MSL: March 26, 2024

CARM

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

The following program is recorded content created by The Truth Network. It's Matt Slick Live!

00:07

Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at karm .org.

00:14

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.

00:24

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick. You're listening to Matt Slick Live.

00:31

And if you want to give me a call on this beautiful March 26th, March 26th, 2024, all you got to do is dial 877 -207 -2276.

00:45

And I want to hear from you. Give me a call. You can also email me. And to do that, all you need to do is direct your email to info at karm .org,

00:55

info at karm .org and put in the subject line, radio question or radio comment.

01:02

We can get to them. In fact, one just came in. And I'll be getting to that. We don't have any callers.

01:07

Oh, we got callers coming in. That's good. I had a good discussion yesterday. And sorry about that for the people who were waiting to get on.

01:14

I think it's really good to deal with some of the issues that are dealing with in the reformed camp and latinism and the whole thing of causing division in the body of Christ.

01:29

So I thought it was worth staying in tune with that. Okay, so here's another little something.

01:35

It's confirmed now. Let me get the date. I'll be in a debate in, let's see, in Utah.

01:44

Okay. Hold on. I'm getting the calendar here. And I think it'd be June. Come on,

01:51

May. June. Okay. June 20th. Yep. So June 20th,

01:56

I'll be in a formal debate. And there we go.

02:02

Okay. Yeah. So more information about it with a Mormon. And we're discussing, I forgot what we were discussing, actually.

02:09

We just arranged it. My life has been rather upended the past few days.

02:15

So kind of like, oh, yeah, what was that again? So that's what that is. I'll begin more information.

02:22

We were going to do it at Weber State, but it didn't work out for that. I think they have a library or something that, let's see, let me see if I can find it.

02:33

I know we've got it someplace. I'll find it later and let you know details. So if you want to attend that, it'll be fun.

02:40

I'm looking forward to it already. And so there we go.

02:47

Let's just jump on the air. Brian, welcome. You're on the air.

02:54

Hi, Matt. Something came to my attention the other day. A gentleman was talking to me and he said in the

02:59

King James Version, and I looked it up, Isaiah 45. Seven, I believe, where God's talking about how he created all things in the

03:08

King James Version. He mentions that he created evil. But like in the new

03:14

American Standard Version, it says calamity or disaster, depending on which new

03:19

American Standard Version you use. And I wondered, in the Hebrew, what was the actual word used and what was the meaning?

03:28

Was it actually evil, that God created evil? Okay, so there's a lot to talk about here.

03:35

First of all, in Hebrew, like any language, a word that is used has a range of meanings depending on the context.

03:43

So in the Hebrew mindset, a storm and a flood and a plague was an evil. It doesn't mean it was ontologically evil, as in the nature of Satan himself is ontologically, by his essence, by his nature, he's evil.

03:58

So God doesn't create that. He doesn't create ontological evil. But he certainly can create calamity problems and things like that that are understood to be evil, but not in the ontological sense.

04:12

So the NASB says calamity, the ESV, calamity, the

04:20

King James already went into, and the New King James says calamity, the RSV, woe, the

04:27

LEB is evil, the NIV is disaster. So why would they do that?

04:33

Well, the hint is found in the text itself. The one forming light and creating darkness.

04:42

So it's opposites, light, darkness, and then causing well -being, which is

04:48

Shalom, peace, well -being and creating what's the opposite of well -being.

04:54

The opposite of peace is calamity. And so that word Ra 'ah in just raw in Hebrew can have a variety of meanings.

05:06

And that's all that's going on there. And that's why the King James translators translated it that way. But we understand it to mean that he's not creating ontological evil, but calamities, disastrous problems and things like that.

05:20

Okay. But I know what I thought it meant. So thank you for clearing that up.

05:25

Appreciate that very much. One more. Really quickly. I'm looking at the occurrence that occurs.

05:34

The word occurs. The word occurs six hundred sixty five times in the in the

05:40

Hebrew, and it's translated as evil, wickedness, wicked, harm, displeased, bad, wild, sad, ugly, sorrow, wrong, trouble, displeasing, harm, harmful, adversity, wretchedness, wretched, injury, distressing, serious defect.

06:03

So it goes on. So that's the thing about Hebrew is one word really has a lot of meanings in it, just depending on the context.

06:11

Okay. Yes, it does. Yes, it does. All right. Okay. Sure. Okay. Well, do you have one more quick question?

06:20

Sure. No problem. Go ahead. I called several weeks ago, but I've been out of town, so I could I couldn't hear if you did a follow up or not.

06:26

But I'd ask you about whether or not it was possible for Satan to plant a seed or a thought in a

06:33

Christian's mind, a negative thought in their mind. Did you ever come to a conclusion on that?

