Matt Slick Live: July 12, 2024

The following program is recorded content created by The Truth Network. 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. Everybody, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick, interlist of Matt Slick Live.

I hope you're all going to have a good time listening, if you choose to continue to listen to a guy named Slick. But if you want to give me a call, as usual, all you need to do is dial 877 -207 -2276, and we can talk.

And if you want, you can give me an email. That's easier to do. Just send it to info at karm .org,

info at karm .org, C -A -R -M dot

O -R -G, and put in the subject line, radio comment, radio question, and we can get to it.

And I think that's about it. So, let's see, let's see, let's see.

We got, let me get that going right there, and if you want, nobody waiting. All right. Well, we do have, wait, oh, that's right, today's

Friday. Man, wow, I forgot today's

Friday. Yeah, when you're working like I do. What day is it?

Sometimes I go to my wife, what day is it? Tuesday. It is? Really? She rubbed her forehead a lot around me.

I think it's good for her, though. It's a good little exercise. All right. So, what I do on Friday sometimes is answer emails, try and get to some of those issues that people have raised, and comments and questions.

A lot of them are pretty good. A lot of them are pretty good. So, I think what I'm going to do here is, let's see, let's see, let's see, right there we go.

All right, we got a caller coming in, but let me see if I can get to an email really fast. All right.

Answered that one already. Hi, Matt, this is that cultic group like Witness Lee's Church Movement seems to get away with making bogus claims about other ministries.

Anybody even remotely familiar with their teachings? TA Sparks understands. I don't know.

There's just too much to work on. So, I can't get into that. Steve Nelson from Boise.

Hey, welcome. Yeah, I'm just buried. So, even during our meeting today, we have a staff meeting on Fridays, even during our staff meeting, towards the end of it,

I was working with our web guy trying to develop something else that we're talking about, trying to, you know, get some other things going on.

Just a lot of work. I mean, just a lot of work I've got to do. So, working with two things at once.

All right. Whoa. Now, that's a big email. Man, look at that.

It's, Jesus was not the last man, Adam, at all.

Last man, Adam, at all. Okay. When people come in with a statement that directly contradicts scripture, and then they write 8 ,000 words,

I just do this to it, like, delete. Because, I'm not going to get into it with them, because they're not able to focus.

Hi, Mr. Slick. Hope and pray all is well with you. I know you debate a lot of atheist folks. Yes, I do.

Have you ever talked with Ronald Reagan Jr.? I saw on a commercial once, and the only thing that stuck was his comment that he didn't mind burning in hell.

Well, yeah, I'd like to talk to him. I would definitely debate him. But to say that you wouldn't mind burning in hell is simply foolishness.

People who say that are just taunting, you know, faint and taunting things.

You know, I wouldn't mind if I was suffering forever. Really? Is that what you really think? You know, it's just stupid.

These are kind of statements that are just dumb. I mean, it's like saying, hey, would you like it?

Would it be okay with you if you just suffered eternally in agony? Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay. Really? Well, you are.

Okay. Well, just back away slowly, because people like that, they shouldn't be driving cars. All right.

Let's just jump on the phones. Philip from Arizona. Philip, welcome. You're on the air. Matt, have you ever taken a vacation recently?

Is this the Phil I know from Arizona? Yes, it's your Philip. Hey, man, how are you doing, buddy?

I'm good. How are you? I know how busy you are. You're not going to stop for a vacation, and I think it would do you guys good.

Yeah. Well, first of all, I've been thinking about you. I was almost thinking about calling you yesterday, but got busy.

I first have to define what that term vacation means. I've heard the concept. And plus, because of my wife's health, we actually talked about, for example, going to do something together, taking a flight.

But it's always a big production for her. And I'm not complaining. It's just, you know, her health. And she has helped on the plane, and she has to take pain meds in order to get there.

And is it fun for her? Yeah. It could be just really painful. So we stay here.

And so if I'm going to stay here, what do I do? I've got to work. Yeah. I don't know if you know a place in Arizona we can go to and relax at.

That'd be nice. Yeah, I think you know that I know. I think so, that's right.

