in the womb and walking around on earth, the divine essence is part of him and is him, a divine. So it doesn't mean that the whole thing is what he is, but that he's the second person of the Trinity. But how could that possibly work, though? If we're to say that he had completely inside of him was all the fullness of God, and that was the second person of the Trinity, how could that be possible if he's omnipresent, and we're supposed to believe that all of the second person of the Trinity was inside of a baby?

The second person, what's wrong with the second person being in there? There's another doctrine called inseparable operations. I don't think you've studied these things very much.

There's a doctrine called inseparable operations. Jesus says that he can do whatever he sees the Father doing, John 5.19. He sees the Father doing what the Father does. He can do. This is proclamation of his nature and his divinity that he's laying hold of.

Now, you ask me these questions. How do you explain that Jesus says he can do whatever the Father does? I'm just trying to figure out if you believe that all of the second member of the Trinity, all of the God, whoever he is as a person, was dwelling in the flesh of the Messiah, fully God and fully man. Yes, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the second person, the Word, was separated from the nature of what God is as if it was only located in one little place.

That would be incorrect. So he was also outside of the womb too at the same time? Just the nature of divinity to be in and out and exist everywhere. We don't understand to the extent and how it works of the incarnation of the Word, but we know that in the doctrine of inseparable operations, which means that the persons, what one does, the other does.

And I can get into more of this with perichoresis and things like this. So what Jesus was, was the Word made flesh, is what the Bible says. Let me ask you, do you believe the Bible? Yeah, I'm just struggling with a couple of concepts because if Christ didn't have, like if all of the second member of the Trinity was not in Christ and maybe he was partially outside somewhere, then he's not fully, you see what I'm saying? The nature that was in Christ was not fully God. No, you're making a mistake. You're making a mistake. You're thinking fullness means the quantity, totality of the quantity must be in there. That's not what it means when it says fullness.

You're making a mistake in logic. You're thinking quantity. It has to be totally restricted in him, but how could that be if he's also everywhere?

That's your question. It's not the quantity, it's the essence that is in the person of Christ, that essence of the divine person we call the Word was there. But the necessity of the essence is everywhere. And also, and I showed you the scriptures and you just dismiss them. In John 14, 23, Jesus says that he and the Father will come and make their abode in you.

That means he is going to be in different people, indwelling. I quote this to you. You just dismiss it. What do you do with that?

How do you answer that? I haven't dismissed it. We can have the spirit of Christmas, but that's not literally dwelling in there. If you want to have a discussion, please focus on the issue.

Don't say the spirit of Christmas. This is ridiculous. You need to deal with the things that I raise up with you. You want me to only answer what you ask and then you ignore and don't ask or answer what I ask.

I have an answer for it, but I don't want to take up your time. Hold on, we're out of time, though, unfortunately. I don't have any problem you taking up time like that, because I want the listeners to understand how to deal with someone and learn from interaction.

It's not a problem. You can call back tomorrow if you want. Are you going to have a live stream later? Yeah, I'll be out for a little bit afterwards here because of things going on. Okay, thank you, sir.

We'll go back tomorrow if some people get here. Yep, bye. Okay, all right. Hey, folks, there is the break. As someone said in the break, that's a beacon for morons.

Not that he's a moron, but yeah, I get it. Anyway, hey, folks, we'll be right back. I mean, not right back. We'll be back tomorrow. God bless. We'll be right back.