Matt Slick Live: January 22, 2025

It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at karm .org.

When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live for answers. Taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick, and you're listening to Matt Slick Live.

If you want to give me a call, as usual, the number is 877 -207 -2276.

You can also email me a comment or a question. Just do that by sending your email to info at karm .org,

and that's c -a -r -m dot o -r -g, and put the subject line, radio comment, radio question, either one of those, and we can get to them.

All right, now we're having trouble on Club Deck. My computer did an update, and I can't get it to work, so we're not feeding into Club Deck, or Clubhouse, I should say, at least not right now.

I even did some tech stuff, re -editing the registry on Windows, and it didn't work.

I tried some stuff, and it can't get to work. But, you know, that's all right. We'll work on that. But, that's okay.

Now, something interesting happened. A couple things to talk about.

Yesterday, after the show, I spent another three hours defending the deity of Christ, and indirectly, the doctrine of the

Trinity. I had a really good discussion for three hours afterwards. Went through some stuff with a guy, and it got a little interrupted a couple, three times, but, you know, for the most part, it was a pretty good discussion.

He was not able to answer some of the difficult questions that I proposed to him. He had to backtrack on some stuff, but this is often the case with those who deny biblical theology, think that they're right.

One of the things that happened numerous times was him altering the Word of God to make it fit, rephrasing it to make it fit his theology.

That's a sign of someone who doesn't understand biblical theology. We need to change words to change things, to make things better, to fit your theology.

Of course, that's not a good thing. I remember when I was talking to a guy named Layton Flowers. He's a well -known anti -Reformed individual, and we were having a phone conversation on Philippians 129, where it says that God grants that we have faith.

I just read it, and I quoted it to him. It's what it says. I quoted it, and he said, no,

God grants you the opportunity to have faith, and it was just a subtle thing, very, very subtle change of God's Word, but that subtle change is what makes it palatable for your theological perspective.

Now, this is an interesting perspective because when

Adam and Eve were in the garden, God said to Adam, don't eat of the tree. Don't eat of this fruit.

Adam told Eve about this, and then when the devil in Genesis 3 talked to Eve, she changed the

Word of God because ...

Let's see, I'm looking at it right now. Let's read the verses. Now, the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the

Lord God had made, and he said to the woman, indeed has God said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden.

The woman said to the serpent, from the fruit of the tree to the garden we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden,

God has said you shall not eat or touch it, or you shall die, but God didn't say touch it.

He didn't say that. She modified the Word of God, or touch it. As soon as that's done, the modification of God's Word, the next thing comes is the contradiction of God's Word.

So the serpent said to the woman, you shall not die. So God said, you will die, and she altered

God's Word just a little bit, just a little, and then the Word of God is contradicted.

This is how it works a lot of times with those who are lost in varying cult mind traps.

It happens in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, you know,

Atheism, even when they quote the Word of God. And those who deny the Trinity, deny that Jesus Christ is God in flesh,

Unitarians, Modalists, people, and things like this. So it was rather enlightening, and I thought it was a good conversation.

What do you think, Charlie? You were there the whole time, weren't you? It was a good conversation, and you know,

I know that if he's listening, that's fine. He can call in and we could have a discussion on the air, even, and go through some of this stuff, see if he solved any of the problems that I gave him.

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

Alberto, welcome. You're on the air. Yes, good evening, Matt Schlicht. I got a question.

See, I hear, I watch sometimes, listen to the Christian pastors who promote Bible's word -for -word translations, right?

And I'm watching the videos by the, you know, Daniel B. Wallace.

He's an expert, you know, in translations and all that, Executive Director of the Southern Baptist. And he said, the people who say that who want an accurate word -for -word translation, they don't know what they're talking about.

They said that's two different types of questions, he said, because you can't translate from an idiom from one language to another language.

So he categorizes Bible translations in three categories, like elegance, accuracy, and readability.

So what do you think about this? He's correct. He's absolutely correct. So translations, what

I call it is trying to be literal as possible. And you can do that in translations. And what I do, you know,

I speak enough Spanish to get around. And for example, to say, I'm hungry, in Spanish, you say, yo tengo hambre.

And, but that is interesting, because the literal translation is, I, I have hunger. That's the literal translation,

I, I have hunger. So if you want a literal translation of something, you say, I, I have hunger.