06:40

Yeah, I remember talking about that and thinking about it, and I think I even wrote an article on it and my buddy,

06:47

Charlie, he'll find it if I if I did. So a lot of times I'll write articles generated out of questions here in the radio, and I think

06:53

I did out of that one. And so I think the conclusion was, if I remember correctly, that we can't know for sure, because the

07:00

Bible doesn't say either way. We know that God can plant thoughts in our hands and our heads, excuse me, because he's

07:06

God. But can this devil do that? Well, we might be able to say that if he's indwelling a an unbeliever, he's possessing an unbeliever.

07:17

Well, then, yes. In fact, in my novel called The Influence, I wrote about a guy named Leach. That was his nickname.

07:24

And he was possessed by a demonic force and the demonic force was whispering into his mind and Leach was thinking it was his own thoughts and it worked and manipulated him.

07:35

So, you know, OK. And what I did was that when I wrote that novel, I wanted to make sure that I didn't violate anything that was already known in Scripture so that we know people can be possessed.

07:46

So it makes sense to say that they can, you know, put thoughts in your mind. OK, what about a

07:51

Christian? Well, a Christian cannot be demon possessed. I don't care what people say, you can't be demon possessed. And so I don't think we know for a fact that he could not put a thought in your mind internally from the inside.

08:05

Can he do it externally? Is it possible, for example, for him to whisper something in our mind, in our ear, literally a whisper that we aren't really aware of and it influences us?

08:16

Could that be done? I guess so. So it just depends. What? How do you mean put a thought in our minds?

08:22

Is it get into our heads and then there's a thought that he just puts with his hand? There it is. Hey, I'm thinking this now.

08:28

You know, it's just a tough one to say, but I think he can definitely influence us. Yeah. Right.

08:34

OK. Well, thank you, Matt. Appreciate that very much. Hey, you're welcome very much. Sorry, I wish

08:40

I had a better answer for you, but I just don't have a great one because that's what

08:45

I see in Scripture. OK. Yeah. Not there to be found. Well, thank you and have a great day. All right, man.

08:51

God bless, buddy. All right. All right. That was Brian from Ohio. Now, if you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877 -207 -2276.

09:03

Just want to let you guys know that we stay on the air by your support. Please consider supporting us. And I know the economy is tough on people and we're being affected as well.

09:12

But you know what we ask is five dollars a month, maybe ten dollars a month if you're able. And all you have to do is go to CARM .org

09:19

forward slash donate and just set it up right there. And it helps. We do five dollars a month or ten dollars a month.

09:25

It helps us to be able to do budgets and know we can and can't do with the ministry, stuff like that.

09:32

So CARM .org, C -A -R -M dot O -R -G forward slash donate. Let's get to Jamal.

09:38

Welcome. You are on the air. Thank you, Mr. Slick. And I appreciate you taking my phone call.

09:47

Sure. What do you got? I had a question of a two -parter.

09:56

Someone brought this, I guess, this topic to me and said that they are pretty much done with the

10:05

Christians. Christians do X, Y, and Z and all that. And I said, well, it doesn't really matter what

10:13

Christians do, you're not going to find a perfect group. But, you know, thank God we follow a perfect Savior.

10:19

Jesus Christ said to follow me, not to follow other people. Well, he still was not getting off his stance on not calling himself a quote -unquote

10:30

Christian. So I was wondering if that's biblical not to do that and if it is, what would be acceptable for him to call himself that?

10:42

Well, he doesn't have to call himself a Christian, but the Bible talks about those who were called Christians when they followed

10:47

Christ. If the Lord Jesus is in his heart, generally speaking, what we will conclude is that he'll want to follow after Christ and he won't deny him before people.

10:58

Because to say, I'm not a Christian, I don't call myself that, we have to ask, is that denying

11:03

Christ before people? Because, you know, could he say he's a Jesus follower? Would he say that?

11:11

And you know, just questions to ask. And it could be that he's just got a bad rap on something, bad influence on something, and he's all confused.

11:19

So you've got to find out, but we have to understand where he's coming from, what the reasons are, what the motive is, and then assess them biblically the best we can.

11:30

So people were called Christians and they died for that name, to be called a Christian. Often that culture meant that you would die for your faith.

11:39

And so if he says he doesn't like that, well, okay, what's the reason?

11:47

Now, as you said, if he's looking at people and they're, the Christians are not being very good, well,

11:54

I can see why he wouldn't want to call himself a Christian, because if that's what he sees them being, then he should call himself a true

12:01

Christian, which is what I've done sometimes. Now, I'm not saying I'm perfect and got everything down, but I've said to people, no,

12:06

I'm a true Christian. I really do follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Not perfectly, but I really do. I take him seriously, my relationship with him seriously.

