The following program is recorded content created by Liquid at c-a-r-m dot o-r-g, and put in the subject line radio comment or radio question, and we can get to them, usually do, sometimes we do on Fridays, you know? All right, all right, all right.
And let's see, what else? I've been doing articles and stuff, and I'm gonna put up an article page here pretty soon. I'm gonna be out in North Carolina on the weekend of the 17th in Kannapolis, where that is. And I'll be driving an hour or hour and a half to visit friends and people and stuff like that, radio station and other things. So the reason I'm saying that is if anybody out there would like to come speak at a church or something like that, you can let me know within the next month because they don't like my tickets and arrangements and cars, you know, all that kind of stuff. So I'm just getting the heads up, be out there.
Or we can just meet at a restaurant in some city sometime some evening, that's always fun to do, too. All right, all right, all right. Now, so, you know, I was doing some research on church fathers, and the reason I'm doing this is because a lot of times the Eastern Orthodox Roman Catholics and stuff, they just talk about how the unanimous consensus of the fathers, blah, blah, blah, and so I did some research on the images and icons, and I found stuff from Arnobius, the third and fourth century, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, a debate between a Christian guy named Octavius of Menecius Felix, and a non-Christian, Cecilius, happened around 200, 250 B.C., Lactantius, he was born in 250. I mean, the debate thing was 250 B.C., but all these are 80, and Jerome in 347, he died in 420. I found a lot of quotes that are against icons. Now, not a big deal, but I was going through one of the quotes reading through Tertullian, and I just, what, what's this?
I'm gonna read it to you a little bit. This is from Tertullian, and Tertullian, he died in like the year 220, so we're talking way early here, and check this out. Now, this is how the ancients wrote, and they talked like this, so you gotta bear with the long sentences, okay? But we must now treat of the garb only the apparatus of office. There is a dress proper to everyone, as well for daily use, as for office and dignity. That famous purple, therefore, and the gold as an ornament of the neck were, among the Egyptians and Babylonians, ensigns of dignity, in the same way as bordered or striped or palm-embroidered togas, and the golden wreaths of provincial priests are now.
Interesting. Okay, and he goes on. For they used only to be conferred under the name of honor on such as deserved the familiar friendship of kings, but, and he goes on, whence to, such used to be styled the purpled men of kings, because purple was a rare color, and it was reserved for kings and things like that. But not on the understanding that the garb should be tied to priesthoods also, or to any idol ceremonies.
Fortunio was writing, I'm going, wait a minute, what's he saying? That these kinds of garments should not be tied to priesthoods. Well, if you look at the EO and the RC, what do they do with their priesthood garments?
They have, they have all these garments in gold and silver and everything, just like in contradiction to the Bible. At any rate, he goes on, but the purple, or purple, or the other incites of dignities and powers dedicated from the beginning to idolatry and grafted on the dignity and the powers carried a spot of their own profanation. Interesting. Just an interesting quote.
I've never heard that before, and no one's ever taught me that before, never read it before, stumbled on it. There's so much to learn, oh, got so much to learn. Let's get to Jermaine from California. Jermaine, welcome. You're on the air. Well, hello, Matt. Hello. How are you doing?
I'm doing pretty good today. I had something I meant to ask you that's actually had me kind of perplexed for a long time, and it has to do with conjoined twins and basically getting married, because I've seen situations where, I mean, it is two people occupying one body, and some of them wind up in relationships, and I don't know if Scripture's really clear on that, because I've had some friends who are pastors say they would not perform the marriage, because they see it as almost like a polygamous situation, and then a lot of people just don't know, and I just kind of wanted to hear your thoughts on that, because I really am perplexed by some of what I've seen. It just, I mean, it's just very foreign to our understanding, but is the Bible really clear on that kind of situation?