I remember Anique was, you know, in the car and broke a rib and ended up on the couch.

There's nobody with a pain tolerance like your wife, honestly. She's married to me, so she had good practice.

That's what I'm saying. That's my main point in saying that. But Matt, I mean, it's been a long time since you were around my boys, but I do have an 18 -year -old who, in my opinion, is becoming a legitimate theologian.

And you have a lot to do with that for sure, but he has not worked up the courage, unfortunately, to call you on your show himself yet.

We're getting there, but he asked me to call you because he doesn't ever miss a podcast, and he just loves it, as you know

I do. He keeps asking me this question, and I'm going to go right to you with it.

He's interested, basically, Matt, in your opinion, if you could lay out your remarkably informed opinion, in my opinion, of the order of major events that need, must take place, eventually culminating in the return of Jesus.

I know that's a big question. Well, yeah, but...

You know how they have those warning labels? I'm going to give a warning label to what

I teach on this stuff, because I teach what's called Deprescatology. Deprescatology, the study of end times, is depressing.

I believe that things are going to get really bad, and I believe this is my opinion. I hope

I'm wrong, and I don't want it to be true, but when God said to Adam, in Genesis 2 .17,

the day that you eat this fruit, you will die, I suspect that he was speaking not only to Adam, but also to all of mankind, because it says in 1

Corinthians 15 .22, in Adam, all die. So, Jesus said, in my preamble, and I'll give you more specific answers, but in Matthew 24 .22,

he says, unless those days be cut short, no life would be saved. And that literally is the word sarx, which is flesh, but it means life, and so it would be saved.

Now, so what I conclude is that things are going to get so bad that we, as a people, are going to destroy ourselves, unless Jesus intervenes.

I believe that the wages of sin is death, mankind is turning its back on God, and the natural result is death, and that mankind will kill itself with nukes, or plagues, or whatever it's going to be, and at the end,

Jesus is going to stop it, at the end. Now, that's my overall position. In the meantime, up to that point, the

Bible says that there has to be a rival of false Christs and false prophets. Those are already here, and there's war that's coming.

Well, there has to be an increase in the persecution of the faithful, so I know that this is occurring in different countries, and it's on the increase, and it's occurring here in the

United States on a much lesser level, but it is on the rise, and Islam is playing a large part of that.

Islam is invading Europe, and mathematically speaking,

England is already lost to Islam. I think if they said 50 to 70 years, it will become an Islamic country, and France is on the same path, maybe 50 to 100 years.

We have relatives in France, and they talk to us about things that are so bad there, Muslim areas, you can't go in there, you'd be killed.

So, Islam is an evil, pagan, filthy religion. It's a pagan, bad religion.

So, the persecution of the Christians has to increase, and it is increasing, but it's going to get really bad.

There also must be an apostasy, and this is spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2. The apostasy must come first.

Well, the Roman Catholic Church is already apostate, and the Eastern Orthodox Church is apostate.

We have the rise of false prophets, like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, but we're also going to experience, in Christendom overall, the falling away from the truth, and this is happening within Protestantism.

We have the stupidity of the positive confession movement, God wants you healthy and wealthy, and all this stupidity, and the rise of humanism inside of the

Christian thought process. Humanism is man -centeredness, and so, in Christian theology, in a lot of pulpits,

Jesus is the blonde -haired, blue -eyed, Caucasian surfer dude dressed in a woman's nightgown, standing at the door of your heart, asking permission for you to let him in.

This is humanist philosophy, that the sovereignty of man is either above or equal to the sovereignty of God, and he will not violate our free will.

So it becomes our wisdom and our ability to make the sacrifice of Christ effective.

Even though Christ accomplished what he did on the cross, it becomes effective when we do something, when we apply it to ourselves.

And this is the rise of self -idolatry, and the increase of hubris within the

Protestant movement that is masked in following Christian theology. So, there's that, and this has to occur even more, it's not yet done, there's still more to go.

And then, of course, there's other things like lawlessness is on the increase, we know that, increase of selfishness, love of money, the mocking of Christ, 2

Peter 3 talks about that. But there's an interesting prophecy in the book of Daniel, chapter 12, verse 4.