12:13

And people have been taken back by that. And the reason I started doing that, not every time, but it is because of the very thing that probably is what he's complaining about, seeing the horrible behavior of so many

12:26

Christians now. So you see? You there? Okay.

12:31

All right. Yeah, I'm still here. I'm just listening. I didn't want to interrupt too much. Okay. I'm not too crazy on reinventing the wheel,

12:56

I think that leads into what we have right now, this identity politics going on.

13:02

But another topic for another day. The other question

13:07

I had was somebody is content with staying at home and doing the online church.

13:14

Now they're physically able to go to church. They just are kind of set in doing the online church.

13:22

I wanted to get your take on that. Yeah, generally speaking, we don't want to just do online church.

13:30

That's not to say that people can't do online church because there are people who, you know, well, hold on, we got a break and we'll talk a little more about it because I want to make sure that people who are listening, who are going to online churches, don't, you know, don't take me.

13:48

Well, we'll see. We'll get back. Okay. Hold on. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned.

14:07

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

14:13

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back to the show.

14:19

Let's get back on with Jamal. Hey, Jamal. Welcome. You're back on. Yes, sir. All right.

14:26

So where were we? I was going to say something. I forgot what it was. I got sidetracked. We were talking about not attending church.

14:33

the people that do go to the online church. Oh, yes. That question. Yes. There are people who can't go to regular churches for various reasons, such as, you know, they don't have a car.

14:46

They don't have money for transportation, physical ailments that prevent them from really traveling very far.

14:53

They can also have a problem around where they are. There's just not a good church, period. Not a good church.

14:58

They're just all crud. And then there could be the possibility of a work schedule that does just does not allow them to attend a church because they don't have the service when they're free.

15:06

So these are all different reasons. Some are more valid than others. Generally speaking, we need to go to a church.

15:12

Now, my own personal example here is my wife has a lot of medical issues and she really can't attend a church because sitting is too difficult for too long a period of time and pews and chairs that aren't comfortable.

15:25

So I've stayed home with her, but I've not really attended as much as I need to. But I just started going a couple, three weeks ago, trying to find a church, you know, get going and just go on my own because I got to do that.

15:37

So, you know, though there may be temporary reasons that we can justify not attending, we generally speaking, we do need to attend if possible.

15:44

OK. OK. Sometimes online churches are the only thing you can get to and that's

15:50

OK. You know, that's OK. Right. And I totally agree with you.

15:57

Of course, you probably know me by now. You know, I steal your lines.

16:03

I want to be able to go to a scripture or a set of scriptures and be like, look, it's good for you to go to church.

16:11

That's my opinion. Matt Slick says the same thing. Now I can also point to a scripture that references the same thing.

16:20

Yes. Bible says you have that available. Yeah. Hebrews 10 .25. Do not forsake the gathering together of the body of Christ.

16:28

So that's the main one that's most commonly used. So what does it mean then to forsake it?

16:37

Well, to say, I'm not going to go, you know, that kind of thing. That's a problem. But to say, look,

16:44

I've been going and, you know, I need a break. It's been too difficult lately. Life's been tough.

16:49

The preaching at the church I've gone to is all suddenly really bad. I've got a new pastor. I've moved.

16:56

You know, a car accident. I've got something that I can't go to church. I don't want to get sick for a long period of time.

17:03

It could be lots of reasons. So, but generally speaking, normatively speaking, yeah, we should go. Yeah, we should go.

17:09

We need that fellowship, that body, you know, to help. And I remember once, one of the benefits, just one of the benefits is my wife had open heart surgery.

17:20

And the church we're going to, man, they just came together. And they helped out. They brought so much food that we had too much.

17:26

You know, it's a good problem to have. And they were there and, you know, you know, I had to go someplace.

17:32

They would be there to take care of her, watch her, you know, and stuff like that. So those are some of the really good, good things about church.

17:41

But there's bad stuff too, you know, but I think the good outwears the bad because most people going to church are pretty good people.

17:49

Right. I agree. Let me get that scripture one more time, please, sir. Hebrews 10, 25.

17:57

10, 25. All right. I appreciate that. And for all those people out there listening to Mr.

18:05

Metzlik, I've donated before. I bit the bullet. I jumped over that threshold and I encourage others to do the same thing.

18:14

It was not a large amount, but as Mr. Metzlik says, every little bit helps. So I encourage you all to support

18:20

Mr. Metzlik as much as you can. Every little bit helps. We want to have him stay on the radio.

18:27

Take care and God bless Mr. Metzlik. Well, thank you. Really appreciate that. A nice plug. Thank you very much.

