MSL: April 29, 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.

Assurance of Salvation in Christ, Not Human Merit

Hey, everybody. Welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick. You're listening to Matt Slick Live, and I hope you're going to enjoy the show today, by God's grace, by God's mercy. And so if you want, you can give me a call on this lovely April 29th, 2024.

You can give me a call if you want, 877 -207 -2276. All right, so this weekend I spoke at a conference, and it was a busy weekend. And I'm exhausted. I'm actually tired from it. And after the show today, I'm going to go watch sci-fi for a few hours tonight.

That's it. Just watch sci-fi and just relax. But I had a good time. Great people. It's a privilege to be able to teach. Now, when I teach, I do kind of a teaching-preaching combo. I just do. When I teach, I get passionate.

I say, here's the admonition of God. This is what it is. So I teach and do that as well. So kind of a teach-preach thing. Got the privilege of doing that this weekend. And great bunch of folks. Really good people.

Really good people, I will admit. Really good people. I had a lot of good fellowship and just enjoyed it. So I thank them for lowering their standards to have me on and speak at the conference. So that was good, at least for me.

All right, so praise God. And if you want to email me, you can do that as well. All you have to do is direct an email to info at karm .org. Info at karm .org. And just put in the subject line, radio question or radio comment.

And we can get to it. Pretty easy. Easy peasy. Not a big deal. All right. Hey, let's just jump on the line. Let's get to Luke from Washington, D .C.

Luke, welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt. How are you? Doing fine, man. Hanging in there. Where you got, buddy? Hey, today I was talking to one of my Muslim friends. He's my coworker. So I said, we have assurance of salvation.

And then he's laughing at me. Wow, it's a blasphemy. Assurance of salvation. I said, this is not a lottery ticket. So my question is, what assurance does God give us?

Well, let's talk about him first. The reason he's going to say it's a blasphemy is because in Surah 23, 101 and 102 and 103, it talks about if you do enough good, then you'll make it. And there he's interpreting Christian theology in light of his own.

So what he's saying is that by his mocking you, he's saying that you are so arrogant for thinking you can earn your place with God. But you can, but you just better hope that if Allah wills, that it'll work out for you.

And so if you say you have eternal life right now, then you're arrogant and you're prideful and you're blasphemous. That's why they're saying that. I'm going to respond to them more often. I'm going to say, well, let me ask you a question.

If you break a law, are you a criminal? Yes. Okay. And so criminals should be punished, right? Yes. So you're a criminal before God because you have broken his law. He says not to do certain things and therefore you've sinned.

So you're a criminal. So why does your God let you as a criminal go free? See, this is the problem with Islam, because your God approves of criminals and just says you can go free. It's okay. You've done evil, but no consequence or payment needs to occur.

I'm just going to let you go and you can come into heaven. That makes God unrighteous. And so this is why you and your arrogance think that you can please God because you think that you're a goodness.

You can, but you're nothing more than a criminal before God. And you're going to face a judgment of the holy God on that day of judgment. And the justice will fall upon you like a like a guillotine and a hammer like a noose around your neck is going to destroy you in hell.

You tell him. All right. So how do we have assurance? We have assurance because our salvation does not depend in any way in any part upon our goodness. It depends on the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, in Islam, Jesus didn't die because it wasn't crucified. Surah 4, verse 157. So what I do is I tell them I said Jesus was crucified and the Bible tells us he was crucified and Jesus spoke about his own crucifixion.

And yet you guys in your Koran deny what Jesus himself said. He says this with his temple three days. I will raise it up. John 2, 19 through 21. He was speaking of the temple of his body is what John the Apostle said that you guys deny what Jesus himself said.

And so you have no assurance. And we do because we rest in what he did, not what we do. It's arrogant to think that maybe you and your arrogance, your pride, your hubris might be able to earn a position with God through your goodness, your sincerity or your repentance.

Now, this message needs to be heard by a lot of Protestants, especially Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people who are similar to the Muslims in their doctrine of salvation that by their good works. But they have the cross of Christ and other stuff, the grace and all.

They're similar. They don't realize it, though. But a lot of Protestants have this, this arrogance as well, in that they think that that the cross arranges for them to be able to earn a place with God through their goodness, where they they're saved by grace, but they're kept by their goodness and their obedience and their humility and their sincerity.

