Matt Slick Live: July 8, 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, take in your calls and respond to your questions at 877 -207 -2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick. You're listening to Matt Slick Live. I hope you all had a great day or a great weekend, I should say, with the Fourth of July.

Today's date is July 8th, 2024. So I hope you all had a good time. I had a good time, went to some friends' house and watched fireworks. It's kind of an annual thing we do and it was great, a lot of good time, a lot of good it was good.

But anyway, so if you want to give me a call, as usual, all you have to do is dial 877 -207 -2276 and you can give me a call there. You can also, if you want, you can email me, info at karm .org, info at karm .org, and I just put in a subject line, radio comment or radio question and we can get to those.

We like to do those. A lot of fun. All right. Hey. Oh, let's get to Juanita from Michigan. Juanita, welcome. You're on the air.

The Essence of God and the Trinity's Attributes

Welcome. Hey there, Matt. Hi. Good afternoon, or evening, actually. So I'm a non-trinitarian, just to remind you. I wanted to make sure I understood this correctly. I kind of took it off your website, and to understand, I'm writing something, and so the Trinity proposes that Christ had two natures, one human and one divine.

In his human nature, it was the role he played as a man. He was able to be tempted. He was able to die, unlike God, so Jesus had a human role he played. In his divine nature, he was the same essence as God, divine.

He was God simultaneously, although acting as a man, he was not separate, but one in nature and relationship with God. So it's the word simultaneously that kind of has me perplexed. My question, actually, is what you feel the nature of God is, or what is God's essence?

That's actually my question.

Well, I can't answer that. No one can. God's essence is simply what his essence is. He's completely other. In theology, we have a phrase, he is wholly other, W-H-O-L-L-Y. He's completely different than what we are.

We can only get an idea of him based on his self-revelation in scripture and through the person of Jesus. And just so you know, the wording of your statement wasn't very good. I can offer a correction.

If you want to send it to me, I can polish it up for you if you want.

I believe I took it right off your website, but I'll go back and recheck that. But it says, in Christ's divine nature, he was the same essence as God, but we don't know what essence or nature God was, but Christ was that.

What about the words omnipotent or all-knowing, all-powerful? What would you term those? Not God's essence or nature? What would you term those terms?

Those are attributes. But I was referring to, you said the trinity... Attributes. Yeah, attributes. You said the trinity proposes that Jesus has two natures. That's not accurate. The trinity says there are three persons and one God, and the hypostatic union says that Jesus has two natures.

They're related, but the trinity isn't stated. That's what I was referring to. Right, okay.

I'll go back and check the website. So the omnipotent and the all-knowing and everything are attributes of God, but what his essence or nature is, we don't really know.

It's just the God nature, whatever it is. He's just God. Okay. Okay. All right.

Well, you cleared that up for me. Thank you. The other two things. The simultaneous, that doesn't ring a bell, or I have that wrong?

Okay, go ahead. The three persons are simultaneous and distinct. Mm-hmm.

So could you then... Would a correct statement be that the trinity claims that the three persons are separate but equal?

Let's put it this way, and I modified the article, What is a Trinity, today, as a matter of fact. But the trinity is one being, one essence, one substance, who exists as three distinct simultaneous persons.

But each person shares all the attributes of divinity because that's what divinity is. The question then becomes, how do they have distinction? Because if all the attributes are identical to the divine nature, and each possesses a divine nature, how then can there be distinction?

If the identity and the predication, or the essence and the attributes are identical? The answer is found in the doctrine of relationship, or the economic trinity, in that they show distinction between, for example, the father begets, the son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

So the distinction is understood through the relationship between the persons. That's how we see distinction. So we can have simultaneous essence, simultaneous natures, simultaneous persons, yet also retaining distinction.

Okay?

So then would you say that you could say that they were separate but equal?

Well, we say that they're distinct, we don't want to say separate, we say distinct. That's the best way to say it, really. They are three distinct, simultaneous persons. We don't want to say separate, I hope I didn't put that on the website any place, but if I did I'll change it, but it should be just distinct.

Okay, I can see that there would be a distinction between separate and distinct, I think. I'm not quite sure, I'll have to meditate on that. Did you say that the attributes and the essence were the same?