18:33

Appreciate it. All right, brother. All right. That was Jamal.

18:39

And now let's get on with Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, welcome. You're on the air.

18:46

Thank you, Matt. I appreciate you taking my call. I was looking through some different videos recently on YouTube about the modal ontological argument that was put forward by Alvin Plattico.

19:00

And I had used his book many years ago that was called

19:07

The Nature of Necessity. And his modal ontological argument is based upon his building of a modal logical system that he had in Nature of Necessity.

19:20

And I was kind of curious. In the building of a modal logical system, he redefines what identity is and he redefines what contradiction is.

19:33

And he actually has many different truth valuations between true and false.

19:41

And he designs tables to do those things. And I was wondering in light of what you say about the so -called laws of logic, and you say that they're unchanging, universal, and transcendent.

19:52

Well, contradiction and identity are different in Aristotelian logic. They're different in first -order propositional logic.

19:59

And now that they're different in modal logic, and Alvin Plattico is using this as an apologetic method,

20:07

I was wondering how you can say that they're unchanging, universal, and transcendent. Because they rest in the mind of God who's absolute and unchanging, transcendent.

20:18

Okay. But the definitions change from system to system. So how can they be unchanging? Definitions change, but God doesn't change.

20:27

So you do agree, right, that God is absolute, perfect, immutable, and transcendent, right?

20:35

That's not the question. The question is the nature of logic, not the nature of God. You have to understand the question.

20:41

Where does the nature of logic exist? What must be the case for the universality of the laws of logic to have their existence?

20:48

To be true. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay, Bob, my point is just this, that you're saying they're unchanging, yet they're different from Aristotelian logic to first -order propositional logic and modal logic.

21:05

So how can you say they're unchanging? I don't grant that. I don't grant that those are the case. So look, look, something is what it is.

21:12

We have an object with a certain ontos. So do you agree that it is by nature just what it is?

21:17

And we have a statement, it is what it is, right? Well, the statement is referring to a given object, and it's a description of that object.

21:26

And that statement is extracted from... Yes, it is. When you say A is an apple, you are describing the object and giving it a name called

21:37

A. I said an object, something. It is what it is, right?

21:46

Depending on how you're defining those things, yes. I'm not defining them. We're just saying that if something has existence, it has an ontos.

21:55

And that's just what it is. So it is what it is, right? Well, when you're talking about an ontos, are you talking about a particular essence?

22:06

Are you talking about a necessary essence? Are you talking about a collection of attributes that are an essence? This is a very ambiguous field.

22:14

No, we're not. We're not. You're talking about necessary and accidental properties of an ontological object.

22:20

But the thing is, the object is undefined. And anything that has existence has an ontos related to it.

22:25

Otherwise, it can't have properties. So if it exists, it just exists because it's what it is. It's like saying

22:30

God is what he is, right? Wouldn't you say that God just is what he is? Well, I'm sitting here at a table.

22:38

I mean, the table is what it is, but the table is continually deteriorating, so it only is what it is within a given time frame.

22:46

Well, let's look at God. Well, hold on. We've got a break, okay? Hold on. So apply it to God, okay?

22:52

Because he's the standard of truth, not a table. So hold on. The question is, is God what he is in an unchanging state and condition?

23:00

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

23:14

Here's Matt Slick. All right, there we go. I'm going to finish writing something.

23:20

Let's get back on with Ryan. You still there? Yes, I am. I have a question.

23:26

Are you denying that there are different logical systems that have different definitions of contradiction on identity? No, I'm not denying it.

23:35

Okay, so the definitions of contradiction on identity change from system to system.

23:43

Are you denying that? Well, people can make up definitions all they want. Yeah, they can do that. Yeah, and that's all logic is, is a system of including things that is confined to certain kinds of statements.

23:59

Aristotelian logic is confined to six different statements. And first -order propositional logic is restricted to five or six different statements.

24:10

And same thing with modal logic. You have more statements with that. And a logical structure defines what these things are and how they function.

24:18

And that's how they get definitions of contradiction in identity. So like you say, they change from logical system to logical system.

24:26

So how can they be universal and transcendent and unchanging? Well, you just used the law of identity repeatedly.

24:33

You assumed its validity by recognizing first -order propositional logic, modal logic, and various forms of logic and definitions.

24:40

So what you did was you recognized the absolute necessity of something being what it is and it's not what it is, so that you can have a coherence in your logical statements about different statements.

24:50

See, you have to have a starting point. Your starting point is that these things are defined by metallurgical structure.

25:00

Metallurgical structure is determined and defined by someone who develops the metallurgical system that makes it function.

25:11

It's not defined by some sort of ontology. It does not have some sort of translogical understanding of these things.