He says, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time. Many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.

So some interpret that to mean that there's going to be a lot of travel, and we have an incredible amount of knowledge available to us on the internet.

And some people think it's fulfilled now. There's also going to be the rise of spiritism, which is on the increase, and it's varying forms of new age, and it's creeping into the

Christian church, where deification and glorification of man is becoming central.

There will be the decay of marriage, which is on the rise, and with the rise of transgender crap, and the

LGBT mob, and I've been saying for, I don't know, 20 years on the radio that the sexual movement, homosexual movement is going to be the means by which the

Christians will be oppressed. And those are the kinds of things that need to be in place.

They're almost fully there. But there's other things, too. I'm almost done here, sorry. The sun and moon have to be darkened, and there has to be nations, all the nations have to be gathered against Israel.

There's got to be the rebuilding of the temple, and the arrival of Antichrist. We have to receive the mark of the beast, and then he will come back.

So you see, there's a lot more to go. So it's not quite time. Right, and then as far as the temple is concerned,

I mean, it seems like all eyes are on Jerusalem right now. I did not know how to answer this question.

Does the temple need to be built on the Dome of the Rock? Do we need to conquer the

Muslims, or can it be built anywhere in Jerusalem? Well, we've got a break, so let me answer that question when we get back, all right?

Hey, folks, hold on. We'll be right back with Phil from Arizona, and we'll talk about the Dome of the Rock and stuff like that.

Be right back, please. Stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, buddy, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Phil from Arizona.

All right, Phil, you still there? Yes, sir. All right. Now, I've been to Jerusalem a couple of times, a couple of tours.

The area of the Dome of the Rock, there's a space area big enough for a soccer field.

There's a lot of space around it, and in order to get to that space, you have to walk through another space that's big enough for a soccer field or two.

Both of them are. And you have to walk up a set of steps, and you go through a little arch, and there's the

Dome of the Rock. Then you have to walk 100 feet, 200 feet to get to it. So there's plenty of room around it to put a temple.

Now, is that going to happen? We'll see. I'm not an archaeologist.

I don't know the areas there archaeologically in those two flat areas. But just out of my ignorance,

I'm speaking, if they wanted to build the temple on the lower section, there's plenty of room to do it.

Plenty. And then you'd walk, I don't know, 400 feet to get to the

Dome of the Rock. There's a lot of room there, surprisingly. So it's physically possible.

Interesting. Well, that is helpful. I want to let other callers come in.

So the last question I have for you, and again, I just didn't know where to go here. I think we know what ends the

Tribulation. What, in your opinion, would be the event that starts the clock on the

Tribulation? Well, it can't be the pre -Tribulation rapture. That's just not possible.

And the reason is because it's supposed to be exactly seven years when the rapture occurs to the return of Christ.

And no one knows the day of the return of Christ. So if the rapture occurs, all they do is calculate seven years in advance, and they got it.

So that doesn't work. So the beginning of the Tribulation, I don't know if there's any particular mark, but it seems to be concomitant with the issue of this person who's the

Antichrist, who makes a pact with Israel and others in order to have peace.

That seems to be the beginning of it. This is not in place. No, I'm 67.

Personally, I don't believe I will be alive at the return of Christ. I believe I'm going to pass away before then.

So I think it's going to happen in 30, 40, 50 years, 60, 70 years, that range, maybe more.

Yeah, that's good. Well, I really appreciate it, Matt. Thank you so much. I'm going to keep working on it, because I think when he calls in, you'll see for yourself.

But thank you so much. I really appreciate you, Matt. And I just wish more people would donate to the cause on a regular basis so that you know what's coming in, because there's so many markets out there, and yes, there's other

Bible -answer guys out there, and I truly believe most of them mean well, but they're just not anywhere, they're just not, and I gotta be careful in saying this, because, you know, your head and everything like that, but they're just not as informed.

A lot of these guys haven't dedicated their entire lives to what you're doing, and I just,

I wish you were in every market, you know, and maybe one day that'll happen, but thank you for answering my question, my son's question, and I love you,

Matt, and always praying for you. Well, good, brother, appreciate it. And let's talk, you know,

I'll text you today or tomorrow or something like that, let's just catch up because of stuff, all right? Sounds good.