No, it's not, and so we have to adapt the best we can. We wouldn't have any problem with marrying a man and a woman, so I know that there are conjoined twins out there, two women who share two heads and one body. This is so highly unusual that I don't see a problem with both of them being married to a single guy, because it's functionally one body, one this, one that.
What else are they gonna do? And God allowed polygamy, not that, hey, that makes it okay now. I'm just saying he allowed it, and people were able to prosper in it, and I remember back in seminary, we were talking about the issue of tribespeople who had multiple wives and became Christians. Well, should they divorce their wives and just have one wife?
And the recommendation was, no, don't divorce your wives. You stay married and just don't have any more, and that's it, and from now on, everybody just has one wife as they get married. So it's the absolute norm is one man, one woman, but in a super abnormal situation, which is real, I wouldn't deny them marriage. I'd say, well, they both do.
They both have to agree at that point and say, yes, marry this guy, for example, and move on and just be gracious about it. That's how I would see it. Okay, yeah, you know, it's such an unusual situation that I actually, I think you made the most sense of any answer I think I've heard, because it's, I mean, if people are sharing one body and they have a couple of multiple heads and I don't know how that works, who's in love, who's not, but they have to be in an agreement somewhere because there are just, it looks like one body, two souls. I have no idea how to break it down so foreign, but yeah, I definitely appreciate your answer on that one.
Something to definitely dive deeper into and think about. That's how I would handle that. It'd be tough, it's gonna be tough, but that's what it is, you know, that's what it is.
So maybe there'd be people out there who'd say, Matt, you're so wrong. You can't even believe that, can you? And well, yeah, I can. You know, I like to err on the side of grace rather than law, and it's like it's not their fault that they're born conjoined like that.
Does that mean they can't have life? I've known, this is not very much of a related issue here because it's a different category, but I've known of women who have two sets of reproductiveness systems, completely two. One, how do I do this politely, one opening, one and two sets, you know? So that's just how life is sometimes, and you deal with a situation, you deal with very stuff, and I would say, well, if they wanna get married, then they're both in agreement to marry one, two females like it, marry one guy, well, okay. I wouldn't have a problem, I mean, you know, I'd be, ugh, what are you gonna do?
Let it happen, that's me, okay? Yeah, I think I have to agree with you, and they may make an argument that, you know, they are kind of the same person, just, you know, they just look a little different, so I cannot disagree, so. Right. Yeah, this is one of those situations where I'm very thankful that God is the judge, and I don't have to deal with that kind of stuff. I just pray for all involved, and pray for the best.
That's it, all you can do, just pray for God's wisdom, and like I said, you know, I'm very, very precise when it comes to theological matters, but there are a lot of areas where it says don't pass judgment on debatable issues. This is a very debatable issue. God allowed polygamy in the Old Testament.
He did, it was there, and so he allowed it, it wasn't how it was designed, but this is a super unusual situation, and I think in that case, it's permittable. That's it, so that's his point. Right. Okay. All right, well, I'll have a more mainstream question for you next week, Lord willing, and hope you have a good weekend. You too, man, and God bless. All right, would you, man, appreciate you. All right, God bless you, man.
All right. So hey, Miles from Nowhere, rumble rant, $10, appreciate that. Miles from Nowhere is an atheist, and I've known him, we've never met, but we've talked many times on the radio after show, I believe, and different venues and stuff like that, Discord and things. He's one of the nicest guys I've ever met. He's just a real nice guy, and we pray for him and want him to get saved, and I know he's listening to this, and he appreciates it.
He says, oh, I appreciate that, that's nice, and he's a good guy. So anyway, that's Miles from Nowhere, and isn't there a town called Nowhere? I just thought of that. It's Nowhere, Nowhere, United States. Let's see, I think there is a town called Nowhere. There is, Nowhere, Oklahoma. That's right, so how many miles from Nowhere are you? It's right there in Oklahoma, how about that?