So they're not too far off in the Muslims as well. So this is what we do. We talk about our righteousness in Christ and that we have it because of our faith and what he did, not because of what we did, because nothing we do is good enough.

OK, one more question. What is the assurance of salvation from the Holy Spirit?

What is it? It's the witness of the truth. The Holy Spirit bears witness of truth. John 14, 26, John 15, 26. And so the truth is that we're secure in Christ. Jesus says, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and I give eternal life to them and they shall never perish.

So Jesus equates eternal life with never perishing. If you go to John 3, 16, where it says God's love, the world gave his only begotten son that whoever would believe that him would never perish but have eternal life.

So Jesus equates eternal life with never perishing. So the Holy Spirit bears witness of truth. Like I said, John 14, 26, John 15, 26. So therefore, he'll bear witness that we have eternal life. We'll never perish.

OK.

So you're saying that he guarantees our eternal security all the way to heaven right now? Of course he does. Of course he does. How? So and also, why they are so mad when we talk about Trinity and they laugh at you?

When they talk about Trinity?

The Muslims mock the Trinity because they're in the service of the devil through their false prophet Muhammad who denied the truth of who God is. He was just nothing more than a false prophet and at the worst, he was possessed by the devil.

And so the Muslims have fallen prey to the lying false prophet called Muhammad. So they will deny the truth of who God is because they're in the service of the devil ultimately. That's why. OK. OK, man.

Thank you. You're welcome. All right, man. God bless. All right. All right. All right. Now, let's see if we can get on to let's try Juanita from Michigan. Juanita, welcome. You're on the air.

The Trinity, the Cross, and Christ Becoming Sin

Hello there. Thank you. I was calling about your comments on Matthew 27, 46. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And you were, you were, I don't know if you were, you weren't confused, I don't want to say, but you had a hard time explaining.

You said we don't know the extent and nature of the effect that Jesus becoming sin had on the Trinitarian communion. So I was wondering, what is it about what happened that that challenges the Trinitarian community?

I can't quite kind of I'm not a Trinitarian. And so I know it's all kind of confusing anyway.

But I'm just wondering what is not confusing. It's confusing to people who don't understand it. OK. And so no offense, but you understand that you don't know what the scriptures teach in regard to God.

But this is not an issue of confusion. It's an issue of truth and submission to the word of God. And I can defend the Trinity very well. If you want, if you want, you can get your best anti-Trinitarian, your representative of your group, your whatever, and I'll do a public debate with them.

But the reason I asked you before about that, and I was kind of waiting for some kind of. Yeah, it's been a little while. I kind of kind of had other things. But getting back to Matthew 27, 46, because I really would, I kind of felt like maybe you dropped the ball on that.

I really feel like we need to do it in seriousness. But getting back to my question, what is it that that, you know, that we don't realize the extent and nature of the effect that Jesus becoming sin had on the Trinitarian community?

What is the problem with what happened on the cross when he said, why have you forsaken me? Why does that cause a problem? It's not a problem.

So what's the problem that you think there's a problem?

Well, you said we don't really know the extent and nature of the effect that Jesus, if Jesus became, if Jesus became sin, you said that he didn't stop being divine. If I understand your position, you're saying that Jesus was simultaneously had two natures, one human and one divine.

So are you thinking right? Are you are you proposing that on the cross when he said, why have you forsaken me? What could that mean? That would have had a problem with your Trinitarian communion.

There isn't any problem with my Trinitarian communion. So I don't understand your question. You keep saying this. There's a problem with it. There is no problem. You don't see what the problem is. You just want me to assert there is a problem.

So if there isn't one, if you can tell me what the problem is, then I'll address it.

But you think, well, what you say is you say, however, there was an effect upon Christ in relationship to God, the father. OK, so there was an effect. Something happened on the cross when he said, why have you forsaken me?

So I'm wondering, you're saying, however, you know, that Jesus didn't stop being divine, that the nature of Christ was being attacked by false teachers, that Jesus was not separated from God. He did. He was not abandoned by God.

The father did not turn away from Christ. However, there was. Something that happened. OK, that may have. So I'm wondering what it is that that that particular scripture or what he said challenges the Trinitarian communion.