Give our love to your beautiful wife and daughters. Okay, will do, brother. God bless, man. Thanks, Matt.

Bye -bye. Okay. All right. That's Phil. Phil's a great guy. He helped our daughter out when she was down there in the

Arizona area, and then when my wife and I were thinking about moving to Arizona, when we tried to sell the house in order to move for her health down there, and the

Lord closed the door, we never ended up moving. We tried three times, but Phil was gonna be the guy who's gonna back us up, and he was gonna provide a place for us to stay while we got on our feet down there.

He's a great guy, loves the Lord, good, good guy. All right. Let's get to Luke from Washington, D .C.

Luke, welcome, you're on the air. Hi, Matt, how are you? Can you hear me? All right.

Yes, I can. Yes, I can. So what do you got? Can you please explain to me

Acts 2 .38? Sure. Peter said, 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. So some people think that this proves that baptism is necessary for salvation, and it's not.

Now, I've written a great deal on Acts 2 .38. The verse is not a formula for salvation first because it doesn't have the word faith in it.

People say, well, it's implied. No, if it's a formula, then it has to have everything necessary, but it doesn't.

Now, furthermore, what is it that is the gift of the Holy Spirit?

The gift of the Holy Spirit certainly appears to be the movement of the charismatic gifts. That's the context of Acts 2.

Furthermore, when you go to Acts 10 .44 and starting, while Peter was still speaking these words, the

Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message, and all the circumcised believers who came with 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. Peter then answered, surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the

Holy Spirit just as we did, can he? So he became baptized. So it seems to be, from the context of both

Acts 2 and Acts 10, that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the charismatic movement, not salvation.

Now, this is not a common position, but when I read that, that's what I see. That's what it seems to be.

So, furthermore, people will say, well, it says, baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.

And the phrase for the forgiveness of sins is eis aphesin hamartion.

And what they say that means is that for the forgiveness of sins is obtaining the forgiveness of sins.

Well, if that's the case, then there's a problem. In Mark 1 .4, John the

Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. So I ask people, if the phrase for the forgiveness of sins means that this baptism in Acts 2 means that's how they got forgiveness of sins, then in Mark 1 .4,

when they were baptized in the baptism of John, John the Baptist, did they also have the forgiveness of sins?

Because this is the exact same phrase in the Greek, exact same phrase, eis aphesin hamartion.

So if that's the case, they have to say, well, yes, they got forgiveness of sins. Well, then

I'm going to ask them questions. If John's baptism was forgiveness of sins, it was not a

Trinitarian baptism, was it? Not like the true baptism, is it? So what about that?

Another question is, if John the Baptist's baptism got him forgiveness, did they have to get baptized again under the baptism of the

Father's and Holy Spirit? Because if they did, then that means the first baptism wasn't good enough.

But if the first baptism's not good enough, it means their sins weren't forgiven. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to get baptized again, if baptism's necessary for salvation.

Doesn't make sense. If they say no, they do have to get baptized, and they're saying that's a problem.

If they say no, they didn't have to, then the phrase baptized for the forgiveness of sins didn't get them forgiveness of sins, and there's other problems, too.

We've got a break, so I'll get back to some more of those after the break. So hold on, buddy. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, welcome back to the show. Bottom of the hour, if you want to call me, 877 -207 -2276.

Let's get back to Luke. Are you still there? Yes, yes, yes.

All right. So, in addition, I was going to say, there's another problem with that view that that verse means baptism's necessary.

Here's a question. If John the Baptist's baptism was true, because remember, the phrase for the forgiveness of sins of Acts 2 .38,

which they say baptism gets you the forgiveness of sins. That's what it means. That's what they say. Then in Mark 1 .5,

when it says that John the Baptist's baptism for the forgiveness of sins, it must mean the same thing.

Mark 1 .4, excuse me. So if that's the case, then John the Baptist's baptism got them forgiveness of sins.