Oh, I remember that. It's an unincorporated community in Caddo County, Caddo County in Oklahoma. Let's see, southwest of Albert. Anyway, so there's an actual place called Nowhere, Oklahoma. Miles from Nowhere, okay.
So there you go. Hey, if you wanna give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. I wanna hear from you, give me a call, and we can talk. I think what I'm gonna do now, because we have no callers, it happens on Fridays, what I'm gonna do is go to radio questions and stuff like that.
Let's just jump right in. Hi, Matt, can you speak about, oh, I think we already had theonomy, what it is, what your take is it. For example, Greg Bonson was a theonomist. A theonomy is the idea that we want to have the law of God, theos, God, namos, law, theonomy, that the idea of having God's law, the biblical basis of law as the application of civil law. And so they want society to be structured that way.
There's some strengths and weaknesses in it, and my concern is who's gonna be the one to say what is biblical and not in what New Testament context? That's what's difficult. Hey, there's the music. We're gonna get going. May the Lord bless you. Be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. ["The Boyure the BoyEU the BoyEU I actually, I'm sure you already knew this, but I actually did some study in that in West churches in regards to idolatry.
I thought it was pretty fascinating, as a matter of fact. Oooh, okay. Could you write it down, maybe you've got some info you could send me and I could glean through it. Well, I'll tell you if you'd like, unless you mock me mercilessly. Okay, well, let's see what happens. I'm just joking, I'm just joking, I'm sorry.
I know, I'd laugh, it's funny. So it's, as a result of the Islamic invasion in the 400s, that's when this doctrine changed between statues and like paintings, so you obviously know that the Roman Catholic Church used a lot of statues, well, in Islamic theology, that's an idol, and so is in Christian theology as well, for that matter, but that's moving beyond the point. So the standard by which, almost like a court of law, that they had to establish was, if you could pinch the nose of the object, it was an idol, if you could not pinch the nose, it was acceptable.
Really? I'd like to know where that is, is that in the church fathers, where'd you get that? You know what I'll do, is I'll find out where my source was and I'll send you an email.
Sure. So pinch the nose as a standard of determining if something was an idol or not. Yeah, because there's only one, like, I mean, when you're talking about ancient history and how you communicate stuff that's case law, for lack of a better word, for the church, and obviously at a certain point the Islamic government was in control of areas where the Eastern Orthodox Church had, you know, a parochial jurisdiction, they had to play by the right rules, and so they had to change their quote unquote theology to not be murdered, basically. That would, oh, I really need to find that documentation, because it would be a huge embarrassment to the Eastern Orthodox Church. That would be fascinating. I tell you what, I'll put it in the subject line, I'll send it to you as soon as I get it, okay? Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, I need that. I would love to see that, the documentation for it. Ooh, that'd be good stuff. Wow.
Pinch the nose. Hey, I also wanted to tell you, I was like, I literally listened to the show last night, I probably listened to it like four more times, our conversation, because, you'll forgive me, I'm a little bit of a slower man than yourself, so I have to digest the slower, but I think I finally understand more fully what you were talking about in regards to Romans 5-13, if you recall that conversation. Yep, I do, that's right. And then cross-reference with Romans 4-15, yep.
If there is no law, there is no implication of it, things like that, yep. And then the relationship to the Adamic system, yep. Yeah, so just to kind of summarize, so when our obligation to the law died, because we're now in Christ, obviously the obligation would have been to live perfectly, and no one's able to do that, when that went away, there's thereby no longer a sin debt, and that's what 5-13b is saying, and it's in perfect accordance with what you were saying, which is Colossians 2-14. Is that summarizing it correctly?