But that's not how we talk in English. So we say, I am hungry. And that's a proper and accurate translation.

It's both in a sense literal, but not really literal, because you're trying to be as accurate as possible.

And so this happens with one language to another language, my wife speaks

French. And so we'll be watching something and maybe a little bit of French comes on,

I'll ask her, you know, was that accurate? And she goes, pretty accurate, you know, whatever. And it's just like that, it just happens.

So there are translations that are more literal, like the

NESB. And there are translations that are more flowing, like the

NIV. And so it just depends on what's going on and what you want.

And what the intention is, as literal as possible. Yeah, he was saying that he recommends the best

Bible really out there is the net Bible. And NIV have the best top scholars, you know, translating the committee, you know, of course, he likes also the

ESB and, and you are RSV. But he says the

American standard is, you know, it's accurate, very accurate, but it's not very readable.

It's like, yeah, see, that's the thing is you have readability issues. So yeah,

I'm looking at the NIV in Romans 518, consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people.

So also when that righteous act resulted in justification of life for all people. And that's not what the word people is not there in the

Greek, for example, it's not what it says. So it's actually the word anthropos, which is man.

And you mentioned about that. Yeah. So it's a good example of something.

So for example, when you go to Romans 518, which I use that to check all Bibles with,

I just go right away to Romans 518. So what's the intention here?

Because it literally it says for all men in the

Greek is anthropos, which is the plural. So if you want to literal translations, you say all men, you don't say women, and you don't say people.

But what's intended by Paul when he writes that the intention is all people.

That's what's going on. So both translations are correct.

Both translations are correct. So it depends. One is dynamic.

One is more fluid. One is direct, and one is more fluid. And that's fine.

Now, for me, as an apologist, I want as literal as possible because I believe everything in the original is inspired very, very accurately.

And that's how you get a more accurate understanding of what was intended. And you can't do deep

Bible study, word studies with Bibles that are not as accurate, one -to -one translation.

But no translation is perfect that way. Okay. Yeah, yeah. He was saying that the net

Bible and the NIV are the most translational too. They're the ones, the best ones to get more to the original meaning of the words, basically, right?

The NIV and the net Bible. The net Bible. In fact, let me go look at the net Bible right now. And I'll go to Romans 5 .18.

And here we go. And it says, consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through one righteous act came righteousness leading to life.

That's a horrible translation in that Bible. Sorry, but it is in that Bible. And I know why.

So you see, but the thing is, the NASB 95, which I like to joke around and say, Paul, the apostle used.

Well, the NIV has better translations in some areas and the NASB does and vice versa.

So it's just not that easy to say what it is that is the right one.

So it just depends on your intention. That's why I say to people, get a literal translation, get a flowing translation.

And generally, the King James thrown in there is good. The King James, I don't use for apologetics, but it has a lot of interesting ways of saying things in between.

For example, if you use the NASB, the NIV and the KJV, I think between those, if you were to compare versus when they're different enough that you're curious, it'll force you to go study.

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

So there you go. He was saying that the tender half of the words in the

King James, most of the words in the tender was mostly towards the

King James. He said he recommends that King James has more of the elegance, you know, the elegance of the trend.

Yeah. But but but but concerning to like accuracy is not really recommended so much, you know, but like you say, different, it depends on what you want, you know, different translations, some are more readable, some are more accurate and some are more elegant.

So it depends what you want to get out of the Bible. Correct. Right. And as long as you're aware that no single

English translation is perfect, it just is not the case. That's why I recommend three

Bibles for people. If you want to do serious study, have all three open and just compare versus and compare what you're reading.

And if there's discrepancies in your mind, go study and you'll find them like Romans 518, for example, and another one.

Let's go to here. Let's go to Titus 2, 13 in a net Bible. All right. This is important, too.

It says as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our our hope in the glorious appearing of our great

God and savior, Jesus Christ. Now, that's a good translation. It's grand, sharp rule right there in Greek.

That's good. Yeah. But the King James, for example, in Titus 2, 13, says a great

God and our savior Christ. So the implication there in English is it separates them where the other one doesn't.

So each translation has strengths and weaknesses. OK, buddy. Yeah, OK. Yeah. They mentioned about that James White and I got a break.