If they say it didn't, then the phrase doesn't mean to obtain forgiveness of sins. Then they refute their view on Acts 2 .38.

If they say, yes, it does mean that, then they have a problem, because, and I have a question.

I say, look, if John the Baptist's baptism for the forgiveness of sins,

Mark 1 .4, I think it's Mark 1 .4, I want to make sure. Yeah, Mark 1 .4.

If it got them forgiveness of sins, then did they need to continue to offer sacrifices in the temple?

Because the sacrifice of Christ had not yet been offered. So the new covenant was not in effect.

So if the new covenant is not in effect, then did they still have to offer sacrifices in the temple if all their sins are forgiven?

That's a very difficult question for them to answer. So there's more, but you see there's lots of reasons why

Acts 2 .38 is not a formula for salvation, and I believe it is a promise of getting the charismata.

That's what I believe that means. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. There you go. All right. All right. Well, God bless. Okay.

Let's get to Buskman from Dayton, Ohio. Buskman, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt.

I was approached the other night. My friend and I was having a Bible study in a park, actually, and the sweetest

LDS girls showed up. So they tried to share with me

Joseph Smith teaching. I did the best I could to channel my

Matt Slick. And thank you, brother. Like Phil was saying, thank you for information.

But I'm in the bus mobile right now, and I'm wondering, can I get an elevator speech,

Matt, to kind of, you know, jettison the hearts of these

LDS folks that approach to at least make them think, maybe not convert them,

Matt, but at least make them think. So what would be, like, a list of two or three or five or however many you want to give me, brother, to get them thinking that they're on the wrong path?

Sure. One of the things that I do, I just go straight to. When I want to get straight to the point,

I really want to mess them up quickly. Let's just say this because they don't have time. They don't have time.

What are those situations? I did this once at Walmart. I could tell a bunch of Mormons were talking, young men and women.

I could tell they're Mormons. And I said, hey, are you guys Mormons? They looked at me like, surprise, yes. And we had this conversation.

I said, are you converted to Mormonism or born in it? Oh, we're all born in it and raised in it. I said, look, can

I ask you a question? Okay. Do you really believe? They said, yeah, sure. I said, do you really believe Joseph Smith saw

God the Father? They said, of course he did. I said, everything's based on that, right? They said, yeah, that's the first vision.

If he didn't see God the Father, then nothing, because he claimed he saw

God the Father. It's one of the essential things of the restoration that Mormonism claims occurred because Joseph Smith was called at the age of 14 to be a true prophet and the

Book of Mormon plates and God the Father and Jesus appeared to him and commissioned him. This is critical.

And I said, well, then I do this. I say, 1 Timothy 6 .16 is really important.

1 Timothy 6 .16. I said, you should read 1 Timothy 6 .16. I start saying it over and over to them.

I said, because what it says there is that speaking in the context of the

Father, I said, 1 Timothy 6 .16 says that he alone possesses immortality and dwells in an unapproachable light to whom no man has seen or can see.

I said, so did Joseph Smith see the Father? And they'll say, well, yes, but Paul the apostle said no man can see him.

Did Joseph Smith see the Father? Well, yeah, we bear testimony he did. But the Bible says in 1

Timothy 6 .16, no man can see the Father. No one has seen the Father. Sometimes I'll say, well, they saw

God in the Old Testament. Now me, I'll say, yeah, in Genesis chapter 3 and Exodus 6, 2 and 3,

Numbers 12, 6 through 8, Exodus 24, 9 through 11, they saw God. I understand that.

But you have to understand that in John 6 .46, Jesus is aware of all that in the

Old Testament. And Jesus says, not that anyone has seen the Father except the one from God.

He's talking about himself. He's seen the Father. So they were seeing

God, but not God the Father. And 1 Timothy 6 .16 says that God the

Father can't be seen. So did Joseph Smith see the Father? This is how

I go back and forth with them. And it's, you see, and I tell, I've told many

Mormons, if you believe 1 Timothy 6 .16, you can't believe Mormonism is true.

And I told you, it comes down to this. I've done this many times, and I've had Mormons just flat out tell me,

I choose to believe Joseph Smith over what the Word of God says. I said, okay, that that will echo on the day of judgment when you're cast into eternal fire.