Back a couple of sentences ago, you said something about attributes and essence.

So any object, whether it's concrete or abstract, has a nature. A concrete object is something you can hold in your hand, you can touch, occupies space and time. An abstract object does not. So an abstract object would be like the laws of logic, or the concept of roundness, or things like that.

And so in philosophy they're called concrete and abstract objects. When something has an essence, it has an ontos, ontology is a study, it's a metaphysical category dealing with the nature of things, whatever exists, the being, ontos, whatever exists has properties related to the existence.

So you can't transfer the properties of an ontos to something else, a different ontos, it doesn't make any sense. This is why transubstantiation doesn't work, but anyway. So the attributes of the divine being are, he has omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnisapience, holiness, acety, etc.

And by logical necessity, each person of the Trinity possesses all those attributes because those are necessary attributes related to the ontos.

Okay, so I just did, I don't want to make a mistake here, so you're saying that each of the three persons of the Trinity have those attributes. I think you just said that? Yes, they have to. Each person of the Trinity has, are all-powerful, all-knowing, blah, blah, blah, the attributes.

Each person, okay, because I thought before you said that they didn't, okay, I want to make sure that I have this right. So each person of the Trinity has the attributes, which are those things that we were talking about.

Now how is an attribute different from an essence? Attributes emanate from the essence.

So let's take a bowling ball. So a bowling ball, a typical bowling ball, let's just say a black one, okay. A black bowling ball has mass, and mass relates to weight, that relates to gravity, but mass, it has density, it has spherosity.

And so we can measure the volume.

Could you say, excuse me, could you say that it exists in time and space then?

Yes, it's a concrete object. So a concrete object would be bowling ball, but an abstract object would be bowling ball-ness. Because you could be in a bowling alley, there could be 100 bowling balls around you, and you're seeing the manifestation of the concept or the abstract object called bowling ball-ness.

And there's particular manifestations of it we call bowling balls. But each bowling ball has to share characteristics common to them, some that are necessary and some that are accidental. So a necessary quality of a bowling ball is being a sphere, but a non-necessary attribute would be color.

One could be black, one could be pink, one could be yellow, one could be colored. So those are called an accidental property. So a required property or an essential property is something that, if taken away, it doesn't make any sense because it's necessary with the essence.

You can't have a square or a pyramid bowling ball, it doesn't make any sense, it's not a bowling ball, it's a pyramid at that point. So you can't transfer the properties of a bowling ball, and you can't transfer it to the tree outside, because each nature has properties related to the nature that are necessary and essential to it.

So basically, to restate that again, so the shared essence of the three persons of the Trinity, the shared essence are the attributes that we were talking about, could that be a correct statement?

Yes, they all are divine by nature, and since the divine nature has necessary characteristics to it or properties, then they all share in those properties necessarily.

Okay, thank you very much, I'll have to kind of think this over and try to understand our scribbled notes here.

Thank you, Matt, take care. Bye-bye. You also need to study something else, though, okay? A doctrine called inseparable operations, inseparable operations, are you there still? Yeah. Okay, so if this is the case, that the Trinity is true, and I know you deny the Trinity, but I'm glad that you want to at least understand it, if the Trinity is true, and each person shares all the attributes of the divine nature, then when Christ, who is who he is, he's divine and human, then all the attributes of divinity are also his, and this is called the communication of the properties, or the communicatio idiomatum, that he has the properties of the divine nature communicated to him.

Now the access to them is another topic, we won't get into that right now. So, sorry about that, cut my throat. So this would necessitate, then, that all members of the Trinity, which is one being, as one works, that's all who are working.

As one thinks, it's all who are thinking. And so inseparable operations says that in the one essence of God, and the three persons, which are the one essence, we have then the issue of Jesus saying, for example, I can only do what I see the Father do, present tense, this is inseparable because the nature is not divided into parts, but the divine nature has inseparable qualities to it, they belong to the Son, the Holy Spirit, and to the Father.

And so the Father, whatever the Son says, you know, for example, if you look at my website, I can do only those things I hear or see the Father do. That's in support of what's called inseparable operations.

Okay? So this inseparable operations is a way of explaining, and don't take offense to this, explaining in a way that scriptures that say that, that kind of indicate that Jesus was not all powerful or all knowing.

