Best Of MSL 2020 27: Debate and Deliberation

Looking for that perfect Christmas gift for the family? Why not a chicken? Stick a bow on top, put the chicken under the tree, and who knows, you may even have a couple eggs to fry up for breakfast Christmas morning. Give the gift that keeps on cooking. A chicken.

Okay, maybe it's not the perfect gift for your family, but it is the perfect gift for a poor family in Asia. A chicken can break the cycle of poverty for a poor family. Yes, a chicken. A chicken's eggs provide food and nourishment for a family, and they can sell those eggs at the market for income. When you donate a chicken or any other animal through Gospel for Asia, 100% of what you give goes to the field.

And the best gift of all, when Gospel for Asia gives a poor family an animal, it opens the door to the love of Jesus.

So give the perfect gift for a family in Asia this Christmas. Give them a chicken. Call 866-WinAsia. Or to see chickens and other animals to donate, go to crittercampaign.org. This is the Truth Network.

Welcome to the best of Matt Slick Live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, found online at Carm.org. In this podcast, you will get to hear some of the best calls and segments from Matt Slick Live. And here he is, Matt Slick. Let's get on the phones with Matt from Los Angeles.

Matt? Welcome. You're on the air. Thank you.

Okay.

So my question is How do you interact? the problem of evil, specifically of natural evil.

So, like, for example, why would a perfect god make flesh-eating parasites that eat out the eyes of infants and cause them to die from infections? They're facing a fashion. Let me ask you, are you an atheist? Yeah.

Okay.

So, um Do you have a standard by which you can raise an objection to God and what he should and should not allow? Yeah.

You do have a standard? What is that standard? Yeah.

It's a utilitarian standard. I think I can agree with utilitarianism. Whatever works is what's good.

So um so how do you know that what works is what works? Let me give you an example of something. See, you started off aggressively.

So I'm going to just match you here. I'm going to show you something. Let's say there's a man walking down a path in a forest. And uh To his left, ten feet away, is a cliff, and to his right, ten feet away, is a forest, and there's a path, and he's walking down, and a tiger jumps out of the forest, and jumps right at him, and leaps, and he ducks, and the tiger goes over the cliff, and he's saved. And he says, Hey, I guess that's how you get saved from a jumping tiger.

You just duck. A hundred feet later, the same thing happened to a second tiger, and he ducks the second time. The tiger goes over, he's saved, so he concludes. From his experience in what works, that all you have to do when a tiger jumps at you is just duck, and you'll be fine.

Now obviously there's a problem there, but it's utilitarian. The problem with utilitarianism is it doesn't lead to truth. It only leads to the temporality of convenience of what works. You don't know everything's right or wrong, so your utilitarianism does not provide any moral basis by which you can object to anything.

So do you have anything better? Right, so I I do, but for so I just I I before we before you bill me on nine morality.

So would you say that it's That under your moral framework, that it's okay when flesh-eating parasites doubt the eyes. Hold on a sec, hold on a sec, hold on a sec. You see, you don't have any right to complain, except to say it's just your opinion you don't like something. That's all you've got to say. But I'm going to help you out here.

Adam and Eve were in the garden, and what they did was they started behaving like atheists. They decided what was true and morally true for themselves. And that's when things went really bad in the world. In the fall, sin entered into the world, and then you get parasites, and you get problems that you're complaining and whining about. But you see, it wasn't until they started acting like atheists that it went bad.

Hmm.

So let me ask you.

Okay, so why so why is it ethical to punish e to punish infants whose eyes get to eaten out? Who says they're punished? Who says they're punished? Well So is it a reward when you're on the bottom? Who said it's a reward?

Well, where are you getting this? Are you doing cracker jack theology here?

Okay, Matt, do you think that it's sad when eyes get eaten out by flesh by flesh-eating parasites? Sad or bad? Which w which word did you say? Bad. It is sad.

It's sad? Yeah, it's sad. Or bad. What kind of bad? Moral bad or bad for the health of the of the infant?

What kind of bad? A mortal bad. It's a moral bad.

So it's morally wrong.

Okay, where did you get the standard that it's morally wrong? Tell me. Whoa. Raid too. I will give you my standard in a second, but before I give you the standard, I would like you just to answer the question.

But I I'm happy to explain why I think it's bad, but I just want to know, do you think it's bad under your model?

Well, what do you mean by bad? You see, you have to define what bad is. Is it morally wrong for God? Hold on a sec. Hold on a sec.

Hold on a sec. Is it morally God for God to permit it? Is that what you're asking? Is it is it an immortal thing? Would it be better for that never to have been?

Better what in what s sense? This is the problem with you atheists in morality. You don't think things through. Then you want to argue as though you've already got a thought through and you haven't.

So, this is the problem that you guys have. I do this all the time with atheists. It's easy. It's like shooting fish in the barrel. You don't have a standard by which you can judge anything.

If you're going to say to me, is it morally wrong? For a I'll just use a real life example for my son to be born with holoprosencephaly. and then die because of the dir birth defect.

Okay? Let's use that one. Real life. I had to carry the body of my son to the grave. Literally.

Literally. Alright, a little coffin. Let's talk about that. Is it morally wrong for God to allow that? Is that what you're asking?

Yeah.

Just under your framework. By anything that God allows. is morally correct for him by definition. If you're going to argue against the Christian God, you better understand what the Christian God teaches. You also have to understand you have to understand a bit about morality, too.

But you see, God decrees certain things, and He has what's called a decretive will, let there be light, for example. He also has what's called a prescriptive will, don't lie, and a permissive will. He allows people to lie, He allows sin to work its way in the world. It's not what He desires to happen in the world. Prescriptive sense.

It is what he desires. It is. It is what he desires to occur because people act in a manner contrary to him, and he lets them have the consequences of their actions and the effect of sin in the world.

Okay, Matt, I have a qua I have a follow-up question.

So would it be okay for God to Or sorry, if God's nature, if something is good simply because it's in accordance with God's nature, Thank you. What then, if God's nature was such that God supported lion and supported murder and supported That ended all the other bad things. You're making stuff up. If it was God's nature, would that be moral? I know you're not, but if it were, would that be moral?

You're making stuff up. I don't argue from a non-Christian perspective. Here you are offering me something that's not Christian and then saying, argue from that perspective. No, I argue from the Christian perspective. And let me explain.