Because you have denied the truth of God's Word. You've said that God cannot keep His Word pure and secure.

As the Book of Mormon is supposed to be the restoration truth. And the 8th article of the

Mormon Church says the Bible is correct insofar as correctly translated. They always cast doubt on the

Word of God, just like Satan did to Eve. Did God really say that as soon as you can doubt

God's Word, then you'll believe that a prophet like Joseph Smith, who was involved in the occult, who did money digging, who was in contact with demonic forces, and that, well documented, he did this called necromancy, and that he said that God is an exalted man from another world, has a body of flesh and bones, and you can become a god of your own planet, he has a goddess wife.

I mean, really? Where's that in Scripture? It's not there in the Bible. But they believed

Joseph Smith. And here's the thing about Mormonism. James 1 .5 says, if any of you lack wisdom, let them ask of God.

And so the Mormon missionaries rip that out of context, and say, pray about the

Book of Mormon to see if it's true, get wisdom. That's not what the text is talking about. It's talking about those who are already believers in the true and living

God. If you need wisdom, ask God. He'll give it to you. They are not true believers in the true and living

God. What they're saying is, ask wisdom about a book written by a guy who claimed he saw God the

Father, when the Bible says he can't, and that he put a stone in a hat, and then translated, so to speak, supposedly, the

Book of Mormon one letter at a time, and Oliver Cowdery is the one who recorded it, and yet it's been changed thousands and thousands of times since then in English.

And so, I say this to the Mormon, you know, I've been doing this for decades with Mormonism, so I know it well, and I just try and show them.

Now, there's another technique you can use, another technique, which is quick and slick, which has destroyed the testimony of many

Mormons, Mormon missionaries. And what that is, is a little more difficult to obtain, because you'll need to get a copy of the 3 ,913 changes in the

Book of Mormon. 3 ,913. Now, that was being produced.

Yes. Oh, that's a low estimate, but it was produced by Gerald and Sandra Tanner in Utah, and I know

Sandra, and she told me that she and her husband went through with an original

Book of Mormon, original, first edition, and they compared it to the 1960 version, whatever it was they had at the time, and they marked out, they photocopied each page and marked out all the changes.

And she said, that wasn't even all of them, she said. Absolutely amazing. And what you do is you take a

Greek New Testament, the Nestle -Allen Greek New Testament, you don't have to read Greek, but it has a textual apparatus, which has textual variants of the

New Testament. And I say this, I say, let's fan through the 3 ,913 changes in the

Book of Mormon, say stop, stop, 10 changes. Do the same thing in the New Testament, there might be three.

You do this over and over and over, and you say to them, page after page after page, the

Book of Mormon's got so many changes and alterations in it. It's only 200 years old, and the New Testament's 2 ,000 years old.

Why is it that you can't trust the New Testament when the Book of Mormon has been changed and altered a whole bunch more?

Where can they get a copy of that book? Well, it's out of print now, from what

I understand. But if you can ever find one, just get it. But I think that they're going to try and reproduce it with Bill McKeever's ministry,

Mormonism Research Ministry. I just talked to Bill about that last week, or a couple weeks ago, three weeks ago.

That would be awesome. Please keep us aware of that, Matt. God bless. Thank you, Matt. There's a break.

Okay. God bless. We'll talk to you later. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick Live!

Taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276. Here's Matt Slick.

All right, everyone. Welcome back to the show. Wow. Chuck's been waiting for 36 minutes from North Carolina.

Sorry for the long wait, but, hey, you're on. Good evening.

First, I have to say that I was born into the Roman Catholic cult. I didn't agree with a lot of things, but I didn't do anything about it until I was about 29 and started reading the

Bible on my own, which they told me I wasn't able to do or capable of understanding. And now for the last 53 years,

I've been trying to debunk their teachings to anyone who will listen. But I find myself a little bit stuck on the wording of Matthew 16, 18.

18 or 19? I think it's 18. How about the keys? Oh, that's 19.

All right. So... I'm blind and I have to rely on Alexa now for the Bible. Ain't no problem.