We have to be very careful. It doesn't challenge the Trinitarian communion. You keep making this mistake. You don't understand the Trinity. This does not challenge the Trinity at all. When we say Jesus became sin, we don't mean that his nature became sin.

Second Corinthians 521 says he became sin. What he's talking about is the imputation of our sin to him. Because to break the law makes you a criminal. And so we the criminals under the judgment of God can only find escape from his righteous judgment through the atoning sacrifice of God in flesh.

This is the only way to have any hope. This is the only way. Yeah. But you deny the Trinity. So you deny the true nature of God and the true work of Christ. We can get into this and I can tell you why.

But when we talk about this from a Trinitarian perspective, we don't know to exactly what extent what happened. We just don't know because the Bible does not tell us. But we do know that he bore our sin in his body in the cross.

First Peter 224. And then he quoted Psalm 22 verse one. That's what he was doing there. Drawing attention to the prophetic aspect of the scriptures regarding his own crucifixion. So other than that, we really can't go beyond that.

Hold on. We've got a break. We've got a break. We have a break. So hold on. We'll get back to you. OK. OK. Hold on. I enjoy these conversations. Why do I like them? So, hey, 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.

Biblical Inerrancy and Textual Variants

All right. Welcome back to the show. Before we get back to Juanita, I need to let you guys know we have an issue going on. This is the first time I'm going to mention it like this. There's a troll and the troll, let's just say, has done some stuff that legally is problematic for the troll.

Our show is receiving inappropriate chats from a certain individual, and our corporate attorney and law enforcement will file a complaint if this continues. We've already talked to the officials and lawyers, and we're getting ready.

And a VPN does not offer protection. OK? We can break the VPN. And I'm a computer tech, and I'm not going to say I'm doing anything. But trust me, I know that they can beat that. So that is something I want to let you guys know, that if any of you hear or see something in the chat like this that are inappropriate, we're aware, we're dealing with the individual, and we'll take the necessary steps.

This is a public announcement for that right now. Let's get to Juanita back. Thanks for waiting. Sorry about that. OK. Go ahead.

I feel a little bit... I'm not a troll, and I've never been in any chat room anywhere. I feel a little funny that after... No, it's not you. I felt like you were talking to me. No, no, no.

No, no, no. You're not a troll. You don't do that. We disagree, but you're not like that at all. Right. Right.

OK. OK, so I guess what I'm wondering now and then is that this issue on the cross, I think what there might be an objection, that you have an objection to, is that by what Christ said would be denying His divine nature.

If you feel that Christ has... No? OK. All right. So I don't want to get a whole lot. But you do feel that Christ has had and always will have both a divine and human nature. Is that correct? If He's part of the Trinity, that's what the Trinity is.

The Trinity, one God and three distinct simultaneous co-eternal persons. The second person became in union with the human nature. This is called the hypostatic union. And the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person.

This is called the communicatio idiomatum. And since the nature of Christ, the divine nature, is still part of the Trinity, then we have what's called inseparable operations. That Christ will say things like, whatever the Father does, I do.

Whatever He says, I see, I hear. Because He's there and the attributes of that nature are ascribed to Him. So this is Orthodox theology. OK?

So when the nature of Christ, you say that simultaneous, if the Trinity, if they are simultaneously share these attributes, like what I seem to see that is when Jesus says something like, the Father is greater than I, or I do nothing of myself, they cop out back to, well, that was His role.

He was playing. That wasn't really His nature. OK.

Hold on. Hold on. You need to understand that if you're going to start speaking deleteriously and pejoratively about this, when you do this, hold on a sec. Hold on a sec. When you do stuff like this, you catch my attention.

They cop out as though we don't have any competent response. Let me tell you, I've debated the Trinity a thousand times and I can ask you questions you won't be able to answer. Hold on. OK. I apologize.

OK. I apologize. OK. This is how it works. When I tell her to hold on, you hold on because I need to say what I need to say. I don't want you to speak over me on my show. So I dropped her. Let's get to Ryan from Pennsylvania.

Ryan, welcome. You're on the air.

What Biblical Inerrancy Means for the Copies We Have

Hello, Matt. Thank you for taking my call. I was reading on CARM the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy that you have posted there. OK. And I had a question about it. The copies that we have of the biblical text, are they inerrant?