I got a break. All right, buddy. God bless. Talk to you later, man.

OK. Hey, folks, you right back after these messages, please stay tuned.

It's Matt Slick live taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everyone. Welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, the number is 877 -207 -2276.

So I've been working on an article for a while out of an argument I've been developing. When a lot of times when

I release it today, a lot of times when I go online and discuss, I learn things.

It happens frequently. And the reason is because I'll face different people with different objections, different responses, different world views.

And so I take the things that I've learned in Scripture and logic, philosophy, science, whatever it might be, and then

I'll do the best I can to discuss whatever it is I'm going to be discussing with someone. And a few months ago when

I was discussing salvation with the Catholics, um, we got talking about Mary and it occurred to me then that they see her as a functioning goddess.

Now, they don't call her a goddess and she's not technically a goddess, but she functions as one.

And when I first started saying this to Catholics, it really threw them for a loop because they hadn't heard that before,

I guess. And so I continued to pursue that avenue and it became quite fruitful because as I worked on this and thinking about it different ways,

I discovered more and more that that is exactly the case. Now, the

Catholics and the East Orthodox, what they'll do is they'll say they venerate, not worship.

And the problem here is that you could have two people, let's just say they're identical twins, and they both go to the same

Catholic church. And East Orthodox, it doesn't matter, they both go to the same Catholic church.

And at the same age, they believe in the same stuff. And there's literally kneeling down before the front of the church.

And the front of the church is a statue of Mary and a statue of Jesus. Okay, Jesus on the cross, or they do different things.

Statue of Jesus, statue of Mary. And one of them is praying to Mary and the other is praying to Jesus.

It just so happens since they're identical twins, they're saying the exact same thing. Except the only difference is one addresses a prayer to Mary, one addresses a prayer to Jesus.

And in the prayer, each of them identically, they ask for intercession, deliverance, they ask for help in varying issues in varying ways.

So when they do the exact same thing to slightly different objects, are they both worshiping?

The Catholic would say that the one who is praying to Jesus is performing true worship, with one praying to Mary is not performing true worship.

And so they'll say because what the one praying to Mary is doing is venerating.

It's not worship, because worship only goes to God. So the only difference is the word that they use, that they change the meaning, they define it each this way, but the actions and the intentions are identical.

So the illustration I developed was there's a man who goes into a gym, and he works out for two hours.

He does bench press, he does military press, leg press, he does squats, he does biceps, triceps, delts, he works and he does three sets of 10, then eight, then six until failure.

And he does this on all kinds of muscle groups. He works everything in one day, which is not supposed to do early, but anyway, which everything in one day.

All right, he does that. And then on the way out, someone says to him, that was a great workout you had.

And he said, I did not have a workout, I was exercising. Well, just changing the name or the word you're using with them saying slight differentiation in it doesn't mean that it's different.

And that's the point I'm trying to make with the Catholics, is that they are doing this. They are elevating

Mary, the Catholics in the East Northodox are elevating Mary to the level of a goddess.

But she's not a goddess, she functions as one. So I wrote this article, and I went through quite a bit of information.

It took me about a week to write it, because I had so many other things I had to do. And I did it here and there.

And I talked about veneration and worship, and what is a functioning goddess. And then

I broke up the work of Catholics and East Northodox regarding Mary into three categories, titles, characteristics and actions.

And interesting. And so they're very similar, slightly different in the two religions, but very, very similar.

And then we talk about the issue of adoration, veneration. And I developed a table where on the left column, on the center column, actually,

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and on the right is scripture. And I compare the,

I give definitions from different sources, and then go into the physical display of veneration and worship, and show how the physical displays are identical to that of worshiping

God. And so this is the kind of stuff that I was working on, and stuff.

And you can go check out the article and see if it's helpful. Now, I know that there's a lot of Catholics, East Northodox, who might be listening, and they might be shaking their heads, saying,

Matt just does not understand what we really teach. Perhaps that is the case.

Perhaps I don't understand what you really teach. Certainly the case. All right. But why don't you then call me up and tell me how, and maybe you could review the article and tell me if the things that I have categorized are accurate from your perspective of view.