Not necessarily. Hold on after the break and I'll explain, I'll deal with that a little bit, okay? Because it's worth talking about. All right. Hold on. Hey, folks, we've got to, I just read something else.

We've got a break, so please stay tuned, we'll get back to some more, hopefully some good advanced theology. 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. Let's get back on with Juanita. Are you still there? I am. All right. Could you rephrase what you said before, and then I can focus on that. I want to make sure we're getting it clear.

Oh, my.

We went through quite a bit. You did help me with a couple of things. So I guess right now I'm thinking, so you have these terms, or these theories, as far as, you know, I'm concerned from my side, inseparable operations and hapostatic union, you know, these were created in order to explain the Trinity theory.

But what I'm interested, I guess, right now is, is there any scripture to prove or even indicate that these independent operations or, you know, is there any scripture to back this up? I see. Yeah.

OK, go ahead. Go to Karm and just look up inseparable operations. Look up. What is the Trinity? Look up economic trinity, ontological trinity.

OK, yes. And you'll have scripture there, then that these theories are so wonderful. I will do that, Matt.

Thank you very much. I will. I will look it up and also look up hypostatic union. OK. Yeah.

No, I know it. It was Cree. I don't know who came up with the hapostatic union, which explains, you know, the two natures that the union, the union of the divine and human nature, the combination, the two natures of Jesus.

It's not a combination. I'm kind of, you know, yeah, I'm kind of familiar.

That would be monophysitism or eutychianism. But we hold to what's called the hypostatic union. So you need it. I mean, you know it.

You got to know those terms. OK, there will there will be scripture. And that's all I'm looking for is the scripture that will indicate that Christ had two natures. Not that that was OK. Wonderful. You got it.

Thank you very much. All right. Take care.

Bye bye. Bye. All right. So she's an anti-trinitarian and she's polite here. I was answering your question, but I'm really kind of intrigued now. I want to know what she's going to develop, because I would have I should have asked her who ever developed it, send it to me.

I will analyze it and put an article up on CARM. Anyway, if you want to give me a call, eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six. Let's get to Sean from Japan. Hey, Sean. Welcome. You're on the air.

Close Communion and Church Discipline

Hey, Matt, it's actually Renzo from Japan, actually in America right now. So I thought I would give you a call and ask a question. Where are you? States now. I'm in Wisconsin. Oh, sorry to hear that. OK.

I know we can talk about that another time. I gave the caller the monitor a different question, but I would actually like to ask you about close communion and what if you think it's biblical or not. Yes.

Close communion is biblical because it says you must discern the body and there's a warning attached. It's in First Corinthians. Eleven. Let's see. Let me get to it. I'd move my window over here. First Corinthians 11.

And what close communion is for those who don't know, communion is only for those who trusted in Christ. It's not for everybody. And furthermore, the table is to be guarded against those who claim to be Christians but are in unrepentant, direct, bad sin.

OK, so so it says in verse twenty seven of First Corinthians 11, whoever eats or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. So you must examine himself.

And in so doing, excuse me, he is to eat the drink, the cup over each drinks unworthily as it brings judgment, et cetera. So from those basic verses, we say that you've got to guard it so people don't come in and eat it unworthily.

OK, so you know that I'm a Presbyterian and I went to a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church last week that was near this house. And they told me that even though I'm a Christian, but because I'm of a different denomination from the Westminster, that they would not administer the Lord's Supper.

Do you also believe that that's still that that level of close communion is still biblical?

No, they're wrong for that. Absolutely wrong. And I would tell them that her face, in fact, I agree. Yeah, I went to a Lutheran college, actually, LCMS, Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. You're in the Wisconsin Synod area.

So it might have been Wisconsin. They're a little bit even more uppity than the Missouri. So they had it during college. They had a service where the whole it was a long service anyway, where people came together on campus and they had communion and they closed it.

They said, if you're not Lutheran, you can't take it. And I went and talked to the dean later, whose name was Dean. So he was Dean Dean. And I talked to him. I said, isn't the Bible, doesn't the Bible say communion is for the believers?

Yes, it's not for unbelievers. Correct. OK, am I a believer? And he said, well, yes. I said, so what right do you have as a Christian to say another Christian can't take communion? Unless there's sin, which is no sin.