25:18

These are man -made logical systems. So man -made systems are universal?

25:26

No, it's not universal. It doesn't have to be universal. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that because we have different logical systems, they're not universal.

25:33

They're not universal, okay. And so therefore, they don't apply in all situations. That's correct.

25:39

That's why they have different logical systems. Okay, so is it true that God is what

25:45

God is? This doesn't have anything to do with God. It has to do with the nature of logic.

25:51

And the nature of logic is that it changes from system to system.

25:57

But what you're saying is that the metallurgical structures and propositional logic and all these things are defined by men.

26:04

Defined by people. Therefore, they're subjective. They're not universal. No, they're not subjective. Yes, they are subjective.

26:10

They're not subjective. They're empirical. Yes, they are. They are empirical. No, they're not. They're not empirical because you're the one saying they're the ones inventing them.

26:21

They're the ones inventing them. Okay, but they are based upon our observations of the world around us. That's what they're drawn from. But then that's just empiricism.

26:26

That's an epistemological empiricist system. That's all it is. And how do you know that you're thinking them properly or perceiving them properly?

26:33

It's a problem. You don't have any grounding on it. It doesn't matter how you're thinking about it or perceiving it. It depends on how you're using it. Yes, it does. That's all.

26:39

No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Yes, it does because how you think about it is the very system of logic you're using. If you have to assume modal logic, metalogical structural logic, whatever it is, and then you have to assume certain validity to them in order to even have them like the doll of identity, in order to even define them, then what you're doing is you're saying that system that you're defining isn't in itself sufficient because you have to go outside of it to define what it is.

27:03

You have to assume the law of identity. Every time. Every single time, Matt, every single time that you make an evaluation of a logical statement, you're going outside of that statement.

27:14

Every time you make an evaluation of a logical system, you're going outside of that logical system, and that includes your assertions about logic.

27:22

So if you're going to say that a law of logic is unchanging, universal, and transcendent, and I do an evaluation of that,

27:30

I am necessarily doing it outside of that system of logic that you're using. So therefore, when you're doing those sorts of evaluations, you're using a different level of logical inquiry, and that is completely appropriate.

27:42

So you're not, when you're questioning the law of identity, you're not self -refuting because you're going outside of that, just as any logical evaluation does.

27:53

So to go outside your system of logic, to prove your logic, means that the system itself is not self -authenticating, but is authenticated by something other than itself.

28:02

But that's a problem. That's why you have different levels of logical inquiry.

28:08

That's why you have things like completeness. You have things like consistency. You have things like rigor. These are things that you impose upon your system to show that your logical system is consistent and coherent and rigorous and so forth.

28:22

You also have to have a different level of logical inquiry on that. The problem is you're obtaining a logical system outside of the one you're developing or espousing and saying there's something other than it that must be used to validate your own system.

28:35

That's the question. That's what all logic does. How do you know that? Do you know all systems of logic?

28:43

That's what, out of necessity, that's what must be done to improve that. So here we go.

28:49

With his incompleteness and incompleteness theorems. Okay, so the statement, God is what God is, is a true statement.

28:54

Is that correct? Yes. Okay, it's true. Why is it true?

29:02

I believe it to be true. Okay, it may not be true. Okay, that's incoherent.

29:08

To say that it may not be true. Hold on, Ryan, hold on. To say that it may not be true that God is what

29:14

God is, is incoherent. You're supposed to be a

29:20

Christian. Because if God is not what he is, we can't know anything about God. But he self -reveals himself in scripture.

29:27

He is the ultimate. There's nothing greater, nothing equal to him. Therefore, the laws of logic are not universal, abstract entities that exist in a platonic world.

29:38

That God then had to kind of work with. Or they have their autonomous, immutable nature.

29:43

That's not the case. Because God is a necessary condition by which all other things must have their ontos.

29:50

And so the laws of logic, which you guys, which you're saying that other people develop. And it has to use a system outside of itself to validate it.

29:57

Then what must be the one that validates that system? And then that went up beyond that, and that went beyond that. You can't go back infinitely.

30:03

You'll have a problem. So you have to have a terminus. Because you have an infinite regression.

30:10

Yes, you do. If you can't justify anything, because what justifies that system?

30:15

The one before that. What justifies that before that? And you go on infinitely. You don't get anywhere. It's unjustifiable.

30:21

That's the problem with this system. I've got news for you. I've got news for you.

30:26

Kurt Gödel and his incompleteness and completeness theorems prove that there is always something within a mathematical system or a logical system that is unprovable, that you cannot decide is true or false.

30:39

So then his statement is not provable? Did he prove his statement true?

30:45

You are confusing the different levels of logical inquiry. What Kurt Gödel did was he did an inquiry of all logical and mathematical systems.