Yeah, because 18 says, Peter, this is rock. 19, you have the keys. All right. So what's happening there?

Let's see. Get over here. So this is something the Catholics will use in order to bolster the idea that their priesthood has the authority because their priesthood is privy to the keys, which symbolizes the authority that was given to Peter and therefore to everybody else in their priesthood.

That's their position. So what Jesus says is, I will give you, and the you in Greek is singular.

That means just the individual of Peter, the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven.

Now, there's a couple of issues here. What is meant by the kingdom of heaven? And we could discuss that, but I don't think it's really relevant right now.

But it does say, shall have been bound. Now, this is important because what it means, well, let's get it this way.

It's what's called the future perfect passive. What that means is this. Future is future tense.

It will happen. Perfect is perfect. What that means is this.

Perfect is a past action that was occurring in the past that's still occurring now.

And pluperfect, a past action that was occurring in the past, that was completed in the past.

So here's an example of the perfect tense. I have walked. I have walked.

And pluperfect would be I had walked. To say

I have walked means it was in the past, but it didn't end in the past.

Pluperfect, I had walked, means it was in the past and it was completed in the past.

So this is important in Greek. We learn this stuff when we do Greek, when you first start learning all this stuff.

So future perfect passive. So the passive here deals with receiving the action.

So it shall have been bound. So how they translate it is, it shall have been done.

So how do we interpret this? Let's say that Peter, he binds and looses in heaven.

Personally, I don't have a problem with that because Peter was an apostle and a certain authority was given to apostles to do various things.

So that doesn't bother me. But I have questions with it. Does it then mean that it was passed down through the

Catholic priesthood? Nothing in Scripture says that's the case. Now what they're going to do is go to a laying on of hands.

But it doesn't mean any apostolic authority is transferred down so that they can bind and loose.

Furthermore, I have an article on CARM. Does the Catholic Church have the same authority as Jesus?

And no, they don't. And I go and show why they don't according to Scripture, but that's another topic. And there's another question

I ask. If Peter does the binding and loosing, does it mean that God himself is obligated to bind and loose what

Peter did? This is a question that is necessary to ask the

Catholic because what they want to say is that the office of Peter, the papacy, has that authority to bind and loose.

If that's the case, then whatever the papacy binds and loosed, is

God obligated to follow suit? I recently asked this question of a

Catholic, a variation of it to a Catholic, and he couldn't answer it because he knew that if he did, he'd be stuck either way.

If he says no, it doesn't mean that, then in what sense is he binding and loosening? If it does mean yes, well then why was

God obligated? So basically the best way to understand it is to say that what is bound and loosed has already been accomplished.

That what Peter was doing and what the apostles were doing also, because in John 20, 23, we have another verse,

I know I'm going a lot, it's all interconnected. So in John 20, 23, there's something similar.

If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.

And this is similar in that it's the perfect tense. It has been done, which means, it's like saying this, if you do this, it already has been done.

That's what's going on. It's not saying that they are the ones who are officiating and accomplishing and actually doing it by their power.

But then the Catholics will come back and say, well, it's not their power, it's the power and the authority of Jesus that they're acting in.

If that's the case... May I make a comment? Sure, one sentence. If that's the case, then all

Christians have that ability because we're in Christ and we have the authority to be called the children of God, the dunamis. And we can do that too.

But anyway, go ahead. When you said, shall have been, that clicked something in my mind.

It sounds to me as though Jesus is telling Peter that he will be given the wisdom to loose and bind in accordance with heaven's wishes.

That's the way I would read that. And I don't believe in the papacy period because Peter himself in Acts and again in his letters talks about the rock.

He talks about the stumbling stone, the cornerstone that's rejected. So I think it was clear that Peter understood when

Jesus said, you are a rock and upon this rock. He's not telling Peter that he's basing the church on Peter.

He's not making him Pope. He's telling him based on what Peter said that made him have that conversation.

Very good. He said, you are the Christ, the son of the living God. That's correct. That's very good.

And one of the things I understand also. I've been studying for 33 years. Yeah, and one of the things there.