Why? What right do you have to say that? And he actually said to me, you know, that's a good point. And for real, they changed their communion and they opened it up to non Lutherans after.

That. Yeah, I don't think I'm going to change the he actually when I was talking to the the pastor of this church, he did say he was Missouri Synod, not Wisconsin Synod. But they were very emphatic about it.

I did kind of question ridiculous. You mean? Yeah. And actually in on their pamphlet, I'm not going to quote it word for word verbatim, but it does say on the back, and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, or it says we are not judging the faith of the other person, but you are by denying them the Lord's supper.

We're not judging the faith of the other person, but we are practicing closed communion, which we believe to be biblical based on our creedal statements. Yeah. And it's something like that. But it is it actually is a judgment and a condemnation to deny somebody the Lord's supper.

So even though they think they're not judging, they in fact are exactly.

Correct. And I would have pointed it out to them and I would have said Jesus said that this is for those who are in the new covenant. So am I in the new covenant or not as a believer, someone for whom Christ died, are you going to deny my right to communion with my Lord and my Savior because of a catechism?

Is it now above or equal to scripture? Of course not. You need to stick with scripture, not the catechism at this point. Now, when you say that to an LCMS guy, even a PCA guy, you can watch what I call I call it the PCA called the reformed but shuffle and then the LCMS would be the Lutheran but shuffle.

I saw it once the first time when I was preaching at a CRC church, Christian Reformed Church, and I was preaching up there and 250 people down in the congregation and and I just had a cough and I coughed, put my hand over the microphone and I coughed and it coughed into the mic and just echoed really loud.

It was like, oops, one of those, you know, just oops. And I said, wow, it sounded like God coughed. And so I said, you know, God coughed. And and that's when I first saw the reformed but shuffle, when every single person in the this is a very traditional church, every single person shifted from one butt cheek to the other all simultaneously.

So I called it the reformed but shuffle. So it exists in the Lutheran church to the Lutheran but shuffle. Slightly upset with that statement.

OK, yeah, well, unfortunately, I did like the guy's sermon. It was very nice on the Ten Commandments and he did a very good job of what they call.

Divine liturgy, but hold on, we got a break. Hold on. Hold on after if you can. OK, hold on, buddy. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. That's Sean. We've talked many times. Be right back.

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. If you want to give me a call, 877 -207 -2276. I want to hear from you.

Let's get back on here with Sean. Your buddy is still there. I'm still here. How are you doing? Oh, man, busy during the break, working on an answer to the issue of the is of identity related to the is a predication and why it supposedly refutes a doctrine, the Trinity, and I'm showing why it doesn't.

Yeah, a lot of work ahead.

Well, then I think I'll try to do is try to, you know, bring a couple of scriptural verses. I'll write him a little email and I'll board it nicely and kind of a subtle thing. But any Bible verse recommendations that you would offer as a rebuttal for him doing closed community against other Christians?

Yes, actually, there's something I've been working on called, let me see if I can find it. It's the New Covenant and hold on a sec. Let me see if I can get it going here. The New Covenant, where is it?

And so within it, oh, man, I got to find this. I know I've got it, but within it, I discovered some stuff and I want to open it up. It might take me 30 seconds here to find it.

But working on it might be a good idea just just for the current website to do is denominational closed communion biblical. That might be a really good article.

I don't think that would be a good article. Let me let me write that down. You got to be going here different directions. So hold on. Let me see. I give a list of a list of articles.

Let's see. If you hear that, it'll be a rough hour after this. I got them going. That's right.

It's crossed. How do you word that is it is cross denominational or sorry, is a.

Denominational closed communion biblical.

Denominate the biblical.

I think part of the answer could be, yes, because we're not going to, you know, share communion with Mormons or Catholic Roman Catholic, Eastern or right or the Eastern Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox necessarily.

So I think part of the answer would be correct. But then at the same time, we would not consider some of those other denominations Christian at all. So it could be a really nice, detailed article, I believe.

Oh, yes. And that's why I changed it to is Christian denominational closed communion biblical. So, you know, so what I was doing was working on I can't believe I can't find it. That's so strange. I got it someplace is I've been working on the issue of the New Covenant and.