30:55

And he showed that there are some things that will never be decided as true or false. Some things that will never be shown to be consistent.

31:04

There will always be inconsistencies. There will always be incompleteness. So your level of inquiry necessarily includes a hole at the bottom of all of this that it could completely fall through all of the time.

31:18

That is the nature of logic that we have today. You're talking about Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

31:24

Yes. And there are problems with that. It's overly complex and technical to grasp.

31:30

And there are differences of opinion on how to interpret what it means. So you're appealing to something. Look, I'm just trying to get you one point before we get to the next caller.

31:41

Look, I've got a question for you. What is the ultimate source of all things? Of all truth values?

31:48

What's the ultimate source? Wait a minute. Are you asking for the ultimate source of all truth values or the ultimate source of all things?

31:57

Truth values. Let's do that one. The ultimate source of truth values? Yeah. I mean,

32:04

I don't even know how to answer that. Are you talking about truths of science? Are you talking about truths of logic? Are you talking about truths of mathematics?

32:12

Are you talking about truths of what? All truth. Or all of them? All propositional truth values.

32:18

Okay. Wait just a second. You just said propositional truth values. Propositional truth values are different than truth per se.

32:27

Because propositional truth values are determined by logical systems. Okay. Is God the ultimate source of all truth values?

32:36

The ultimate source of all truth values? It's me. Because as far as I'm concerned, there's different kinds of truth.

32:42

You can get truth of science from the world around us. You need to start reading the Bible more. And start subjecting your philosophy to God's revelation.

32:50

Because God is the ultimate. Well, what you need to do is get formal training in logic, but you have none.

32:56

Okay. Well, that's the case. But I certainly seem to be holding my own with you, who has formal training.

33:03

And all I have to do is just presuppose the truth of the Trinitarian God, who provides the necessary preconditions for all intelligibility, solves the problem of the one and the many.

33:11

And so, therefore, I can talk about universals and particulars and justify them. And also, I can talk about that God is what

33:17

God is as a truth statement. Because it resides in the mind of God. It's revealed by Him. He is a necessary precondition for intelligibility.

33:24

What you're doing without realizing it. And I'm not trying to be mean here. Please understand that. I think you're committing a little bit of idolatry.

33:30

And I mean this respectfully. In that, you're giving to a created thing laws of logic, abstract entities.

33:37

You're giving them qualities that belong to God alone. And you're saying that they have an existence or some sort of autonomy, recognizable, not based in God's essence.

33:44

And that, to me, is idolatry. And we've got to break. We've got to get going. Oh, I guess he's gone. Hey, so there we go.

33:50

We'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick Live!

34:11

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

34:17

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. I enjoyed that mental exercise in the previous caller. And I hope you guys followed that a little bit.

34:26

I enjoyed it. All right, hey, let's get on the air with, let's see, Alberto.

34:32

Alberto, welcome. You're on the air, buddy. Yeah, good evening, Matt Slick. Good evening.

34:38

What do you think about this? You think the devil's greatest weapon to take away people to follow

34:44

Jesus, because everybody's creating, you know, YouTube channels and Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

34:51

Follow me, follow me, follow us. They're taking away to follow Jesus, because they're taking away the glory from Jesus, and these

34:58

YouTubers are profiting from the gospel, which the gospel is free. And so a lot of people are following these

35:06

YouTubers and all these people. How do they know that these people are possible? Follow me as I follow

35:12

Christ. I don't know if YouTubers are following Christ at all. People are being misled by these people. Do you have a question?

35:19

I'm trying to follow you. Okay, my question is, is social media and all this stuff, is it

35:27

Satan's greatest idea to mislead believers? No, I would say one of his greatest ideas is half -truths, partial truths.

35:40

To just mix in enough truth in something that it can be twisted, that it doesn't have its full context.

35:47

And I think this is what is exemplified by Satan talking to Eve, did God really say? Because half -truths mean that full truth, all truth ultimately resides in the mind of God.

35:59

Truth is what corresponds to God's mind, since he knows all things. And so what

36:04

Satan did with Eve was say, well, did God really say? Does he really know everything? And is his wisdom really that pure and perfect?

36:11

Doubting of that. So what Satan then did was say, God knows that when you eat of it, you'll be wise.

36:19

So he took the truth and twisted it and made it into a kind of half -truth. So I would say half -truth is no truth.

36:26

But this is the kind of thing that he does. And he can do it everywhere. TV, he certainly does it on the

36:32

TV all the time, with the left and on the right. But mostly on the left. And he does it in social media, does it in books, does it in all kinds of stuff.