Just tell me. Is it true? I think it would be worth a gander, because I am very concerned about the idolatry that's presented in the

Catholic and the East Northodox churches. And it is idolatry. Let's get to Eric from Ohio.

Eric, welcome. You're on the air. Oh, hi, Matt. I called yesterday about the personhood of the

Holy Spirit. And I had a few questions about the—well, for example, what is exactly meant by the baptism of the

Holy Spirit, and why is the term baptism used, and what does it do?

All right. So let's go to the Scriptures, and we'll talk about what the Bible says, okay?

We go to Acts 1, for example. Now, some people say the word baptism or baptized in Greek, baptizo, or the root bapt, always means immerse.

That is just blatantly wrong. It might mean it, but it certainly does not always mean it.

I'll show you. What I'm going to do is look at Acts 1 -5 after the break, because we've got a break coming up right now, and then we'll get into the issue of the baptism of the

Holy Spirit and what it generally is agreed to be. Okay, so hold on, buddy. We'll be right back, folks, right after these messages.

Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

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

and you can put the subject line, radio comment, radio question. All right, so let's get back on with Eric.

Eric, are you still there? I'm still here. All right, so I wrote an article on this, let's see, back in 2008,

I guess, and so we don't know exactly what it means.

And when I mean exact, I mean exact. We don't know exactly what it means. The phrase is used several times in the

Bible. In Matthew 3 .11, for example, I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who's coming after me is mightier than I.

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Mark 1 .8,

I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. And it goes on in Acts 1 .5,

for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not days for now. So I was talking about Acts 1 .5,

for John baptized with water, but you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Okay, now, so before I kind of delve into possible answers, let me give you a little more background.

To be baptized with the Holy Spirit, when we are anointed with oil, that means the oil is applied to us.

When you are anointed with blood, it means the blood is applied to you. That's how it is in the scriptures.

I've done a lot of research on that, and I did some deep studies on the word with, like with water, with blood, with oil, and I did like baptized, let's see,

I get a lot of references here, but baptized with water seems to imply the application of water to a person.

Now, this is not popular within Christian circles. You know, most people say, well, when you're baptized with water, it means you're immersed in water, and that's what it means.

Well, it says in 2

Chronicles 28 .15, anointing them with oil. Ezekiel 16 .9,

I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you, and anointed you with oil.

To anoint with, you're anointing with oil to the sick, Mark 6 .13, I can go on.

God anointed him with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was applied to. You were cleansed with blood.

The blood is applied to you. You're filled with the Holy Spirit. We'll get to this in a little bit. And I did a study on verb with object occurrences, baptized with water, and things like that.

He struck him with the edge of the sword. The sword is applied to this person.

Strike him with the spear to the ground in 1 Samuel 26.

He killed him with the sword. And so I really was curious about this, and I went and did this really in -depth study.

So I did this about a year or two ago, and this kind of thing. So it certainly seems to be the case that when you're baptized with the

Holy Spirit, it is the case that the Holy Spirit is applied to you. And this is true because the

Bible prophesies about that very thing.

And in, let me go to it, in, let me go here, in Acts 2 .17, and it shall be in the last days,

God says, that I will pour forth my spirit on all mankind. Pour forth.

So I thought, okay. So I went, I did a study on to pour regarding varying things, particularly the issue of the

Holy Spirit. And I found out that the cup of the new covenant is poured out. I found that, that in the didache, which is,

I don't, it's not scripture, but it's written in like the year 60 to 65 AD range that you pour.

Baptism has talked about poor water three times on the head. There are, let's see some other ones here.

Let's see. Pouring. Here we go. So until the spirit is poured out on us, that's

Isaiah 32 and Isaiah 44, I'll pour out my spirit. And I've got eight references like this.

Nope. Nine, 10 references were poured out. Well, what I'm seeing is that it's the application of the spirit to just like you're anointed with oil.

You're anointed with blood. You're baptized with water. I see, this is my opinion.

I see the, the issue of baptizing with water as the application of water to the person.

Now this may be really surprising to a lot of people, but I've done a really deep study on this.

In fact, when Jesus was baptized, according to the law, he was made under the law,

Galatians four, four, he had to fulfill that law, Matthew five, 17. Well, he was entering into the priesthood at his baptism.