Let me repeat that again, I got a little distracted, go ahead, one more time. Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize, it was when, so Romans 5-13b, so that when our obligation to the law died, so that because we are in Christ, him being our representative as the one who lived it perfectly, because that obligation is no longer active and hanging over our heads and able to condemn us, and we thereby no longer have sin, which is a debt, so we no longer have a sin debt, and that's why Colossians 2-14 and Romans 5-13 are related in that way. Is that a good summarization? Yes, they are related, because the legal aspect of the canceling of the debt was occurred on a cross by Jesus in Colossians 2-14, it's an actual legal thing made under the law, and then we have died with him, so therefore, we could make the case we don't sin anymore. What I mean when I say that is, well we've died of the law, well then if we've died of the law, the law has no jurisdiction, we can't sin, and it's like saying when a man and a woman who are both virgins marry and they have relations inside of marriage, well they become one flesh, so therefore they're still virgins, because it's only one flesh.
It's not exactly technically accurate, but it's a nice poetic way of looking at something that has some truth value in it, and it's that kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah, and so I again appreciate you kind of giving me that clarification.
I also think that the conjunction but provides a, like a clarifying that Paul is not, he's not adding on to his, like 13a, he's not adding on to the previous phrase, he's saying but something else, and so he's giving that message of redemption, when there is no law there is no sin. Yep. Right. Well hey, I really appreciate it, and I'm sorry it took me a while to kind of think it through, but the more I learn about the atonement of Christ, you know I read The Death of Death and The Death of Christ by John Owen, among some other works, and you know just brilliant guy obviously, and there's just so much deep theology to what did the Lord of Glory accomplish on Calvary, and that's just really beautiful. Yeah, he did some incredible stuff, and we're just not going to be able to know it. The fathom, fathom it here, this side of the kingdom, of eternity I should say, maybe we might get a better understanding of it on the other side, having spent time with him.
I don't know, but yeah, it's an incredible thing, and it cannot be fattened. Absolutely. Yep. Absolutely. Well, thanks for your time, I hope you have a great weekend, and have a blessed Sunday as well. You too, brother. God bless, appreciate it. Alright. Right there. Yeah, I want that quote too.
Alright, alright. That would be very interesting. See, I've been studying a lot of Eastern Orthodoxy because it's growing, and I'm really bewildered as to why. I can only offer theories. Now, Eastern Orthodoxy is an old religious system full of gold and silver and bells and smells and ceremonies. I think that comforts a lot of people, comforts those who don't have and don't understand or seek that relationship with Jesus and responsibility, the intimacy that goes there. I think a lot of people just prefer the pageantry of the externals, and they feel comfortable in that.
Now, I've actually talked to people who say they feel more comfortable in a church that has a high liturgy where the guy up front has a priestly robe where there's ceremony, you stand up, sit down, they feel it's a better church. This is very subjective. To me, that would kill me spiritually. Are you kidding me?
Go away. People are just different. So I think that there's a lot of people who want security, and they look for security in the patterning of ancient things and think that that is what truth is. This is one of the reasons I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is growing.
One of the things I want to do is start doing some videos. I've got to get my video area set up. I'm going to do something different than I've been doing, and just start talking about Eastern Orthodoxy and then extract clips and stuff out of it because Eastern Orthodoxy is not of God. Oh, man, it is so bad.
It is not of God, that's for sure. Hey, there's the music. 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.
Okay, everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. If you want to email me, the number is easy, or the email address is easy, rather, info at karme.org, info at karme.org. All right, I'm going to get some emails, and this is an email that we got this month that there's a guy who is conveying to me some statements made by an agnostic, and he wants me to respond to those statements, so I'm going to give that a shot. So this is one of the statements from an agnostic kind of individual who's following Bertrand Russell.
Bertrand Russell and his teachings, who's a philosopher who used what's called analytic philosophy, and trying to relate philosophical truths to mathematical values. He was big on skepticism and the subjectivity of morality and things like this. Anyway, this guy says, interesting stuff in here, I don't think there is a human good. Now when someone says something like that, if they were to say to me, Matt, I don't think there's anything of human goodness, I'd say, well, what do you mean by goodness there? That it doesn't exist in humanity, because right away the person's going to have to tell me a standard of goodness, but if there is no human goodness, that means there's no universal standard within a human level, so how could he say there is or isn't that? He'd have to have a standard of goodness that he would say is a human level, but he said there isn't any.