36:40

And the only way to avoid that is to be grounded in God's word, which is the previous caller trying to ground the nature of the truth arguments that we have about logic and the very nature of God as the ultimate standard of all truth.

36:52

Then you have an anchor, and you can justify statements and truth values. But if you don't have that, then everything is subjective and relative.

36:59

And if everything is subjective and relative, then my truth is greater than your truth. And when I say to people who are relative, when they say,

37:06

Well, that's just your truth. I'll say, My truth is that your truth is wrong. So am I correct? Is it true? For you it is.

37:14

Oh, then what I'm saying is that you're wrong, right? Okay, good. So you are wrong. You know, so...

37:20

Like he was saying... Go ahead. No, you go ahead. Okay, like he was saying about observation.

37:28

Well, like you were saying to him, but I can observe one thing one way, and I can observe things the other way.

37:33

So whose observation is the final story of all truth? That's right. Right? It's called empiricism.

37:39

Empiricism says that we learn by observation. So how do I know? If you and I are in the same room, and we're looking at a bowling ball, are we perceiving it identically?

37:51

Because we're at different angles. So we're not perceiving the nature of it, because we can't observe a nature.

37:56

We can only observe properties. Well, maybe my vision is not as good as yours, so I don't see the details that you might see.

38:03

And we describe the same thing based on the properties we observe. Are we describing it accurately? Now we get into the problems.

38:08

This is what empiricism... It's a problem. It has inherent problems with it. It doesn't mean we can't know things, but in justifying how we know what to know based on what we see.

38:19

And this is the problem with empiricism, because it's ultimately based in relativistic expressions and through senses.

38:25

Okay? Yeah, like you said, what God is... I heard a preacher one time years ago in the church

38:32

I went to. He said, God cannot improve in himself. God is just perfect.

38:39

He cannot improve in himself. There's nothing more God can do to improve himself, because he is the perfect perfection.

38:46

He can't improve in nothing else. Well, in open theism, how God improves... I'm taking a shot at a heresy.

38:54

In open theism, God learns, and he improves in his knowledge and his wisdom. That's what open theism teaches.

39:02

But you're right. God doesn't improve. Right. It's like the observation.

39:08

You don't know when a traffic light has an accident, right? The police officer asks everybody, What did you see?

39:14

What did this guy see? What this person saw? So based on all the information he gathers from the different people's angle and what they observed, they could come down to basically what really happened on the accident.

39:25

Is that correct? Yes. Observations are not dependable, and yet they kind of are.

39:34

So here's an illustration I use when teaching logic. There are two people across the street at an intersection, and they're friends, and they're waving to each other and yelling at each other across the street.

39:46

So they go, Hey, man, you going to get a coffee later? Yeah, sure. And there are these two cars, a black car and a white car, that crash at the intersection.

39:55

And the police come, and they interview each person. And one person says,

40:01

I saw two people getting out of the white car. Another one says, I saw three people getting out of the white car.

40:07

Is it a contradiction? The answer is no. Because if there's three, there's two.

40:14

If one said there was only two in the car and no more, then it could not be possible that the other saw three getting out of the white car.

40:25

So that's when contradictions occur. But differences of perspectives and how we perceive can tell us different things.

40:34

This is one of the weaknesses called empiricism as an epistemological system, using our senses to gather knowledge and determine truth.

40:43

Okay? I hope that makes sense. I heard one time a video I saw by Josh McDowell.

40:50

It's the Bible, Reliable and Accurate. When people thought the world was flat, and then people said, well, then they said the world was always round.

41:01

Truth didn't change. Your perspective of truth changed. Do you know what I'm saying? So he thought that the

41:08

Bible was flat. Do you know what I'm saying? So basically, the world has always been round. But when they discovered the world was not flat, was the world always round?

41:17

Yes, it was always round. But your perspective of truth changed. Not truth itself. Truth never changes.

41:22

It never changes. It settles. Because ultimately, there are variable truths.

41:30

Like I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream. Maybe in 10 years, that might change.

41:36

But at the time, the truth statement is valid. But ultimately, all truth resides in the mind of God.

41:43

Because he knows all things actual as well as potential. So I say that truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God.

41:50

Because he knows all things. Therefore, whatever he says is always true. We can trust him.

41:55

That's why Jesus, God in the flesh, said, I'm the way, the truth, and the life. So whatever Jesus says is simply true.

42:02

And we ought to believe everything he says is being true. Right. Like a historian. A historian can write down history, what happened.

42:10

But he's not accurately present when things do happen. The Holy Spirit is.

42:16

Because the Holy Spirit is God. He saw exactly what happened. So we can rely totally, 100%.

42:22

Sure, what he says in the scripture, it is 100 % accurate. A historian can manipulate him, have an agenda.