Hold on one sec. Yes? I'm on the radio. My wife just came in and I'm on the radio.

I've been on the radio here for 20 years. And she goes, oops. She should have seen her face.

I have a wife, too. Was that? I have a wife, too. That's a pretty good face.

I'm going to bug her about it later. So I'm enjoying that.

OK, so aside from that distraction, I'm getting a total kick out of that.

What was your question again? I was making a statement. I don't believe in the papacy.

I don't believe Jesus intended to establish Peter as Pope. I think that Peter understood that because of what he said in Lackson, again, in his letters.

He talks about Jesus as being the cornerstone that was rejected. So it's clear to me that the rock that Jesus was talking about was not

Peter, but the statement that Peter made that thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. That's a statement upon which he built his church.

Absolutely. It's a very valid interpretation. It is, because contextually, it's basically necessary.

But what is also there is that the word Petras, which is what

Peter is, is masculine, and Petra, which is what the other rock is, is feminine.

And the reason that's significant is because Petras means a small rock, like something you can pick up and move.

But Petra means something you can't pick up and move. And Jesus is called the

Petra in 1 Corinthians 10 .4. He's specifically referred to as the

Petra. And Peter refers to him as the Petra also in 1 Peter 2 .8.

So, yes, and on the confession of who Christ is, the truth that Christ is the rock.

It's a pun and a play on words that Jesus is doing with what's going on.

Excellent. Thank you. That settles it for me. I've been at this for 53 years now, and I'm starting to get a handle on it.

Well, you know what? I'll tell you what you can do. I'll tell you what. Seriously. If you'd like, what

I'd like you to do, Chuck, is email me at info at karn .org. Just email me at info.

Okay, whatever. And I will attach my notes on Catholicism, which are 228 pages.

It's in outline form. Okay? But I'm blind. I'm blind, so I can't read.

Oh, darn. I appreciate the thought. You can send me emojis, too. A lot of people like to do that.

Oops. Sorry about that. Do you have a reader, though? Do you have a reader? No. No, it's too hard to manage.

They offered me one from VA, but I'm 82. It's getting a little late for that.

Oh, okay. I still stick with it. All right, because I know they have some readers, and I have a friend.

He used to work with us. His wife is blind, and she has a setup that she can listen to things and just repeats it.

So, okay. Sorry about that. I forgot all that quickly. Thanks again.

You helped. All right, man. God bless. Okay. All right. We'll see you.

Hey, we have nobody waiting right now. Just to finish up on Catholicism, I'm going to say something that I've been saying before, and I'm going to say it again.

The Roman Catholic Church is not Christian. Its official doctrine is not

Christian. The official doctrine regarding salvation, it curses the true gospel.

It adds works to salvation. It also promotes a false priesthood.

Its priesthood is supposed to have the authority to reach into the treasury of merits and administer it through the sacraments to different people for different reasons at different times and different ceremonies.

It also has a false view of Mary, and they've elevated Mary to the level of a goddess, that she can hear millions of prayers simultaneously spoken and thought.

Then you have these apparitions of Mary. When you read them, they're demonic, because they point to themselves.

They point to themselves. And Jesus says the Holy Spirit will bear witness of him.

The scriptures bear witness of him. The Father bears witness of him. The miracles bear witness of him.

The prophets bear witness of him. But these apparitions, they will say things like, come to me, and I promise salvation, whoever exalts me, and all this stuff.

These are the apparitions. They are demonic. And the poor people who bow their knee before statues of Mary and pray to her, and the saints, are committing idolatry.

And another thing the Roman Catholic Church has done is replaced Christ with the

Church. Functionally replaced Christ with the Church. They say they have not done that, but in order to get to Christ, you have to go through the

Church, the priesthood, the sacraments, Mary, whoever, whatever.

So they say, no, this is all from Jesus. But it's not. The Roman Catholic Church is a false church.

And all who die believing its official doctrines of Mary and salvation and the priesthood, unfortunately, will enter eternal damnation.

There's the music. May the Lord bless you. And by his grace, we'll be back on the air on Monday. And I hope you have a great weekend, everybody.

God bless. Bye. Another program powered by the