So to me, the statement is a non sequitur. It doesn't make any sense to think there is no human good. He says he believes there's energy, and energy can't be created or ended, just transformed. I think that is what happens with all living creatures when they die. Well, that's a problem, because then he looks like he's going after what's called property dualism, that the energy of the physical brain produces the mind, which means that when the physical brain ceases, the mind ceases to have function, which is called property dualism. The problem with that is that it means that the chemical brain just produces necessary chemical reactions.
The question that follows is how then does one necessary chemical state in the brain that produces another necessary chemical state in the brain, how does it produce proper logical inference or truth values? This is a very, very, very difficult question for them to fathom a lot of times, as well as even try to understand. I was having a discussion, this very discussion with an agnostic guy, atheist guy actually, a couple of days ago, and he can't get it, he's just not able to get it, because I don't believe that the worldview allows them enough of a playing field to get concepts like this.
They've got to go over and over and over and understand the concept, which means their worldview has to be expanded a little bit to include the logic of the problem that they have. He said, maybe that same energy could be considered God, this guy goes on, but if there is no human good, and then he says maybe the energy could be considered God, then he's saying the energy is impersonal, but if it's impersonal, how do you have good? So anyway, he goes on, but it is in every human being this energy, whatever, it is not something we have to look for outside the nature around us. It's not something we have to look for outside of us. The what? The energy?
Meaning for what? Goodness that doesn't exist? He's not making any sense. He goes on, number two, I don't think that there needs to be a universal morality. Okay, so he just made a universal statement. He doesn't think there needs to be a universal moral system, which means he's applying a universal moral system of non-moral, universal morality. He says, because morality is having right and wrong when it comes to decisions, and he's saying there's none of that anywhere, anytime. But that means then that there is no morality anywhere, everywhere.
So he's saying a negation. So he's saying there's no universal morality, no universal obligation of anything. Well, there's a problem there, because if that's the case and nothing is right or wrong, nothing any place is right or wrong. Well, is that dealing with morality when you say something, nothing is right or wrong, anytime everywhere? That's a moral statement about morality not being there, and that's a problem.
And so a lot of times that needs to be ferreted out more, but there's an inherent issue there. He says, I tend to believe that we don't need to have a set of rules to behave well or do good. Well, wait a minute. If he said earlier he doesn't think there's any human good, then how does he know what it means to behave well and do good? So he's contradicting himself. I think that everyone has a capacity of self-regulation.
Well, yeah. That is an inner decision, not something that comes from outside, not necessarily. Self-regulation can occur when you are influenced by external factors.
You are arrested, put in a jail cell for 10 years. And so you have an outside effect upon you that then can set regulations on your behavior and your expectations, you know, dinner at a certain time, exercise at a certain time. So I don't think he, this guy is not thinking very critically. I admit I don't have the ultimate truth about anything. Is that an ultimate truth he's trying to say, ultimate truth, to define what it is? Anyway, I am a human being with a limited capacity to think. There are certain things I could never fully understand.
Let's go on to the next, the third one now. Another thing that draws attention to religions since you mentioned, he's talking to this other guy. Historical concepts, let me expand this, is that the resurrection story, 12 apostles being the son of a virgin and performing miracles coincide with other religious characters such as Apollo of Rome, Horus of Egypt, Krishna of India.
Yeah, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about there, sorry, but he doesn't. There are legends of certain things like this written hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years after the fact, certain things attributed to certain people, but they don't have eyewitness accounts that are documented from the original witnesses that are displayed and recounted. There's a serious issue dealing with how legends form and how much time is needed for legend to increase. This is an interesting concept because if certain events happens in the year 100, by the year 500, 400 years later, what new facts or additions to the original fact might have been added as a belief system? This is called legend.