So I'm presenting you with the use of brothers. No, you don't know. Matt, Matt, hold on a sec. If you're going to argue from the Christian perspective, then argue from the Christian perspective. Don't abandon the Christian perspective and make up some false scenario and say, answer that one.

It's not that's not how you do that.

Well, it's a it's a hypothetical. A hypothetical of a false god? You want me to adopt a false god? Is that what you want me to do? No, no, I want you to analyze a hypothetical with the false dog.

So, like, I would take my moment.

So, like, for example, if you said, if you asked me if it were utilitarian to kill babies, would I kill babies? My answer would be. Yeah, yeah. If it were the most utilitarian thing. It's just not.

However, that's what your utilitarianism leads to, is uh is murder.

Well, well, wait, wait, Matt, Matt, let me is your name Latin name Stalin by any chance? It's actually not. No, it's not. Really? That's my dead son's name.

But I thought you might have been Stalin because he was very utilitarian. You know, he's just adopting the very philosophy that you're espousing here. I I don't think that that's true. And if you want to talk about the immortal track record about euthilitarians um being m less immortal, I can link you a paper by Nicholas Specksted found in two thousand eutilitarians. Yeah, I could shred utilitarianism with one frontal lobe tied behind my back.

Now look, so here's the thing. You want to raise a moral you want to raise an objection to the Christian God. you have to have a valid objection. Yeah.

But you can't establish a valid objection because all you have is no offence meant, but all you have is your opinion. No. Do you want to hear my logical syllogistic proof of utilitarianism? Let's go with premise one. Sure.

Premise one is all things are rational to desire for self-interested agents. I can't hear you.

Well that's subjectivity. You see, you just don't even. Yes, it is. It's subjectivism. It's subjectivism because it basically.

Yes, it is. Let me explain. It's dependent upon what the person desires, it's subjective. No, it's a universal claim that all people who are rational and self-interest, if a person is rational and self-interested, they will desire their well-being.

So they have a desire which is subjective, which is subjective. And if they have a desire, Matt, Matt, listen. Matt, listen. You're talking about subjectivism of the preferences. If they're rational.

Okay, that's your first part of it. If they're rational, and they what? What was the second part? If they are rational and self-interested, they will be able to.

Okay, hold on, hold on. And self-interested. What does self-interested mean? They're narcissists? No, it means they care about themselves.

They care about things that are good for themselves. Hold on, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt. What's good for themselves? What does it mean to be good for themselves? Um Slate.

The things that are good for themselves produce well beans.

Well, what's how do you know what how do you wait wait wait wait Matt stop stop stop what's good is what produces well-being.

So that's an arbitrary standard that you just pull out of your hat and say that's the standard we're going to go by. You don't have any way to demonstrate that that's true. You just say, Matt, listen to me. Listen. You're saying that which is good is what causes well-being.

Would you say that that which is what causes well-being is also good? Yeah.

Well, then that's circular. It's completely circular. How do you know what is good? What causes well-being? How do you know what well-being is?

Because that's what good is. You have nothing. I'm running out of fish in the barrel. I'm sorry? A mental state that is rational to desire.

Like, we don't know what you know it when you wait. How do you're being irrational? How do you know what's rational? Yeah.

It is Self-evident. Wait, when you self-evident! Self-evident! Wait a minute! Let me get out another sentence, and I'll explain it.

It's so full of problems! It's self-evident, which means it's a form of subjectivism, is based on my experience and my desire. No, no, no. Matt, let me get out one more sentence, and then you can respond. For people who deny that it's self-evident, that there's something that makes pain undesirable and that makes well-being desirable.

I wouldn't really. Hold on, we got a break. We got a break. Hold on, hold on, we got a break. Folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

This is what I'd love to do. Oh, man. Shooting a fish in a barrel.

Okay, he'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. If you want to learn some theology, you can go to the CARM.org website, C-A-R-M.org. On the right-hand side of any page, you'll see a laptop and it says online schools. And you can just click on that and you can sign up for the schools.

And if you want to know your theology, this is the place to do it. You can't go to seminary, you can't go to Bible college, you're not sure which book to read. I've been doing apologetics for 40 years and got thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of teaching and debating and things like that. And I've learned what needs to be taught in the basics, but not just so basic that you don't have any information. I mean, the basics and some.

And I put it into the schools in a logical order. And if you learn anything, go to that theology school, go check it out, and you'll learn about the Trinity, the hypostatic union, communicatio, idiomatum, justification, imputation. You'll learn about these things so you can know what the Christian faith is. For more information about online schools, be sure to visit korm.org. Thank you for listening to the best of Matt Slick.

Take it away, Matt. Let's get back to Matt from LA.

Okay.

Hello.

So, um, the sentence that I was trying to get out back when the break happened was, So, for people who deny that it's self evident that pain is bad and Is good. If that's true, then why do you pursue psycher and avoid pain? Like, for example, nobody would be willing to put their hand on a hot stove for people who deny this. And I encourage you to put your hand on a hot stove for 10 minutes and then see if you found that to be bad. Or if you think that that has some other property that makes you that, the fact that everybody is willing to do that.

You're not talking morality. You're just talking about experience. That's all you're talking about. It's not a moral issue here. No, no, it's a moral issue.

Some experiences are bad and we should avoid them. Wait a minute. Look. Yeah.

If if if I you know, if I'm hammering a nail and I hit my thumb, Is that a moral thing now? Or is it just I just missed the the nail? Um yeah, it's a moral thing because it's bad. Do you have an argument? How do you know it's bad?

I didn't say it was not. How do you know that it's bad? I know it's bad because it's it because it causes suffering.

Okay, and so is it hold on, hold on, hold on. Hold on. It's bad 'cause it causes suffering.

So is what causes suffering also bad? Um Things that cause suffering are bad, although that's not the definition of suffering.

So it's not. Oh, wait a minute. What if I have to have my arm reset? Because I broke it and it's going bad. They reset it and it causes harm.

Oh, so you're just doing things. You're changing your definition. Yeah, you look at long-run pleasure. Oh, now it has to be long-run.

Okay.