OK. Inerrancy deals with the autographs. We have copies of the inerrant documents. And the documents are not perfectly preserved. They're 99 .85 textually identical and things like that. So that's what we need to start talking about.

OK. So the copies are not inerrant? What do you mean by inerrant? Are they inerrant? What do you mean by inerrant? It's the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. OK. What do you mean by inerrant?

It's the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.

OK. OK. Good. Yeah, it's been a long time since I've read that. It's been a long time since I wrote the article on that. I'm not familiar with what their statement was. OK.

OK. So is it a reasonable thing to say that the copies of the originals are not inerrant?

I don't know what you mean by inerrant and how you're using it. What do you mean?

Well, you were saying that, according to the Chicago Statement, they are saying that the autographs are inerrant. But they did not answer the question about the copies, whether or not they are inerrant.

And that's the reason I'm asking.

They are free from all falsehood, all lies, that whatever they speak on and address is 100 accurate and truthful.

Well, I assume that you've done some study in textual criticism. So you know there are transcribable errors. You know there are redactionary elements. You know that they have been rearranged from the originals.

When you say rearranged from the originals, I don't know what that means. The other stuff I understood, but I don't know what it means. They were rearranged from the originals. I don't know what that means.

Well, if you take a look at the three different versions of the Parable of the Sower, they definitely have different elements in each one of the versions. OK? So obviously there is some participation somewhere along the line that changed the three different versions of the Parable of the Sower.

OK, so I'm curious. Why are you bringing this up? What's the issue with you? Why are you bringing this up? Are you attacking God's Word?

I have asked any number of people about biblical inerrancy, and they always go to the autographs, but we have no autographs. I mean, everybody knows that.

OK, so what's the reason you're bringing this up, though? What's the reason?

The reason is I want to know, do you guys consider the copies to be inerrant? Yes.

You do? Mm-hmm. Everything they address is free from any falsehood. Everything is accurate and true according to what it conveys.

OK, so you're ignoring the transcribable errors. You're ignoring the redactionary elements. You're ignoring the rearranged portions. You're ignoring all of that?

Are you asking me or telling me I'm ignoring them? I'm asking you. No, I'm not ignoring them. So let me give you an illustration of something. If I write a thousand-word document and I send it to somebody, I handwrite it out, and it's about how I used to go body boarding, boogie boarding, body surfing in Southern California back when I was in my 20s, 30s, and 40s.

That's what I used to do. And I write this statement, and I write a sentence on one particular day. It was huge, and it was so bad that I literally crawled out of the water and collapsed on the beach, which is true.

I crawled, OK, and collapsed on the beach. So if someone copies it and says crawled out on beach, but the word the is there, does it mean it's no longer true? We'll get back to you, and we can answer that right after the break.

Hold on. We'll be right back, folks, right after these messages. Please stay tuned.

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

All right, folks, let's get back on the air with Ryan. OK, Ryan, sorry about the break timing. It's the way that it was. OK, so would my document then be inaccurate if one word was missing?

No, I mean that's something you could fill in the gaps with, and I understand that. A little bit of background. I was born and raised in the Deep South. And Christian folks in the Deep South, many of them insist that the Bible had to be dictated by God to the writers.

And that is the way they define inerrancy. Clearly the Chicago Statement, well, clearly the Chicago Statement rejects that. And so, you know, that's why I'm saying it's like, OK, in what sense are we talking about inerrancy?

Because one of the reasons I was kicked off of CARM was because of my questions about inerrancy that was never answered. But yes, I believe that we have the Bible as an accurate record of the activities of the Savior that I believe in.

I believe that the Bible is an accurate guide for us as believers in both action and in faith. So if that is enough, but, you know, I have no problems with transcribable errors and redactionary elements and things like this.

If that is enough to say that I believe in inerrancy, then yes, I believe in inerrancy. If it means that there are no redactionary elements, there are none of these problems, there are no homoio-lactams, there are no homoio-touloutans, then no, I don't believe in biblical inerrancy, because they're clearly there.

I totally agree with you. I completely agree with you.