It adds in. People say, well, I think this happened too and then they reason and then they find ways to justify stuff. This legend idea is the kind of stuff that the EO and the RC do with their increase of Mary worship and adoration and things like this. Anyway, this guy, back to this guy, solar gods, they called them and they have an explanation in the field of astronomy.
Jesus would in fact be the most recent example of history of God representing the son, brother, the giver of life, which would also explain his crown of thorns like sunbeams. Yeah. You know, this gets me a lot of times. People just, they just repeat stuff and they don't even know what they're talking about.
I mean, at least do some research, you know, and it doesn't make sense. All right. We're going to, let's see, we've got, what time is it, we've got about two minutes before the break. All right. So, what we're going to do, I think we'll just jump right in and get to Darren from Kansas. Welcome you're on the air.
Hello. I just had a quick question, um, as a divorced single dad, okay, ministry type of work that somebody like me do, whether inside or outside the church or what work can't be done by somebody like myself. Okay. So divorce is not automatically sinful, biblically divorce is not automatically sinful because God issued a divorce against Israel for its spiritual adultery. Now the Bible gives certain conditions that are justifiable for divorce.
If your spouse commits adultery, you have the freedom to divorce, not the obligation, but you could if you wanted. Yes. And the same thing with abandonment.
Yeah. So, um, if the spouse abandons, for example, in 1 Corinthians 7.15, if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave. The brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. So let's say your wife just abandoned you. And let's also say that you're both Christians, hypothetically, there's a lot of variables here, you're both Christians, and she just renounced the faith, she left you, and you were working on it, you were trying to make amends, you're trying to, whatever it was, and she refused and she left. In that situation... That's pretty much exactly what happened. Well, okay. Then in that case... Yeah, that's exactly what happened with adultery. Okay. Well then, alright, so then in that case, you're not under obligation, and I'm going to go on a limb a little bit and say you'd be open to be able to do anything in ministry at all.
Now because the Bible says you're under no obligation, no bondage in this, and since God divorced Israel, then I would say that if you were, nobody's perfectly innocent, but I mean if you were innocent in this, and your elders were involved in the whole bit and they say, yeah, he did nothing wrong, then you're still free to serve God. We've got to break, so 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. Alright, buddy, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. Let's get back on with Darren, are you still there? Yes.
Alright, now we ran out of time, but I wanted to add some stuff here. If you are thinking of getting into service of the Lord, one of the things that you're going to need to do absolutely is to go to the elders of your church and disgusteth with the elders. They are the ones who will ultimately make decisions and things like this. There are Christians who will say you can never be a pastor if you've ever been divorced. There are Christians who say that, I don't believe that's the case. But I'm not saying that I'm the authority, but from what I see in scripture and the verses I gave you, I can only conclude out of what is said. And if there's a verse in the Bible that says if you have been divorced, then you cannot be an elder, for example, let's say that. It's all it's said, then I say, well, you can't be an elder. But nothing like that is in the scriptures that I'm aware of, so, okay.
So if your wife comes in, you can be an adult. Yeah, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on that, so, okay, awesome, thank you, I appreciate it. Okay, yeah, no problem, okay. All right, okay, all right, everybody, if you want to give me a call, the number's 877-207-2276.
I think I'm going to get back on with some more of the emails and the stuff that people have sent in. Read a question, my son and daughter have two sons, one's a one-year-old, one's a six-year-old. And the son was confessing Christian, but is no more, the daughter-in-law, the wife is neutral. This person says she's been convinced, he or she, he had been convinced of covenantal feudal baptism over the years and played with the idea of asking the son if he can baptize the boys with his permission. Yeah, I know this sounds like an odd question, but I'm wondering if it would be a valid baptism. The baptism would be valid if it were to do that. Now this is only within the theological perspective within Presbyterianism that supports covenantal baptism. Now I know that there are people out there who don't affirm covenantal baptism of infants and they would say automatically it's not valid.