So Inling asks you a question. If I come over your house, and it won't happen, but if I come over your house with a gun and I rob you, is that. Morally right or morally wrong. Um, probably morally wrong. That's how you mean that.

Wait, first of all, you're making noise in the background. Second, why is it probably morally wrong? Don't you know? Yeah, so so for example, like if you're Actually, no, it's it is almo it is always morally wrong. Oh, so now you're wait a second, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

So now you're saying there's a universal moral principle that everyone must adhere adhere to? Yeah, the principle of well-being.

So, the pr a principle is an abstraction. Do you understand that? It's a thing that occurs in the mind.

So you're now you're you're saying there's universal principles? How do you have that in an atheistic world? Um Same way you have it in this like the way I conceptualize morality exists the same way logic does.

Now I know you say that um that you can't have morality that you can't have logic without God, I don't think that you can provide. No, I didn't say that. No, I d I didn't say that. I didn't say that. You you obviously have heard me, but you misrepresent what I say.

Um so uh you're you're actually from an atheistic perspective, which means you're a materialist, right? You believe just the material world, right? No, no supernatural. Being from an atheistic perspective does not mean that I'm a materialist. Are you a materialist?

Are you a materialist? I don't know.

So, your materialism is self-refuting because materialism. You don't even know what you are? How do you even know how to argue about these things? You don't even know what position you hold. No, no, no.

There might be things which are non-material. I don't know.

It was not rational to me to know. Yeah, like thoughts and principles are immaterial. And principles are abstractions.

So, how do you justify from your worldview that there are universal principles, which everyone ought? to adhere to. Yeah, so the same way that I think that there are any other universal principles, the same way that math exists objectively because it corresponds to the world. I tell you what, we don't have time to continue with this, but um You are a candidate for having your clock vacuum. Put apart vacuum cleaned and vacuum pressed in bags and handed back to you.

That kind of clock clean.

So you need to study the issue of the universals and transcendentals. You need to understand what you're talking about here. And your utilitarianism, which is another form of pragmatic. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Hey, folks, I love those kinds of conversations. I do. Because an atheist Sorry. An atheist who argues like that doesn't have a leg to stand on. It just takes time to expose it.

And what he was doing was presupposing the universality of the laws of logic by which he could then infer certain logical principles and requirements. He was also inferring a universal form of morality, which he cannot affirm from an atheistic perspective.

So he doesn't realize that his foundation for argumentation was also self-refuting, and he had to presuppose Christian worldviews in order to argue against the Christian worldview. And that's what we're getting to ultimately.

Now, for me, It's shooting fish in a barrel. And it's because, not because I'm smart, it's because the atheist worldview cannot defend itself in the school of intellectual examination. Let's get to Courtney from Ohio. Courtney, welcome. You're on the air.

Thank you.

My question is from I think it's Second Chronicles seven, fourteen, where it says, my people are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways.

So I wanted to know Uh What specifically are the wicked ways that we, his people, can turn from.

Well, it's actually talking about Israel. I know that, but I know some people apply it even to us.

Well It's a habit to do that. Yeah, and so what we can do, we can draw principles from it.

So let's just read a little bit of context, okay? Thus Solomon finished the house of the LORD and the king's palace, and successfully completed all that he had planned on doing in the house of the LORD and in his palace. Then the LORD appeared to Solomon at night and said to him, I have heard your prayers, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice. If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people, and my people who are called by my name humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven. will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

So what you talking about? Um Is he talking about Christian? He's talking about the people of Israel, the house of Israel, and that if God were to judge them for what they did, if they were to repent. and turn to them turn to God, that He'll forgive their sin and heal their land. Yeah.

Now that's who it's aimed at.

Now, can we apply it to us? That's the question. When we do what's called hermeneutics, we want to always look at what the text originally says and who it's originally addressed to.

Okay, and we've got a break coming up.

So let's continue this after the break for the point.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Follow the Truth Network on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram. We'd love to hear from you. We'd love to hear your feedback, your comments. You can also download our free mobile app at truthnetwork.com. We've gone digital and we ask you to join us there.

Thank you for your loyal listening to the Truth Network and thank you so much for your prayers. Your prayers are what fuel this ministry forward to reach people with the truth of Jesus Christ. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Welcome back to the best of Matt Slick. Take it away, Matt.

Courtney from Ohio, you still there? Yep. All right.

I'm here.

So we can see by reading the context that the context is not about Christians today, it's about the house of Israel. And this phrase is used in other areas, the house where the Lord's name is, and things like that. And um So, the first application is its historical context. We do not want to take something that was meant to Israel and then port it over to us and say, see, it's for us today. Not necessarily.

It might be, but it might not be.

So, how do we find this out?

Well, what we do is, what I like to tell people is when I'm doing this kind of analysis, is to picture a target that you shoot arrows into, and the center dot, and then there's a ring and a ring and a ring, it goes out and out. The center dot is the verse itself, and then you look, this one ring out there, what's its immediate context? And this is so critical. And so God is talking to the covenant people of Israel and saying, well, he's talking to Solomon and stuff, but he's saying. that you need to abide By what I'm telling you.

Now, there's a principle here because a covenant is a pact or an agreement between two or more parties. And so. God had covenanted with Israel for various things under various covenants. If they break his covenant, curses and trouble follow. If they keep the covenant, blessings follow.

This is Old Testament.

Now, some people say there's a new covenant in the New Testament.

Now, there is a new covenant. Because the old covenant is done away with, and that's uh with the death of of Christ. Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 9:15 through 16. Yeah.

Now the question is, what are the stipulations of that covenant? And We have to see if they match. I've been doing research on this in my spare time, all five seconds of it. And so I'm looking at the new covering issue in the book of Hebrews, and I'm not finding what people are telling me it is. People are telling, this is a side note, people are telling me it's about anybody who's a Christian.

And I'm not finding that. I'm finding it, again, the house of Israel. Because it says house of Jacob and Israel, but nevertheless.

So let's just go out in those concentric circles. Is there a principle here, though, that we can lay claim to? And I think there is. I think that we could understand and And agree that if we Christians in the land honor God, then God will bless us. And that if we don't honor him, he will not bless us.

I think this is a very basic principle. And We see this kind of a thing throughout the Old Testament. And we also see it in the New Testament, where people do what's right before God, and God blesses them. He sends them places, he anoints them. And when they break covenant faithfulness, he destroys them.