And we know that because he's a priest after the order of Melchizedek Hebrews six 20 and seven 25, but also he had to fulfill righteousness because that's

Matthew three 15. When he said to John the Baptist, you need to baptize me.

And John said, no, you got to baptize me. And Jesus says, we need to fulfill righteousness.

He's talking about the old Testament law. Well, the places I did an in -depth study on this too, the places in the old

Testament that you see the chapters that you see that deal with the things that are recorded in Matthew, that Jesus had to fulfill like being 30 years of age in order to enter the priesthood.

That's in the old Testament anointed with oil. That's the Holy spirit. That's in the old

Testament. I'm doing various things. Okay. And one of them was sprinkled with water and that's numbers eight, seven, the priest had to be sprinkled with water and I could find no place at all where the priest was immersed in water.

I could not find it in scripture. In fact, we'll find that some of the priests, they would go to the tent door and they would have water applied to them.

And it was called washing. And I can go through this a lot more too. So when we talk with all this background, you're baptized with the

Holy spirit. The implication certainly seems to be that the Holy spirit is applied to you and that something happens in that context.

So now having said all of that, let me go to a some scripture. I want you to see this from scripture.

Okay. It says, Peter said to them, repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the

Holy spirit. Well, the gift here seems to be the charismatic gifts because that's the context because they're speaking in tongues, which is a fulfillment of Joel 2, 28, 29, that Luke quotes or Peter saying here in acts two, uh, it shall be in the last days.

God says, I'll pour forth my spirit on all mankind. You'll pour forth his spirit. Now, when we go back to acts one, five,

Jesus has John baptized with water. You'll be baptized with the Holy spirit. If baptized there means immersed,

Johnny mercy with water, you'll be immersed with the Holy spirit. That is not how the, this

Bible speaks of the Holy spirit. It's an application of work of the Holy spirit coming upon a person and anointing them and sending them to do a work.

And that's what it seems to be. And it says also in X two 38, you receive the gift of the

Holy spirit. This is in the context of them speaking in tongues. Now I'm almost done here.

It takes my being patient with me. Acts 10 44 while Peter was still speaking these words, the

Holy spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came to Peter were amazed because the gift of the

Holy spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting

God. So we see here the gift of the Holy spirit seems to be the charismatic movements.

Now, having said all of that, it appears to be the idea to be baptized with the

Holy spirit is that very thing of the unction of the Holy spirit upon you that moves you in a more powerful spiritual way to some, it's speaking in tongues to others.

It might be moving in other charismatic gifts, exalting God, as it says, because they were hearing them speaking in tongues and exalting

God. That's part of the gift of the spirit's work. Personally, now

I'm just going to stretch a little bit here. I'm sorry for a break. Get back personally. I suspect that the baptism of the

Holy spirit on me was anointing me to study, to be able to teach and see things in the word of God.

Now, hopefully I'm correct. Maybe I'm boasting and arrogant and claiming things that aren't true.

I don't know, but it seems to be consistent with what the Holy spirit does when he guides and anoints people for something, some way, somehow.

Hold on. Be right back after these messages. Okay, buddy. Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone. Welcome back to the show. Now before we get to back to him,

I know a lot of people probably raising their eyebrows to what I'm saying, but I've done a lot of study on this and I think it's interesting.

Maybe we can extract that section and transcript to so others can go over it again.

All right, let's get back on with Eric from Ohio. Hey, Eric. Okay. Did that help any of them? That was a lot, but it helped.

Yeah. That's a, it is a very interesting point with the how of the baptism. It aroused a question of at salvation at that moment, is there a simultaneous occurrence of the baptism of the

Holy spirit? Are those two inseparable? Yes and no. So I can't say for sure because as I've looked through the scriptures,

I've not been able to prove that they happened at the same time. I can't prove they happened at different times.

So, and that's a, it's a great question. And I'm really trying to review some of the studies

I've done on this to try and to remember more information because I've studied it.

And so we know that in one respect, we received the Holy spirit when we are justified, when we, we, um, when we're saved, we have the

Holy spirit that that's it. That's a guarantee and we'll never lose that. But there seems to be something later on that can occur to somebody and that some people call that the baptism of the

Holy spirit, that extra oomph. It's like putting nitrous oxide in your engine. It really makes it go fast.

And so it's like that. Okay. It seems to be. Okay. Yeah. A lot there, man.