42:28

He can, you know, see what he thought he saw, or get false information from somebody, told him something that they saw.

42:35

How do you know it's really true what that person told him? Information, was it correct or not? You know what I'm saying? So history, people can write down books, history books.

42:44

But you don't know 100 % sure of that. The truth will happen exactly that way. You know what I'm saying? It's all speculation, basically.

42:54

Right? Correct? All right. Yeah, basically, yeah. Okay? All right.

43:00

All right? Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, God bless, buddy. All right, God bless. Okay. Okay, bye.

43:07

All right, we have nobody waiting right now. So what I'm going to do is get to some of the emails.

43:12

And let's see, where's the email? Right there we go. And some of the questions that come in, if you want to give me a question or you want to send me one, all you have to do is just email it to carm at,

43:23

I mean, info at carm .org, info at carm, C -A -R -M, dot O -R -G.

43:29

And just put in the subject line, radio comment or radio question, and I can get to them.

43:35

So let's see. Hmm, interesting. Okay, let's get over to here, radio questions.

43:44

I got them, couldn't get nobody waiting right now. I like that. All right, let's see, radio questions. In case I can't call in today, there's a thought question that's on my mind.

43:52

I've heard you debate the Trinity a handful of times now. It seems like every time you do, God the Father and Jesus become central to both sides of the argument, but there's not as much focus on the

44:01

Holy Spirit. I absolutely believe in the Trinity, and I'm not a modalist. Good. But could you break down the

44:06

Trinity and explain each person's function? And it doesn't seem as much of a focus on the

44:13

Holy Spirit. One of the reasons that that's the case is that the Holy Spirit's job is to bear witness of one of those things.

44:19

He bears witness of Christ. And this is out of John 14, 26 and John 15, 26.

44:25

The Holy Spirit, whom the Father and I will send to you, he will bear witness of me. So the Holy Spirit doesn't bear witness of himself.

44:32

Jesus bears witness of himself, and the Father bears witness of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit bears witness of Jesus, but the

44:37

Holy Spirit does not bear witness of himself. So what we see is that the work of the Holy Spirit is to promote

44:44

Christ, to convict people of their sins and things like that. And so when I'm defending the doctrine of the

44:49

Trinity, what I'll do is go to my website, karm .org forward slash Trinity, and it forwards to the

44:56

Trinity table. And so when I defend it, and this is what I do in every defense of the

45:03

Trinity that I remember in debates, is I'll say, here's how the Trinity's arrived at.

45:09

I just put a table together. I got it from someplace else a long time ago. I've modified it over the years. And I say, this is how it's arrived at systematically and through these verses, and they can never refute it.

45:20

They never address it and refute it. So when we talk about the issue of the work of the

45:25

Holy Spirit, you can also go to Trinity, I mean, excuse me, karm .org like I'm going to do right now, and forward slash

45:32

Holy Spirit, Holy hyphen Spirit. And it'll forward you to the table that deals, the outline that deals with the work of the

45:44

Holy Spirit. Now he's mentioned on an equal level with God. He has different names, like the Spirit of the

45:49

Lord, Spirit of your Father, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of God. And he's referred to as a person by saying he's a who, a he, and himself, and he has personhood and qualities.

46:01

He can grieve, and he can love. He has a mind. He speaks, and he knows, et cetera.

46:06

Now here's some of the activities. He teaches. That's John 14, 26, and Luke 12, 12.

46:13

And he intercedes. He leads. He gives life. And we can be filled by the

46:20

Holy Spirit. Now it's possible to speak against the Holy Spirit. You can be baptized with the

46:25

Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can be given. The Holy Spirit can be received. The Spirit forbids people from moving and going to do stuff.

46:34

The Spirit searches all things, and the Spirit is the truth. And these are consistent topics and, let's see, titles and attributes that relate to the

46:44

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because they're all the one God in their inter -Trinitarian communion and their perichoritic divine simplicity.

46:53

I love saying stuff like that because it's fun. Perichoritic means mutually indwelling.

47:01

And the divine simplicity simply says that God is one thing, one divine, simple stuff, thing.

47:08

What is that divinely simple thing? A triunity. He's triune. That is one divine nature.

47:14

So there you go with that, and that's why the Holy Spirit doesn't I don't talk about him as much because mostly in the debates it's between the

47:23

Father and the Son because usually modalists will say the Father became the Son. And some say it became the

47:29

Holy Spirit, but usually we stop there. The Father and the Son, there's no distinction between them, and that's why we don't get that far. There, I hope that helps.

47:36

May the Lord bless you all by his grace. We're back on there tomorrow. And, Lord willing, we'll talk to you then.

47:42

So have a great one, everybody. God bless. Another program powered by the