And like Ananias and Sapphira, when they lied to the Holy Spirit, they were killed. And so there's a judgment that comes upon people, but you know. For the most part, what God wants. He wants to bless us a lot. He really does.

But in order to get that blessing, we have to walk in His way. And we have to love our neighbor and love God and not bow before idols, not put things that, you know, like I want a big car and a big bank account and all health and everything, and then I'll follow Jesus when I'm comfortable. This kind of idolatry needs to be stopped. and things like that.

So, when we look at this issue, if we were to apply it to ourselves, In the Christian context, we have to understand that judgment begins in the household of God. And if this applies to us, then we Christians need to repent a great deal. And I believe that if we do, God will bless our nation. and the repentance that the Christian needs to go through. is to put God first in his life in all areas.

And not seek those earthly pleasures for the sake of earthly pleasures. There's no no problem with having a big screen T V and a nice car. That's not a problem. If those get in the way of your fellowship with Christ and your love of your neighbor, then it's a problem. And we need to uphold the great commission and put it upon our hearts to give and support and pray for those who are involved.

and ministry work. To the pastors, the teachers, the elders, various missionaries, and to support them. The Christian church needs to be using its attributes and its talents that were given for that purpose. And if the church is not doing it, but instead is saying, let's make the church comfortable for unbelievers, instead of a little uncomfortable for believers, but comfortable for the unbelievers, which means don't be too offensive, be really gentle and nicey-wisey upon them. And that means that the Christians aren't really becoming equipped.

Well, if that's going to happen and the Christians aren't being equipped, but they're being babysat and bottle-fed, then we Christians. Are not doing what we are doing, are supposed to be doing. If the people who are called by his name Christian, will humble themselves and pray, and seek His face, and turn from their wickedness, He'll hear us. I believe that principle is still true. And he'll forgive us and he'll heal.

But. you think a big one is because I don't find And I don't know, you know Too many. I mean, I can't. Talk a I mean, I just uh observation that we don't seem to witness that much. Right.

So, I was wondering if that was a big one. And also. I don't really find I mean, we have we've been we've had a hard time finding a church you know, for us I don't really find a lot of churches that do it.

So it's like No, you may specifically want to do it, but You can't find a church. I mean, I've even visited churches where I've brought it up and Okay, I've got the high feeling. They'll say, what's that? Yeah.

And Well, they just want, like, I'll have them. One time a pastor said to me, you know, well, I, you know, I think it's just better just to pray for people. And I'm like, you know what? Not everybody wants you to pray for them.

Sometimes they just need to hear. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm so prosper. A pastor said it's just better to pray for them.

Sometimes, you know, he thinks it's just better to break the phone. you know, specifically I really like the Ray Comfort Ministry. And it was I just thought it was I mean, it was actually an answer to prayer. I mean, one time I asked the Lord, I'm like, my way of putting it was: I wish there was some way that you just. Kind of do to respond to somebody when they say they're a good person, or you know, and then it wasn't too long after, you know, I was my way of saying it was I would, you know, like a telemarketer just like knows when you say this, they say that.

When you say this, they say that. Like, they are prepared. You know, and I was like, I wish there was something like that. And it wasn't too long after that on TV, I found Ray Comfort. This was years ago.

And I just thought it was so interesting. Or when I bring it up, says various pastors and one specifically that I'm talking about right now. wasn't too interested in that. And I was like, wow. Let's not bring a good pastor.

Just I'm going to brag a little bit. I've done open air with Ray. We've gone to the beach and I've swapped pulpits with him or soap boxes and done open air with him.

So he's a great guy, you know, and he's a warm heart and open arms and he's great at what he does.

Well, and and that's like when he does that, like I know I'm fine with doing it one-on-one talking to someone. But with that like what he does like standing on a box Is that just for guys or is that for women?

Well, hold on. Right back, Kathy's messages. You can ask me that question again. Hey, folks, be right back. We have three open lines: 877-207-2276.

Be right back. And now a moment of truth with Matt Slick. I don't understand how anybody who's a Christian can't be seeking to live for the Lord Jesus Christ in everything he does or she does. It's not how great the tool is, it's how great the hand is that uses the tool.

So, an illustration I have: three daughters, my middle daughter can take a pencil and she can draw a person's face so well you'd think it was a photograph. Seriously, she is that good. I can take the exact same pencil and I can barely scribble out a stick figure. And that's no joke. I have no drawing ability, okay?

So the same tool. Is has different accomplishments in the hands of a master. And the hands of the master is Lord God Himself. And for any of us who is a simple black and white little pencil, look what He can draw with that. Look what God can do with it.

this has been a moment of truth. with Matt Slick. Thank you for listening to the best of Matt Slick. Take it away, Matt. Courtney are still there.

Yep, I'm here. All right.

Now, okay, you didn't need it for me to ask the question again.

So, is that just for you know, I would see on there how over at Comfort he's the one on the box. And then kinda after he Um talks been The other people on his team go around and they'll talk one-on-one to people. And I even saw specifically where there was a woman that. Was with them and she would go talk one-on-one. Is it just for the guys though to be on the box?

You know, we've never talked about that, Ray and I.

So I don't know. I think if it was predominantly a woman crowd and a woman wanted to talk, I think that'd be fine. Because she's not an elder, she's not a church, it's not in a church context.

So I wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't mean like this gray comfort, I meant like biblically. No. Yeah, because it's a gray area. But.

Yeah, and the reason he gets on a box is he's short. Yeah, yeah, I heard him say that before. Yeah, and so he does that. But. Uh yeah, and it's a great uh Not a technique, but one person will gather the crowd.

He's good at doing that. And then people who work with them will go around and have individual conversations. What I like to do in groups like that. Is to when the person's doing the open air, and I've done open air many times, but when they do it, I like to watch the crowd and see if there's any hecklers. And then I go tackle the hecklers.

If they're going to be difficult, you know, you go about this or about that. Apologetics, I'm going to jump right in there. And then I step away from them and start a mini group that I'm trying to take over. But it's often what happens. And so we work together, we coordinate together, and it's a real privilege to talk about.