Okay. I wish I had. Okay. Well, God bless. God bless.

All right. We'll see you. All right. Hope that was interesting and informative. I try and be as accurate as I can and as biblical as I can.

And I would love your feedback and all of that. I know it's not what the average pastor is teaching, but you know,

I got a lot of notes. I do a lot of notes on stuff. My notes on baptism are 51 pages.

Okay. So not very big, but I'm, I'm learning. Let's get to Patrick from North Carolina.

Patrick, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt, how are you doing? I'm doing all right.

Hanging in there. And thanks for taking my call. Okay. I have a question about Luke 18, nine and 10 about the

Pharisee and the tax or yes, Pharisee and the tax collector.

When they went up to pray, what was the difference between their prayers? Well, one was arrogant and the other was humble.

That's one of the major differences. Okay. Yeah. My question is, is, um,

I don't mean anything bad about this, but you know, when the

Pharisee had said, um, I'm thank I thank you. I'm not like those other, um, other men.

Um, now this, I'm going to ask you, when you talk about Catholics and Jehovah witnesses and, um,

Mormons, do you believe that you're saying I'm thankful? I'm not like those other religions.

No, not in the sense that the Pharisee was saying it because he was saying that, uh, this tax gatherer is no good.

He can't do anything right. No. When I, when I expose the heresies of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church, it's just what it is.

It's heresy. And the only reason I am saved is because of God's mercy and grace. And that's it.

Okay. Yeah. But, um, like you say that Catholic church isn't a

Christian church, but according to Google, it's the biggest church in the world for Christians.

Yeah. Google is not known for its accurate theological perspective. Okay. But, um, okay.

One thing about the Catholic churches, I think you've misunderstood is when they say you have to be baptized,

I believe they're talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You have to be baptized with the

Holy Spirit to be saved. And, uh, would you believe that a person must be baptized with the

Holy Spirit to be saved? It depends what you mean by baptized with the

Holy Spirit. Well, you just described it with the previous caller.

And, um, I believe that, uh, you know, when the spirit was poured out at Cornelius's house in Acts 10, um, it was the living water, which is the spirit happened there at Cornelius's.

So they were saved with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And, um, but my question again is the

Catholic church, when they say you must be baptized, if they were referring to baptism of the

Holy Spirit, that would be a true statement, right? Depends what is meant by it.

That's the thing. It's always Catholic church mean by it because, you know,

Catholic church do not have a baptismal pools in their church.

So they sprinkle and pour and, um, they say that by, yeah, you obtain some, uh, attain salvation through faith, baptism and the observers of the commandments.

So they, they see it as a necessary element of salvation to get baptized in order to, so the requiring, uh, an addition of a ceremony in order to be saved.

And that's not it. Baptism isn't that baptism is a covenant sign of God's faithfulness to us, not our ceremonial participation by which they were justified.

Okay. But in X 10, when the Cornelius and the

Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit, would you believe they were saved at that point?

They had already. Yeah. It's anybody who receives the Holy Spirit that way is manifesting of those gifts or they're saved.

Absolutely. Yeah. And, um, see the thing, um,

I don't want to get too deep into this, but I believe Peter should have never water baptized them because, uh, they were already saved with the gift of the

Holy Spirit. They didn't need any kind of ceremonial washing. Okay. So you're saying

Peter was wrong and I have a problem with that. Do you have any other questions? We've got callers waiting. I've had a hundred conversations already.

And well, I know you can give me a few minutes. I mean, I listened to you last night and we're just going to move along.

Sorry. Let's get to, uh, see him from Alaska. Welcome. Thank you.

Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yes, I can. I can't hear you. Okay. I got a question.

Uh, a couple actually, but do you believe Jesus was fully God? He not was, is he's has two natures, divine nature and a human church called the, called the hypostatic union.

So yes, he's fully God and fully man. When he was on earth, you believe he was fully God and fully man?

Yes. And he still is. Yes. Okay. So would you say that God is omnipresent?

Like he's everywhere? The nature of God is such that he's everywhere. Yes. Okay. Would you say that Jesus was everywhere when he was in Mary's womb?