And I've got so many things going on, and so I just have a real simple paragraph. Wait a minute, where's the New Covenant? Because I summarize something. So let me go to Jeremiah 31, 31, my Bible program.

Don't have it there. Hebrews 8, 13. You slimeball. Do I talk to my computer? Doesn't do what I want. OK, anyway, I have a whole bunch of stuff I've discovered, not discovered. But, you know, I mean, it's already been known.

But the issue of the New Covenant and what's going on with it, there's a lot there. And so it is for everybody. OK, it's for those who have trusted in Christ. And that's the and the symbol of the New Covenant is the Lord's Supper.

So the question then is, are we in the New Covenant as Christians, even across denominations? And the answer, of course, is yes. And the New Covenant is for the elect who have been chosen of God. That's what the Bible says in the New Covenant.

So I can write an article on this and be real helpful. I just find my information, which I spent hours getting that information together. Now I'm just going to find out where it is.

I think there's a lot even in even in just the Last Supper that I think with the words of Christ that are very clear and powerful, as well as the words in Corinthians from Apostle Paul. And so I think that there's a I think maybe four or five Bible verses to solidify the case.

I think it will be fantastic. So I'll do some research as well before I write to him.

You know, in fact, I found a paragraph that I summarized to the New Covenant was prophesied in the Old Testament. I get all these references. It was fulfilled in the New when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper.

It was ratified with his death. The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant and included both Jews and Gentiles. Jesus had the blood of the New Covenant is poured out for many. The New Covenant sign is the cup of the Lord's Supper, which represented the shedding of his blood on the cross.

Jesus is the mediator of that New Covenant. He's the priest of the New Covenant, which is better than the Old Covenant. And those in the New Covenant will have God's law written on their hearts. Their sins will be forgiven.

And those who are called will receive the promise of eternal life and the Lord will be their God. Those last ones mean that we're in the New Covenant and the symbol of the New Covenant is the communion supper and the elements that is.

And so, therefore, all who are in that covenant should be able to take it. And what you're what the Lutherans have done, in my opinion, has sinned against them, against you. Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for your time.

God bless you. And I'll keep you in their prayers. All right. God bless. Appreciate that. All right. Now, let's get to Alberto from Georgia. Alberto, welcome. You're on the air.

The Last Trumpet and the End of the Age

It's good to be back. My question is, did you ever contact Dr. Michael Brown and Craig Keener about, you know, the free trip, you know, the.

Teachings? You got a lot of wind in your phone. So, no, I haven't. It's not a big deal. I mean, you know. I would do a debate with him.

Yeah, but he wrote a book called he wrote a book called Not to be Afraid of the.

Antichrist. Not to be Afraid of the Antichrist. Well, I would be afraid of the Antichrist. Yeah. Well, he wrote a book. Yeah. Well, I don't know. You should, because you should be afraid to torture you, hurt your family.

You'll control much of the world. He's a servant of the devil. Now, we should fear him in that sense, but we shouldn't fear him in another sense. So I didn't know what sense that he's talking about in there.

OK, I got a quick question, you know, the Bible talks about the last trumpet. I was confused by that verse, the last trumpet, referring to what is the last trumpet when it talks about it? Some people say it's like during the future or before the trip.

Yes, it could be when it comes about, but it's about, you know, the apostasy, you know, that's the first.

And first, in 1552, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet, the trumpet will sound, the dead will be released. That's the first basic basically that's the first resurrection. And then we have the the dead who have cries, who have died in Christ or the believers who died ahead of of the time of the rapture.

The last trumpet is when the dead are raised. The last trumpet also show it to you. Well, I get my notes from something else. There's so many things open. Hold on. Let's see. Because there's when the the last trumpet occurs, I have it all in a chart.

I think I did. And it's last trumpet is when the resurrection occurs. It's also when the rapture occurs. OK, so I have the scriptures on. OK. All right. So the problem is direction when the last trumpet occurs, it's it's the same time as the rapture and the resurrection.

But the resurrection is on the last day, which is called the day of the Lord. So therefore, in the last day was called the day of the Lord is when the rapture occurs, which happens at the last trumpet.

And also this is at the resurrection, the last trumpet, let's see, which also is when the rapture occurs. So the last trumpet is when the rapture and the resurrection occur, but also is with the return of Christ.