I would love a church that does stuff like that. But uh you can't find one. I mean, I don't want to say ever, like, it's not possible, but they're out there. We haven't yet, put it that way. Yeah, they're out there.

You know, if I were a pastor of a church, again, what I would do is train people to do that and go out with them occasionally because I'm always working. You know, I've done years of street evangelism, swap meet ministry, going out on the beach and doing various things, prison ministry. And now I I like to preach and teach over the r the radio and uh online, live. But people need to uh be encouraged to do it. But most people just don't know anything.

And I believe that part of the reason is churches are just teaching them how to. How to be uh Mampy Pampy. Yeah, I that's I kind of think so too. And that's why I mean I was you know, I mean, I know that it's okay for a woman to evangelize, but Um I I just want to make sure I'm in line with What the Bible says about, you know, I know how women aren't supposed to be pastors and those kinds of things. And I didn't know how you said, like, you said it was a gray area.

What an appropriate What if, you know, I was out in your area and and uh we met and we were out walking some place and and um there was you know, and so we would say, Hey, let's say this happens, hey, aren't you Matt Slick? 'Cause I get known every recognized every now and then. Yeah, and so a conversation starts, right? Let's just say a bunch of women start coming in. To the group.

And I'd look to you. And if you want to jump in. You know, go for it. Because if that's the case, if you have something to say, I would have no problem with that at all.

Okay, it wouldn't bother me at all. But my view, Yeah.

Okay, 'cause you can do it. I would have no problem if you were talking to a guy. I mean, I'd make sure that you were protected and things like that, but I'd be there and keep out of it. If you're having a conversation, we have a saying, Bill McKeever actually quined this with me. He says, You catch your own or you clean your own fish.

It means if you're talking to somebody, don't have somebody else come in and take over unless they're asked to.

So, when I go out, I just sit and let, not let, but join people in their conversations by standing there and backing them up. That's what I like to do. I like to back people up so that they can get the experience.

Well, what about. And I know you have other colours so I wanna I don't wanna keep you too much longer, but what about like in the church? the person who should be teaching those to go out to do that. Yeah, he should. Should that be a guy?

Yeah, it's a church function, and he should be teaching in the church about evangelism, and women should be involved in that. I don't find any pastors doing that. Yeah.

Annoying. Ask to see their Bibles. Ask to see their Bibles. And just turn to the end of Matthew and see if the Great Commission is in their Bibles or if it's crossed out or missing.

Well, that's kind of where I was going with the other pastor when I was, and he was like, Well, I just think sometimes it's better just to pray for someone. I'm like, Well, not everybody knows that they're not. A lot of people think they're good people. A lot of people don't have any idea that they're in trouble. You feel what I mean?

I didn't. I wa I always thought I was a Christian. I didn't know I mean, I always thought believing in God was enough. And yeah, it's not a double L's, right?

So, well, this is it, you know, and pastors need to be doing what the Bible says to do. Instead of babysitting Christians, making them comfortable, the Bible nowhere says just make people comfortable. It says equip them for the work of ministry. That's what it says: pick up your cross daily and follow after me. That's what we're called to do as Christians.

That's it. You know, I'm going to, you know, I'm 63 and 65 is supposed to retire. I'm not retiring. I'm just going to continue on as long as I possibly can to serve my Lord in whichever capacity it would be. It doesn't matter.

If I even have to end up being a janitor someplace, then I will serve God doing that. And I would consider it to be the work for the Lord my God. And I would do it for his glory, and I would look for opportunities to witness even in that context. This is our heart, the heart of Christ that we're supposed to have as Christians. And if we don't have that heart that is externally motivated to care for others, to preach that gospel to others, then we're not accessing that spirit of Christ within us, and we don't have the heart of Christ in us in the sacrificial means of getting out there, getting that word preached and teached, just like Jesus did, just like Paul did, and they suffered for the faith.

That's what it is. Jesus says, pick up your cross. If you don't pick up your cross, you're not worthy of me. This is what Christ has taught. But you don't hear this much in churches because people don't want to come back because they're not being made uncomfortable.

I'll tell you, if I were preaching. I sometimes think, you know, let's just say there was a pastor who got sick here, had a six-month hiatus, whatever, and they asked me to come in and fill in. I'd say, Are you sure? Are you sure you want me to come in and fill in? Because you might lose some numbers.

You might lose people. I'm going to preach the word. And not to say that they weren't doing that already, but it's that kind of a thought, you know? Because. I'm with you.

I just don't think a lot of what needs to be taught is taught. When I preach, which haven't preached for a few months, I need it, I miss it. But I get very enthused. And I move, and it's the Word. It's the Word of God.

It's incredible to hear it, preach it, live it as Christians. I'm excited about the Word. And We need to have it more. Anyway, I'm rambling, okay?

Okay, thank you very much. All right, Courtney, thanks for calling. All right, let's get on the phones with Michael from New York. Michael, welcome. You're on the air.

How are you doing, man? Doing all right, man. How are you doing? Doing well. It's a funny story, but uh I just had Let me take yours.

So there was a site that talked, basically, listed this as a Predatorist conversation, but are you familiar with full predator and partial predators? What is your stance on that? Oh, yeah, I'm quite familiar with them, yes. Mm-hmm. What is your stance on that?

Full praetorism is heretical, not biblical. Partial praetorism is within orthodoxy, not a problem. I actually Yeah. I'm swayed towards full fetterism. I'm wondering maybe you could tell me maybe deconvert me, but I'm new to this, so It's it's not like I'm an expert at this, but that's okay.

What troubles me is is the time statements. That's one of the things that led me into. Sure. into old patternism and And so I think there's about three hundred in in the New Testament that's good. Yeah, this is there's a uh uh something called the now and the not yet.

Are you familiar with that concept? Very much so, yeah.

Okay.

So we would say that within partial praetorism, which I adhere to, that it's a manifestation of the now and the not yet. That both of these things can be fulfilled in different ways.

Now, you're making a lot of noise in the background there.

So.

Sorry, go ahead.

Okay.

So let me ask you: do you affirm? And I'm not trying to set you up. I just want to know what you believe. I'm going to go to the scriptures that refute what I'm going to see if you affirm.

Okay.

Just telling you in advance.

So the idea in full praetorism is that Jesus returned.

So to speak, in the armies of Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem. Is that what you hold to? Exactly. All right.