Well that's a different discussion. But from within the Presbyterian circles where the idea of covenant in the Old Testament and the New Testament includes infants, that God's covenantal practice suddenly did not change and then the children of believers are now excluded. I don't see it in scripture, but nevertheless. So I'm just going to work from that perspective inside the Presbyterian one. Then I would think that such a baptism would be valid. Some people say that baptism is only valid if a bishop or a presbyter, an elder, performs a baptism. And I negate that.
I don't believe that at all. I don't see anything in scripture that says that baptisms are only valid if certain types of individuals do them. Generally speaking we want them to be believers, you know.
But here's a thought. There are atheist pastors in churches where the congregations don't know that the pastors are atheists. They can't give their real names. They've been interviewed.
I read an article about this. There's a few in America and they just go through the motions. They say what they say.
They've lost their faith and they're waiting for retirement. Now in such a case where the congregation doesn't know and the pastor does know, he says I don't care, you know, whatever, and someone says he wants him to baptize somebody and he does. Is that baptism valid?
The answer is yes. The validity of the baptism is not dependent upon the individual. It's dependent upon what Christ has said. And baptism occurs. So it's like saying what if a really good pastor baptizes somebody and then 10, 15 years later the pastor leaves the faith. It abandons Christ. Did that baptism back then become invalid?
Well of course not. So this is the point here is that baptism is not validated by the baptizer. However Mormon baptism is not valid because it's a false baptism to begin with.
Because it's a false god, false Christ, false priesthood, false everything. So it's just not even a valid baptism. And all Mormons who become true Christians need to get baptized for the real baptism. And same with Jehovah's Witnesses. Now then the question comes in, what about Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? Because they're both false churches. They preach a false gospel and a false priesthood and a false Mary. And so they just teach heresies. It's a heresy fest in both of those religions. So if they were to baptize someone as an adult, let's say a priest, there's no New Testament priesthood like they have, but anyway, let's say one of their priests baptizes an adult in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Is that baptism valid? Personally, my opinion is yes. And the reason I would say is because they do have a true understanding of the Trinity and the personal work of Christ on the cross. They just don't understand the differentiation between the issue of synergism and monergism.
We won't get into that right now. I would then lean towards the idea that such a baptism technically is valid. However, let's just say that someone was baptized in the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church and then came out of them and became a true Christian and wants to get baptized again. Would I perform such a baptism? I would, even though Ephesians 4-5 says, one faith, one Lord, one baptism.
The reason I would is because of two reasons. One, I'm not absolutely convinced that such a baptism that was first done in those false churches is invalid. I'm not absolutely convinced it's invalid, nor am I absolutely convinced it is valid.
I believe it mostly is, but I could be wrong. And so on that basis, I have a realm of conscience. I can kind of have a little wiggle room in there. It's like, yeah, I could see this argument. I could see that argument.
I go back and forth. I could make this case. And so if someone wanted to get baptized because they weren't sure and they really wanted to do it publicly before God for what they would say is the right reason, at that point I would say, okay, yeah, I don't have a problem with that.
Go do that. I don't believe God would be dishonored in such a thing. I don't believe God would be insulted and I don't believe it would be sinful. It's like when we go to Israel and we go to the Jordan. I've been to Israel twice and been to the Jordan twice and people who have already been baptized here in the United States want to get baptized in the Jordan River. There are pastors who will not baptize them again because they believe one faith, one Lord, one baptism, that means numerically one for each individual. Now it could mean that, but that's another discussion too. And so their conscience doesn't permit it.
No problem. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. But if someone asked me to do a baptism in the Jordan, someone who's already been baptized, I'd say, okay, because what they want to do is just be closer to the Lord in their intentions and in the Jordan, I mean, the Jordan River. You kidding me?