You see, that's where I have always had these discussions, and Matt, this is the first time that I've talked to anybody about this who sees this as a reasonable response to these sort of questions about the transcribable errors and redactionary elements and so forth.

Well, yeah, I just want to make a comment before we continue. I don't want anybody listening to think that the Bible's full of all kinds of problems, can't trust it, that's not it. But there are copyist errors and duplications and word omissions, minor here and there.

I know you know this, Ryan, but I'm just letting people know. But they don't affect any area of doctrine, unless you want to go to the ending of Mark, then we could discuss something there. But other than that, so, yeah, the originals are perfect and they weren't dictated.

They were inspired through the normal writing of people and their personality and everything. But the copies are not perfect or very close to it, but they're not perfect. And so inerrancy deals with the teachings, the truth values, the everything historical events.

Everything's accurate. It's there. It doesn't mean that if it forgets the word ha, which is the single word in Greek in a textual copy, doesn't mean it's no longer inerrant. That's not what inerrancy is about.

So, yeah, no problem.

Well, OK, I have a request for you. I'd like to send you an email. And I would like to send you in a concise form what I think are five, maybe six objections that I have to presuppositional apologetics.

And I would like to put in the title to let you know what it is. The title will be Make Me a Liar, because I think that these are insurmountable problems for presuppositional apologetics. Would you mind if I sent you that?

Yeah, send it. Put it in bullet points if you can, one point at a time. And put in there permission for me to be able to reproduce it and respond to it on the car. OK? Oh, sure. I'll be glad to.

OK. All right. Thank you for permission to do that. I will send that out soon. Sounds good. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you very much, Matt. I appreciate it a lot. Bye bye. OK, bye.

All right. Oh, man. So much heresy, so little time. Jamal from North Carolina. Welcome, Jamal. You are on the air.

Free Will, Humanism, and Living for God's Glory

No, Mr. Mastrick. How are you doing today, sir?

Hey, you're the guy that was my neighbor. I remember you now, man. When you move into Idaho, just that fast. Huh?

I don't know if I'm moving. I like it here in Winston-Salem, but I definitely want to visit.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Are you married? You're married, right? You're married? No, sir. Oh, well, I was going to say, you could just walk up to your wife and go, hey, we're moving. A guy named Slick said to.

It would be great to see what she says. But you're not married, so it's all right.

All right, buddy. What do you got, man? Yeah, I'm sure that'll go over well with the wife if I had one. Yeah.

You said what? A guy named Slick? What are you, an idiot? Be fun.

Right. Did he tell you he's from Santa Ana, California?

Yeah, he used to live in Southern California, yeah. Uh-huh.

Yeah, yeah. That's probably one of the reasons why I'm not married. Because I listen to a guy named Slick.

He's muddy as the water sometimes. That's right. You can't talk to a woman about that. It's just bad news, you know. Yeah, I listen to a guy on the radio named Slick. I believe whatever he says, she'll just back away.

That's right. Okay. He's one of my spiritual leaders. I mean, you're just saying all the wrong things. It's going downhill fast. Here's my dilemma. That's right. He's my spiritual leader, a guy named Slick.

That's right. He lives in Potatoville in Idaho. Just not good.

And like you say, she starts backing away. Okay, all right. That's right.

Good luck with that, dude. But if she says, oh, really? Oh, sounds good. Then you probably should back away. There's no win in this. Yeah, yeah. I'm all right. I'm okay.

All right. Okay, big man, what do you got? I apologize about that. Yeah, yeah. We left on a cliffhanger. I apologize about that. That's good. I have people saying, you know, Matt Slick can be kind of tough and direct.

And I was like, well, yeah, I get that. However, you want somebody that's going to Joel Osteen you, you know, to tickle your ears and give you lollipops and rainbows all day? No, I'd rather have somebody give it to me like the doctor does, like the mechanic does.

Hey, man, you got a broken tailpipe or, you know, you got a broken foot. They don't say, hey, you have leg issues or, hey, you have car problems. No. Okay, what are my car problems? What are my medical issues?

Tell it to me straight. And thank goodness you do that. We have too many ear ticklers right now. So that's what the cliffhanger was from last week.

Dude, you got to move out of here. Man. Okay. You and I just get along, you know. I mean, I can tell. You just say it right. That's right. Yeah, I appreciate that. I mean, you got to say it like it is.