So the return of Christ isn't a double return. And then seven years later, he comes back again. They all happen at the same time.

OK, so does the preacher believe he comes when he finds himself in the clouds, I think the second time he comes back with a saint and a holy angel, but in the white horse.

Right. Except that the last trumpet is when the resurrection occurs. And that's the day of the Lord. But the day of the Lord's when the new heavens and new earth are made. So the day of the Lord is when the new heavens and new earth are made, which also occurs at the time of the last trumpet.

Then the rapture occurs at the last trumpet, which is also the day of the Lord when the new heavens and new earth are made. There's no literal thousand years. It just doesn't work. OK, you're not saying that doesn't work.

That's a little thousand years. Don't you don't believe in a thousand years? Right. I have a study that I've done that I think is pretty solid. It's called an examination of this age and the age to come.

And you go to Carmen, you can. And what I've done, what I've taught it is is have the people who are sitting there. I say, where does this go? We have two ages, this age and age to come. Where and this haven't put things where it goes, make a chart of their own.

And it comes up with something they're not used to. Let's just say that. OK, buddy, check it out. OK. All right. All right. OK, thank you. All right. I'll talk to you later. Hey, folks, we have one one person waiting.

If you want to give me a call, eight, seven, seven, two, zero, seven, two, two, seven, six. Be right back. It's Matt Slick Live taking a call at eight, seven, seven, two, zero, seven, two, two, seven, six.

Here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial eight, seven, seven, two, zero, seven, two, two, seven, six. Let's get to James from Lexington, North Carolina.

Welcome. You're on the air. Thank you, Matt, for taking my call.

I have a question. I hear preachers preach all the time and they say that you have to ask God to come into your heart to be saved. And I cannot find that scripture in the Bible.

I cannot find it. You're right, because it doesn't say any place in order to be saved with to ask him into our heart. That is ridiculous theology that is taught from pulpits all across the country. And it is false.

I'm glad that you caught on to it. Yes. OK, well, now, but yeah, OK, but with but they'll go to Romans 10 through nine and they'll read that. And I understand it. It's believe in your heart that I'm the first.

Yes, but believe. When I get to verse 13, they say, for whosoever should call upon the Lord, he'll be saved. And they they do not tell them what the rest of the chapter says there. You know, how can you how can you believe in something you haven't heard?

And how can you hear? You know, if if if a preacher has a priest, how can you preach unless he's be saved?

Right. Let's put some of this together, OK? Because in John one of twelve, it says as many as received him to them, it gave the right to be called the children of God. So we are to receive Christ. We are to believe in Christ.

Jesus has believe in God, believe also in me. John 14 one. We're to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord. Now, if you're mute and you can't speak, you know, this is not a legalistic thing, but it's a confession that goes for the idea.

But then what if you have someone who doesn't have the ability to confess and you're not of time or whatever? These are just normative things. So what we need to do to be saved is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, going to trust in who he is.

He's God in flesh. He died on the cross, rose from the dead. And he bore our sins in his body. First Peter two twenty four. And we trust in what he did. We received that sin offering, that sin sacrifice.

We put our faith and our hope in him. That's what it means to be to become a Christian.

OK, yes. And also when I go back to John three sixteen, he said, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whosoever believe us, not ask him into your heart, but to believe it on him.

So not perfect, but have everlasting. Amen. And I just don't understand how how the preachers are leaders and they're supposed to teach us. I don't I just I've heard that all my life.

Yeah. And because in America, the preaching of the gospel is pretty watered down. OK, it is. Yeah, it's pretty watered down. And people are teaching bad theology all over the place. So when I preach the gospel to people, OK, let's see, to find a certain verse, I should know this, but I don't know all the verses we're supposed to count the cost.

I believe it's Luke nine. Actually, there's a parallel. It says, well, I'll explain what I'm going to. When you preach the gospel, it has to be law, gospel, cost, law. You know, God says, don't lie. You've lied.

You're a sinner. You're under his judgment. The gospel is that Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law. And if you trust in what he did, he's got in flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, all of that.

OK, and the cost for which of you and intending to build a tower sit down first counts the cost. You have enough to finish it. You better know what you're getting into. So they say to people, just ask Jesus into your heart.