It'd be awesome. And so that would be the case. Now when I went there, they were offering, the first time I went there, they were offering people to get baptized. And I didn't volunteer to get baptized because I've already been baptized. It's no more valid in the Jordan than it is when I was baptized out in the ocean in Southern California. That's a valid baptism.
So I didn't have another. So this is, all this is kind of a gray area thing. And I like to, like I said, I like to err on the side of grace. If the Bible's not crystal clear on it, not really clear, then okay, now we're in a gray area. Let's be gracious in it. And even then you've got to be careful, but I don't want to accidentally use God's grace to get into something that's sinful.
And that's why I'm always checking the scriptures to see what they say. So there you go. How about this? Since you believe all things has been predestined, has been, and God cannot change, then why would you pray for healings at anything? According to your logic, it'd be useless. Please explain.
All right. Do you believe that all things have been predestined by God? Well, predestination does not mean we don't have the ability to have free will within the sovereign work of God. See, I could be at a restaurant with somebody and I can cause them to do what I want them to do within a certain range. I could cause them to look in a certain direction by pointing out a window and say, what the heck is that?
And they look. And so I could, in a sense, bring them to do what I want them to do when I want them to do something, but it doesn't mean their free wills are violated. And the person has the ability to make a choice that they want to do or not. And so God is like that, except far, far greater. It can't be helped that God knows everything because anything that does exist, exists because God directly brought it into existence or indirectly permits it to exist.
And both of those categories are within the mind and the realm and the will of God. So it's just that God cannot help but know everything is going to happen because it's just his nature. But it doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to ask God for healing because he knows from, you know, we want someone to be healed. Well, we know from eternity past that God knows we're going to heal or ask for healing within the circumstances of which he's permitted and arranged. And so he answers accordingly, which he is preordained to begin with.
It gets pretty heavy about this kind of stuff. And so it's not useless because God does say that we have freedom. Now, sometimes the ones who ask me this are the anti-reformed people. They don't like the idea of God predestination, they want their own sovereignty. And they say, well, if God knows what you're going to do, you don't have free will because you can't change anything. And I say, let me ask you, did Jesus have free will? Yes. And he said in John 519, John 530, he could do nothing of his own initiative, but only that which he sees the Father do. So if he could do nothing of his own initiative, then you say he has free will. How does that work? Can you explain them both? Now they're stuck.
I can offer an explanation, but they can't because their restrictive principles back themselves into a corner and they need to expand. Let's go to another email. Hi, Matt.
I wish I could call in, but don't have time today. Here's a question. Was creation perfect or good? Doesn't say it was perfect. It said it was good. Okay. Please unpack for this as much as you can.
Ready? If it wasn't perfect, it was good. That's what the Bible says. If it wasn't perfect, but God created it, what does that mean?
It means it was good. And so we see what goodness is when God performs an action. And in the created order, he says that something is good. So now we can learn what goodness is by God revealing what is good. The first time the word good appears in the Bible is in Genesis 1.4. God saw that the light was good and God separated the light from the darkness.
Okay. The light was good. Well, it doesn't tell you what goodness is, but the next time is in verse 10. God called the dry earth land and the gathering of the waters he called seas and God saw that it was good. So we're learning about what good is, you see, and the trees bearing fruit with seeds in them after they're kind, God saw that it was good. So what kind of things do we conclude? Well, we conclude that the existence of light and the separation of the dry land and the waters as well as plants bearing seeds are good things.
And so we go, okay, well, we keep going. God saw that he separated the light from the dark. That was good.
Every bird and swarming thing after their own kind, that was good. And everything that creeps in the ground, God saw that it was good, the cattle was good. And God made everything that was good. So we would learn what goodness is from God, not from our ideas. That's how we learn what is good. And we'd have to go on and on and on and see how he uses it in his inspired word throughout the scriptures. We've got to go.
There's the music. May the Lord bless you. May God's grace back on the air on Monday. Hope you have a great weekend. God bless everybody. And God bless you, God bless you, God bless you.