That's right. Try and say it nicely, but, you know, it's the truth. You don't like it. Not my problem. Take it up with the author, you know.

I was about to say the same thing. I was like, this is what the Bible says. So, you know, don't you want absolute truth? Don't you want to know what's going on? Do you like to walk around life aimlessly?

Oh, you know, the spirits or my feeling or the universe. I heard that on TV. I was like, the universe? Where the heck did you get that from? How did you? From a guy named Slick. That's what it sounds like.

No, it sounds a lot worse than Slick. It sounds a lot worse.

Yeah, I've talked to people and it's bizarre. I'm in tune with the universe. That's how I get my knowledge. I'm like, what? You're out there in the Andromeda Galaxy. You got some issues. Yeah. Okay. Sorry.

Yeah. That's right. Sorry. Not to upset the audience. I'll get to a question because everybody's going to want to talk. Hey, you let Jamal talk. Slick. I want to talk too. Dang it. So I'll get to a question.

Do angels have, and this is not a gotcha question. This is a legit question. Do angels have free will? Yes. Uh-huh. Okay. All right. Because I heard that they do as the Father instructed. But if they do have free will, then that kind of messes up my follow-up question.

I'm sorry? Jesus could only do what the Father did.

And Jesus had free will. You go to John 5 .19, John 5 .30. I can only do what I see the Father do. So free will is the ability to make choices that are consistent with your nature, that are not forced on you.

If a sentient being doesn't have free will, it doesn't have sentience. Part of what it means to be self-aware and make choices is just to have free will. The ability to make choices that are consistent with what you are, generated out of yourself.

If you don't have free will, how are you alive? How are you sentient? Now, amoeba, little stilled creatures, well, and ants, they have free will. In a very limited sense, yes. But, so people don't understand what free will is.

It's an interesting concept. And we could discuss this more. But yeah, of course angels do. And so do we. We just believe that free will is restricted by our nature. We're not omnipotent. And Jesus, who had free will, was only able to do what the Father told him to do.

Okay?

Very interesting. Do you happen to have any material like that on Karma talking about free will? You know, I don't know.

I know this, though. We had a break. And my buddy Charlie will find out the articles. And if you hold on to the break, I'll tell you what he finds. And he'll put them in a link thing for me. He always does that.

He's great. And then I can tell you what we do have on free will. And if I don't have something addressing that directly, I'll write an article on it, okay? So hold on, buddy. Hold on. Hey, folks, 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, buddy. Welcome back to the show. Before we get to Jamal, back to him, I just want to say, hey, we stay on the air by your support. Please consider supporting us. We definitely do need that.

And that's how we stay on the air. So all you have to do is go to karm .org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, forward slash donate and everything you need right there. We really appreciate it. So there you go.

Let's get back to Jamal. Hey, Jamal, man, you're on, buddy.

Thank you, sir. And for the listening audience out there, yeah, please do support Matt Slick. He's a rare gem. He's a good guy. I broke out of my heatness to, you know, make $5 donations, $10 donations here and there.

Yeah, please do that. It's not going to cost anything. That's a happy meal, guys. You know, he's worth a happy meal every now and then. So, yeah, please support Matt Slick and what he does. We appreciate that, man.

We do. Oh, yeah. Hey, like I said before the break, Charlie put some links in there. We have a lot of stuff I've written on there. What is free will? That goes into the philosophy section. And then what is compatibilist free will?

You can look up that. If God knows our free will choices, do we still have free will written on that? And do angels have free will? Another article. So we got to just type in free will in the search engine and see what pops up.

A lot of stuff I've written on there.

Yeah, and that was something I haven't heard about before, about the dissection of free will. What I've heard before, I guess, on a language term level is free will is just the ability to choose to do whatever what you want.

I've heard it broken down into different pieces like that. Sounds very interesting. I'm glad you have a section there that I can reference.

Yeah, let's talk about it a little bit because a lot of people just have humanistic philosophical ideas of free will. Humanism is alive and well in the Christian church. This is something I'm becoming more and more aware of.

I'm gathering information. I'm going to write an article on it and do a video on it. But humanism is so very much alive in the Christian Protestant church. It's very well alive in Meso-Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.