There's a yes and no, because the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person. And Jesus did say in John 14, 23, that he and the father would come and make their abode in you, which means in multiple places at a time, this can only be done by the, the, the actuation or the realization of his divine nature in essence.

Okay. So how could he be fully God? If he was not all of them inside the womb of Mary, if he was also outside of the womb, how could that be fully

God inside the womb? Okay. If I have a glass sphere and the glass sphere is just pure glass.

Okay. I don't know the formula for just glass. I take a hammer and I chunk out a chip of it.

I hold that chip in my hand. Is that chip by nature glass answers? Yes.

So the, the, the whole thing is glass and the part is glass.

So when Jesus, he's second person of the Trinity, as he was in, and when he was in the womb and walked around on earth, the divine essence is part of him and is him a divine.

It doesn't mean that the whole thing is what he is, but that his he's a second person of the

Trinity. Okay. But how could that possibly work though? If, if, if we're to say that he had a completely inside of him was all the fullness of God, and that was the second person of the

Trinity, how could that be possible? If he's omnipresent and we're supposed to believe that all of the second person of the

Trinity was inside of a baby, all the second person, what's wrong with the second person being in there since there's another doctrine called inseparable operations.

I don't think you've studied these things very much. There's a doctrine called inseparable operations.

Jesus says that he can do whatever he sees the father doing. John five 19. He sees the father doing what his father does.

He can do, this is proclamation of his nature and his divinity that she's laying hold of.

Now you asked me these questions. How do you explain that? Jesus says he can do whatever the father does. I'm just trying to figure out if you believe that all of the second member of the

Trinity, all of the God, whoever he is, the person was dwelling in the flesh of the

Messiah, fully God and fully man. Yes, but it, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the second person, the word was separated from the nature of what

God is as if it was only located in one little place. That's not, it'll be incorrect. So he was also outside of the womb too at the same time, just the nature of divinity to be in and out of, uh, and exist everywhere.

We don't understand to the extent and how it works of the incarnation of the word, but we know that in the doctrine of inseparable operations, which means that, uh, the persons, what one does, the other does.

And I can get in more of this with perichoresis and things like this. So what Jesus was, was the word made flesh is what the

Bible says. Let me ask you, you believe the Bible? Yeah, I'm just,

I'm just struggling with a couple of concepts because if, if Christ didn't have like, if all of the second member of the

Trinity was not in Christ and maybe he was partially outside somewhere, then he's not fully, you see what

I'm saying? He's not the, the nature that was in Christ was not fully God. It would have to be like you're making a mistake.

99 .7. You make, you're making a mistake. You're thinking fullness means the quantity of totality.

The quantity must be in there. That's not what it means when it says fullness. Okay. You make a mistake.

You're, you're making a mistake in logic. You're thinking quantity. It has to be totally restricted in him.

But how could that be if he's also everywhere? That's your question. It's not the quantity. It's the essence that is in the person of Christ.

That essence of the divine person we call the word was there, but the necessity of the essence is everywhere.

And also, and I showed you the scriptures and you just dismiss them. In John 14, 23,

Jesus says that he and the father will come and make their abode in you. That means he is going to be in different people in dwelling.

And I, I quote this to you, you just dismiss it. Now, what do you do with that?

How do you answer that? I haven't dismissed it. I haven't dismissed it. I mean, we can have the spirit of Christmas, but that's not a little like literally.

Okay. So if you want to have a discussion, please focus on the issue. Don't say the spirit of Christmas.

That's as ridiculous. So you need to deal with the things that I raise up with you. You want me to only answer what you ask and then you ignore and don't ask or answer what

I ask in light where I'm given. I have an answer for it, but I don't, I have an answer, but I don't want to take up your time.

And one more question. Hold on. We're out of time though. Unfortunately, I don't have any problem with taking up time like that because I want the listeners to understand how to deal with someone and learn from interaction.

It's not a problem. You can call back tomorrow if you want. We can discuss it tomorrow. Are you going to have a live stream later or?

Yeah, I'll be on for a little bit afterwards here because of things going. Okay. Thank you. Go back tomorrow. Okay.

All right. Hey folks, there is the break. You know, as someone said, someone said at the break and the thing, that's a beacon for morons.

I think he's a moron, but yeah, I get it. So anyway, hey folks, we'll be right back. I mean, not right back. We'll be back tomorrow.