That's exactly what you're saying. Yeah, I know there is, but it's refuted in Acts 1:9 through 11. And after he had said these things, he was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud Received him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky, while he was hold going, behold, two men in white clothing stood be uh beside him. They also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky?

This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven.

So, what the angels are prophesying is that the return of Christ is going to be the same way that it occurred here. As he went up into the sky, the clouds looking up into the heaven, okay. that the same way this is always going to come back, this is in reverse order, okay? that refutes the idea of 70 AD. We got a break.

Yeah, I would disagree, but I'd like to resist. Let's talk about it. Let's talk about it after the break, okay?

Okay, hey, folks, we'll be right back. We got a break. Please stay tuned, it should get interesting. Here is Matt Slick with a special announcement from Carm.org.

So, I've written a couple of novels, a novella and a sci-fi novel. If you want to check them out, they're on the Carm homepage as well. One is called Time Trap, and it's a sci-fi novel. And then Atheistica, that's a novella, it's a short novel, and it's about an atheist nation that develops on an island and how things don't go really well. And it's a theological examination without making atheists look like morons because they're not.

And just showing the problems with atheistic perspectives and justification and foundations.

So, there you go. For more information, be sure to visit carm.org. Welcome back to the best of Matt Slick. Take it away, Matt. Let's get back to Michael from New York, Michael.

Okay, you're still there? Uh thanks, Matt. Yeah, um There's no doubt that that's a difficult text before Preterus. You know, when I take this sort of cumulative picture and When I look at Master Mark fourteen, Where Jesus is telling the high priest that he will see him on the clouds. And I look at John chapter twenty-one, and he's basically telling Peter that.

What if I want John to remain before I return? And there's other scriptures that what if he goes through the cities and returns and So Yes, it's a difficult text, but I would look at it in in a context of how God would come down on the clouds in the Old Testament and So, I don't see Jesus as according to the flesh. I think he's a life-giving spirit at this point.

So, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Okay, now I want to tackle what you just said, but you just said something that's very serious. Do you believe Jesus is a man right now? Yeah, we can. That's another discussion, but I think. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's a critical, it's a critical doctrine, okay?

So you can just get on you, I'm not going to call you a heretic and all that. I want to discuss it because this is an essential doctrine. And So you know, Jesus is a man right now. If he's not a man right now, we can't be saved, we can't go to heaven. And I can explain.

So, what constitutes a human, and I don't think that the flesh alone is what constitutes a human? You understand. You understand what I'm saying? He's physically right now a man. He's in a physical body.

He prophesied his own physical resurrection in John 2:19 through 21. Destroy this temple three days, I will raise it up. He was speaking the temple of his body. In Luke 20, 25 through 28, he said to Thomas after his resurrection: Put your hand into my side. and put your finger into my hand.

So he retained the crucifixion wounds after his physical resurrection. And the physical resurrection. Actually, yeah, but that's where full preteris sort of diverge is that. He had a resurrection body as a sign. But That God affirmed his message, but when he ascended, he assumed a spiritual body.

That is a heresy. That's damnable heresy.

Okay.

Let me explain. It's damnable. Damnable. And the reason is because it's denying his humanity right now.

Now, In his physical form.

Now, now, let me ask you: can you be a priest, a high priest? if you're not a man. And I know you can say in a human, the essence, we get into that, I can talk about that. But can you be a man if you're not a man, excuse me, be a high priest if you're not a man? Yeah, I am saying, Matt, that in John, when Jesus says that.

you know, we'll we'll make our abode with you and So I'm looking at. In John 14, he says, you will see me after the Holy Spirit would come. No, no, no, no.

So when I. Yep. Kate, no, you see, I have been doing. No, no, it's okay. You're being very polite.

It's just that I need to say this politely. But you're making all kinds of of exegetical mistakes. You don't know that yet. You're making a lot of mistakes, and the full praetorists are doing this a lot. And I can see that you're, you know, you're into that.

And I'm not trying to knock you, I'm not trying to insult you. But, um, So he is a man right now. Let me explain why. If he's not a man right now, we're damned. Why is that?

Because Jesus is a man, according to 1. Timothy 2:5. There's one mediator between man and God, the man, Christ Jesus. And he is after the order of Melchizedek, he's a high priest. And he lives forever to make intercession for us.

That's Hebrews 6.20 and Hebrews 7.25. If He's not a man right now, He cannot be a high priest. And if he's not a high priest, would it be fair to say, though, that I would think that slightly a strong man? I actually believe he's a man, but. How I understand, you know, Paul talks about a basically a fleshly body and the spiritual body.

So, my understanding of what Jesus is right now, you know, he's not literally sort of on a throne next to the daddy God. I think there's a lot of symbolism involved, but We're a spiritual being in a physical body. If I leave this flesh and I go to be with God, I. I don't necessarily have to remain in a physical, literal physical body to be a man. Because I retain my consciousness, my spiritual essence.

That's correct. because the essence of humanity is not restricted solely to the physical, but we will be resurrected. And we're going to be joined in with our resurrected body. The spiritual body spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:35 through 45, is not a spirit. Form, but the spiritual body, which is the resurrected, glorified body, which is what Jesus retained.

He prophesied his own resurrection. And when someone, and this is what the Jehovah's Witnesses say too, they'll say he was resurrected to demonstrate his resurrection, but then the body was dissolved as he went into heaven. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach this. Which is why? You said what you said.

What do you mean by body? In other words, having. His kingdom is not of this sort of plane, right? It's not a matter of fact. No, no, don't say of this plane, because it introduces new age terminology and concepts.

Or of matter, right? It's not a physical. God is not physical. But he. It's a whole other topic.

God is not physical, but Jesus is. Jesus is both a man and he's both God and man right now. On the throne is in heaven.

So what does that mean? In other words, he he doesn't have our physical body. He has some sort of No, no, no. No, no, correct. No, no, no.

See, how you speak is a problem. It doesn't have our physical body. You're you. I'm me, our. There is no our body between you and I.

What you're trying to say is: does he have a human physical body? Yes, he does. Because we are going to be resurrected physically. This is what the Bible teaches. Yes, we Phil Provision has a different view on that, but we can diverge into so many different topics.

So when Paul talks about a resurrected body, it's a it's a cumulative corporate body. With the dead saints and living saints. No. Yeah.

Five minutes ago. It seems full praetorism when you hold to this is damnable. What you're doing, and I'm being informative here, you are denying the physical nature of Christ right now, which demonstrates the sufficiency of the resurrection, the fleshly normality of the resurrection. You're denying the fleshly nature. Not his, not his being.

No, you can understand. God made us as human beings to be inhabited in human bodies. That's how He made us. When we die, our essence goes back. Yes, and it goes back to be with them.

Now, what's going to happen here, the Bible says God gives it a body just as He wished, the seeds of the body of its own. And we go down, it says, So is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised in an imperishable body. The resurrection of the dead, a perishable body, an imperishable body.

Now, It says here: it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory, it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power, it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. The sea What's happening is the body that is being resurrected is a glorified body. It is no longer going to die. Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection, and he was in that glorified body that we're to get. He's the first one.

For you to say, Well, he's no longer a man, that he's no longer uh in a physical body.

Okay, I know what you mean by division of the nature and the essence. But if he's no longer in the physical body, then he's no longer a high priest. If he's no longer high priest, he cannot be our influence. In 1 Corinthians 15, 45, first Adam became a living being, but Christ is now a life-giving spirit. Yeah, yes.

Which says we no longer know Christ according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. Right.

But you're ignoring what it says when it says it's ro it's sown a perishable body, raised an imperishable body. It's sown perishable, but raised imperishable. What is the thing that is raised? But it's a thing that's raised. It's the the physical body.

The physical body. Yeah.

Yeah.

So he's talking about it. That's the it. It is sown in a perishable body. It is raised on imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, the physical body.

It is raised in glory, the glorified body. It is sown in weakness. That's the body I got now. But when a seed goes into the ground, it loses the, it changes morphologically. Yeah, but he's just using an analogy.

But what he's talking about here is the resurrected. We know this is legitimately the real resurrection because Jesus is the one who exemplified it. His resurrected body. You would have to show You would have to show that he his body became nothing and his physical body dissolved. You can't find that in Scripture.

It's raised a spiritual body that and as you quoted. In 1 Corinthians 15:44. But it was. That makes his physical body dissolve. No, it didn't.

No. Let me explain. In his ascension. Right? No.

I mean, he's not on the physical earth anymore, right? Hold on. It says a spiritual body, which is what you quoted. That's what's raised as a spiritual body, but it's raised as an imperishable body. And you said it was the physical body that is raised.

And Paul goes on to say that that body, that's what the it is. It's raised imperishable. It's the physical resurrection. It is raised a spiritual body. That's what it's called.

It's a physical change. It's a yes, in a glorified body.

So when you said it's a spiritual body as though it's not physical, you're taking that out of context and you're misusing it because that's exactly what it means in the text, that it is a physical body. You see, look at the text. That's what the reflections. What is a spiritual body? That's the question.

The glorified body. That's what the text is saying.

Okay.

That's a footage could be alluding to a spiritual body. I could have just gotta go with this. Cool. One more time after we get back to the break. Hold on, folks.

We'll do it one more time. write back up his messages. Thank you for listening to the best of Matt Slake. Take it away, Matt. Let's continue this.

Michael, are you still there? Amen. Thank you.

Can I just ask you a real quick question? If if if it if the physical body is in this is necessary for Jesus to be Jesus, then then how is Jesus in us today? And and In other words, it he he can be a spiritual being and speak to us and live in us and move and you know what I mean? Why is it necessary? Yeah.

First of all, there are two doctrines, the hypostatic union and the communicatio idiomatum. And the hypothetic union says that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures, the divine and the human. The communicatio idematum says the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person.

So the attribute of divinity is ascribed to the single person, so therefore the attribute of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, is attributed to the person of Christ. This is called the communication of the properties.

So therefore, John 14, 23, he can live in us. Him be everywhere, always with us, even though he also has a physical body, because we don't know how those two natures interact, but he still retains them in his personhood.

Okay.

So you're saying it's just the the divine nature that's in us and not the dual nature? By definition a physical nature cannot be in us. A human nature can't dwell in more than one place at a time. Otherwise, he's not a man. Yeah.

Right, but of Jesus' human nature was Dual fused with the one. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's not. There's no separation. No, no. Fused is monophysitism, which is a heresy.

Yeah, fused. I don't really.

Okay.

Well, he was one with the divine nature. To be say one with is nondescript. It doesn't mean within.

Well, he was human and divine.

However, you want to. That's right. Hypothetic union. I was with. It's one with.

Well We get these errors called Eutychianism, monophysitism, Nestorianism, the kenosis theory, and the various errors. But uh he's one person with two distinct natures. And he has a divine nature and a human nature. And the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person, which is why the sacrifice on the cross was of divine value. Because only the human nature died.

How then is the sacrifice of divine value? Because the one person died on the cross, and the person had divine attributes ascribed to him, even though the person that was perceived was in the human form. And then we get into the issue of we see the divine through the manifestation of the human. But that's another topic. Back to 1 Corinthians 15, 42.

Now, this is what you said in verse 42.

So, as also as the resurrection of the dead, it is so a perishable body. That's a physical body we have. It is raised an imperishable body. That's the same physical body. And you said, yes, that's what it is.

If what you look at in that text, and I would suggest you do, 42, 43, 44, you will say, you will see that there's two things: the perishable, the imperishable. Dishonor, raise, and power. Natural body, spiritual body. What you've done by going to the spiritual body is to disassociate that with the rest of its context. The imperishable, resurrected, glorified body is the spiritual body.

That's what Paul is saying.

So, what you've done is say the spiritual body is physical, and you've missed the whole point because it says he's sown a perishable body, raised an imperishable body. Physical body, it is sown, it is raised. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in power. It is sown in natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. It's the same it.

So that which is raised is a spiritual body. the raised in power, which is the imperishable body which is the glorified body.

Okay.

That's what's going on there. I understand your particular view. No, no, I know it's not my particular view. That's what it says. Oh, it's the orthodox view, sure.

No, it's what it says.

Okay.

But when I think spiritual body, I think it's using language, it doesn't necessitate. If it necessitated a physical body, Paul would not have said In several instances, he's not a physical being, now he's a life-giving spirit. What is a spirit? But you see you can't just do it. Yeah.

If he's a life-giving spirit, is he human? I don't split the natures. Wait a minute. When Jesus says we make our home. Is he a life-giving spirit?

Does he have a human nature? as a spirit. Is he divine? His human nature is in his human spirit. It's not any physical body.

You quoted something. It says he's a spirit. All right.

So does Jesus have two natures right now? It's yes or no.

Okay.

So then he has a human spirit. Natures are connected to spirit. Yeah, I have a different view on the nature of Christ. I think that you can have a human spirit. With you know, Jesus had a human spirit.

Okay.

And God's spirit. He does I don't he doesn't need a physical spirit to be What your what your full what your full prederes is leading you is to even more and more heresy. You are. It's just you're denying what it says in 1 Corinthians 15, 42 through 45.

Now you're messing with a hypostatic union. and you're denying the full resurrection. I know you say you don't, but the resurrection glorified body isn't dissolved any place, you don't find it. And then what you do is you go to other places to talk about a spirit. You take it out of its context and you apply the meaning someplace else.

And I'm trying to show you that. And we go to the last session. Yeah.

In Acts 1, it refutes it. It refutes your idea that he returned in the armies because the angels prophesied he's going to return in the same way he went up into the sky. That's what it says. But when he tells the high priest that he's going to see him as well. How do you reconcile that?

And then the resurrection, everybody's going to see him. Every guy will see him. Not a problem. It's a different context. But what you're doing is you're making a huge exegetical mistake.

You see something that's problematic, and what you do is you abandon what it says and go someplace else and look what it says over there and transfer the meeting over into this difficult area to make the difficult area. I do have a difficult time with the time standard. I have no question that he if he didn't come back in 70 AD, we have issues. Let me ask you a question real quick on Matthew 5:17. How do you reconcile that?

That until heaven and earth passed away, we're still under law. I'm sure you've addressed that before, but before we go this is an example.

Okay, of the mistakes you're making with respect. You said we're still under the law. Where does it say we're under the law in the verse?

Well, it says th nothing of the law, whether the the smallest or the greatest, is going to pass away until heaven and earth passes away. I I asked you, where does it say we're under the law? In the text it doesn't say that. Do not think I came to abolish the law of the prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill it.

Heaven and earth will not pass away till the smallest letter of the law is accomplished. It doesn't mean to be under the law. The phrase to be under the law means that we have to keep the law, the 613 commandments, in order to be right before God. But when we have died with Christ, Romans 6:8, and we were crucified with Romans 6:6, crucified with Christ, Romans 6:8. Then we are free from the requirements of the law, for he who died is free from the law.

Romans 7:4.

So, what he's talking about here in Romans.

So, what does it mean, heaven and earth? Let let's say your your view is correct. Heaven or if this appears, what what does that mean?

Okay, well, there's going to be a new heavens and a new earth. You go to 2 Peter 3:10 for that. But see, do not think when he says this, that he said, under the law, but you made a mistake, and it's a big one. It's a big one, and you can't see it. You read into the text.

I don't know if I agree. The apostles kept the law in the book of Acts. It's not like the law passed away. Do we have to keep the law to be saved? Not for righteousness' sake, no.

Yeah.

But they didn't have to keep the law. You don't understand. You don't understand biblical theology. Romans 3:28, we maintain that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Salvation has nothing to do with keeping the law.

Okay? We don't put the laws of the law. But if heaven and earth was symbolic for the temple system, which Josephus and and the Old Testament alludes. I think that's that was the context for Jesus.

Well, what you're doing, you're not focusing on what I'm trying to show you is that you made a very fundamental error. And when I try and point it out, you continue with the same error.

Okay, so you're saying we're not under law. I'm going to respect that. Sure. Yeah, you said it says we're under the law. It doesn't say that.

You read into it what it doesn't say. And then what you did is the same thing you did with Acts 1. You went to other places, said it says this here. Let's go right here. And it means that here.

In other words, when you find something that doesn't suit you, your theological perspective, you find a way to justify taking the meaning from other places and putting it into this place to make it fit. That's called illegitimate totality transfer. It's an exegetical error. And you're you're doing this repeatedly. You need to go to Acts 1 and do that.

Look at those are 40 years, okay?

Well, listen, yeah, I mean, what I'm saying is is probably heretical to most people. I don't have an issue with it per se, but so I can understand why you'd say that. It's heretical.

Okay.

You are denying what the angels prophesied by taking other places in different contexts and transferring the meaning over there to Acts 1. Acts 1:9 through 11, the angels said, He will come back just as you've seen him go into the sky. That's what they said, and you don't believe that, which means you have to adopt a very symbolic transfer of meaning from other places methodology to make things work. This is what you do. And it takes time to work through that.

And I've let it be on the radio a long time because I want people to understand the kind of problem that you're doing. I don't mean disrespect to you. No, no, I appreciate you, Matt. You're a pro.

Okay.

But you're in serious trouble here.

Okay.

Look at Acts 1, read it for what it says, and don't make it fit something else. You don't do that first, you do that last. He was speaking to the disciples, but they're dead. In other words, he's saying: listen, you guys are going to see Jesus the same way he came, the same way he's coming back. There's more to the story.

It's not so black or whatever. He doesn't say that. You made another mistake. He doesn't say you will see. He says he will come back in the same way that you have seen.

You did it again. You misread the text.

So his audience relevance wasn't speaking, Bianja wasn't speaking to those people. You're not hearing me. You made another mistake. You made it say what it doesn't say. Those people there will be the ones to see him come back.

That's not what it says. You said it's what it says. It doesn't say that. It says, this Jesus who's been taken away from heaven will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven. It doesn't say you will watch him come back.

It says he'll come back in the way you watched, he's going to come back this way. You did it again. You read it in the text, which is I like to read the text. Yeah, you used this several times already.

Okay.

Okay, we're gonna see what we get another caller, okay? He's been waiting. Come back another time. Read that text, okay? All right.

God bless you, both. Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you for listening to the best of Matt Slick Live. For more great content like this or to donate to the ministry, be sure to visit CARMCARM.org. You can also catch Matt Slick Live every weekday from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the Truth Network app and YouTube.

Yeah.