MSL: March 14, 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.

Opening Remarks on Forum Conversations and Christian Charity

Hi everybody, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick, and you're listening to Matt Slick Live. I hope you're all having a good day, a good time, and may the Lord bless you in that. And there we go. So hey, I've got a couple things to do here.

So today is March 14th, 2024, and that's for the podcasters. So if you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877 -207 -2276, and we can.

Talk.

If you want to email me, all you have to do is send an email to info at karm .org, info at karm .org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, and then the subject line, just please put a radio question or radio comment, and I can get to them.

We've got a few right now, we've got no callers waiting right now, so what I'll probably end up doing is getting some of these questions. So last night, I did something a little, I thought was interesting.

What I did was I went to, let me just close this and move over, I went to the Karm forums. Now we have forums if you're interested in joining in. And so there's something I've noticed lately, and so, let's see, how do I say this?

The doctrines of God's grace, and how they are coming under attack more and more by people. So there are those who hate the idea that God is sovereign, that God must choose people for salvation, as it says in 2 Thessalonians 2 .13.

And so I've seen this disdain for this kind of thing increasing. So, on the forums, what I did was I, a few days ago, yesterday, day before, I don't remember, I put up a request, I said, open discussion, you know, and I put the link in for last night, hoping that people would come in who would like to discuss these things.

And just one person did, it was good, and it was really a good conversation. He didn't agree with me on some stuff, but it was really a great conversation, you know, and it went really nicely.

He was a good guy.

And then we had some other people come in who, well, they were open theists, at least one I know was an open theist. And so I asked a question. I asked a question that apparently he, I guess his name was Warren McGrew, wasn't able to answer.

And so it was a basic question. If God doesn't know everybody's free will choices, then how did He know which sins to impute to Christ on the cross? And along with that question, I said, what does it mean for Jesus to bear our sins in His body on the cross?

So that's what I wanted to know, and he couldn't answer it. He said, well, I've already answered it. I said, okay, where? Just scroll up or something in the chat, and I said, look, I've been talking to somebody else for 20 minutes, half hour.

Where is it?

Just tell me, what's the answer? And he wouldn't answer the question. He refused, apparently refused to answer the question. I think it's too difficult for them to answer. And this is what's interesting to me.

If someone asks me a question that is difficult for me to answer from whatever theologic perspective I might have, I don't just start attacking the person or say, I've already answered it, and they can answer it, whatever it is.

I will say that's a good question, and I need to think that through. I've said that so many times over the years. People have asked me questions, but that's a good question. I got to think about that.

There's nothing wrong with that if you don't have all the answers, because I certainly don't. But what I think is interesting is when people on the other side are so vituperative, they get vociferous, and they throw out a lot of inane persiflage.

So in other words, they get mean and nasty, and they start to accuse, and they deflect. And there's a little bit of mockery. I'm not saying he was doing all that last night. I'm just saying I've noticed this a lot, and it was interesting.

It is interesting to me. What's the problem with just answering a question? I've done this before with so many people. I say, ask, what about this? Oh, I've already answered you.

Oh, okay.

Sorry, I don't know where that answer is. Could you please just tell me what the answer is right now? No, I don't need to. I've already answered you.

Oh, well, okay.

Could you tell me where that answer is? On my website. Okay, which article? You know, which whatever. And they're always difficult like this, and I've also noticed that, dare I say, it seems a little stubborn to me to just not answer a basic question.

Why wouldn't you just answer the question? And seriously, I don't understand it. Just, well, here you go. Can you answer that question? Good question. If someone were to ask me a difficult question, I said, you know, I'm not sure how to answer.

That.

And I said, give me some time, I'll come back to you. That's fair. And when someone, and it does happen every now and then, but rare, someone will say to me, you know, I'm not sure how to answer that.

Let me think about it and come back to you.

Great.

No problem. I'm not going to mock that person. I'm not going to condemn that person. The person couldn't answer me, was just retreating. No, it's a fair response. And I respect that. But I noticed that last night, the people, a lot of people, the antagonists in the room were just mean.

Why is that? Maybe it's because Jesus prophesied that in the last days, people's love would grow cold. And these are people who are supposed to represent Christ. And so many times, I've seen people like this, and what they do is they become aggressive and insulting and mocking and condemning.

And I ask them, what is in your heart that you would behave like that? Because Jesus says, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. And so it must be there's mockery and condemnation in your heart, because that's what I'm seeing.

That's what I'm hearing. And so I've been working on my presentation online. I think that there's some areas of improvement when I'm in my debates and interactions. And I recognize if you think, OK, I've got to work on this, I've got to work on that.

And that's OK. No one's perfect. But it was just interesting. If any of you were in that room last night, call in if you want and talk about it in a class for a conversation. But here's what I was thinking about today.

So I did this last night on a Wednesday. So I was thinking, maybe what I'll do is each Wednesday night, open a room up just for conversation. Bring it in. Come on in. Let's talk. You have your questions, comments.

You want to argue with me about something. I think I'm going to do that. Now, I haven't decided for sure. I'm going to pray and just put it before the Lord, see if that's a good idea or not, you know, and just see.

I want to know. But it's an idea. I think people might be interested in that. I think they might be interested in just having an opportunity to just come on with voice and or camera. They can challenge me or just ask questions.

And I really love answering questions.

I do.

I love going to do the radio. I love going to discord and I go into a room and people just flock. They just say, hey, you know, can we ask you a question?

Sure.

And I enjoy that. And it's great. So I don't know. I just I'm built for it, I guess, you know, so I do what I do here anyway. We'll see what happens. If you think it's a good idea. Let me know. You could say Jimmy Smythe says, great idea, Matt.

So that's one person. I wonder what anybody else would say. Last night was a great new thing, Humble Clay says. Great for who? Humble Clay.

Huh?

Huh.

Let's see. And someone in the clubhouse says, Warren McGrew and Chris Fisher do nothing but mock their opponents in Calvinist. So anyway, that's what he said. And so if you want to watch the show, you want to see me, trust me, I'm not missing.

Anything.

But some people like to do that. I can see what I look like. I met my voice matches my face and which doesn't. People say it doesn't. So you can watch by just going to carm .org forward slash radio and you'll see the links and stuff in there.

And also you can get in by rumble, you know, to rumble and you can watch the show and participate in the people who chat really nice. So a long good conversation if we did have that last night. So to go to rumble, use rumble .com forward slash Matt Slick live.

And there you go.

See?

Easy peasy. Hey, let's get to David from Texas. David, welcome. You're on the air.

How's it going? Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

I can.

I can hear you.

No problem.

Good.

OK.

So what do you got?

So. Yeah.

Well, so I've been an atheist for about 20 years. I called in a long time ago and then I stopped calling because I think he went off the air for a while. Anyways, I'm open to any question you have for me.

But if you don't have a question, my question is, why is it that the Bible, when it was originally formulated, had the apocryphal? I mean, this is a question of facts, so if I'm wrong, tell me. But then it wasn't removed until around the 1800s, meaning that the Bible, I guess from a Protestant perspective, was wrong for 1400 years.

Well, the apocryphal was never in the Bible. If you if people tell you that it was and that it was originally inspired scripture, then respectfully, I want to say that they are misinformed. So there are, for example, I think it's Luke 1143.

I'll show you a couple of things here, because the apocryphal was written between roughly 400 B .C. and the time of Christ. OK, so I'm trying to find this one verse and I always have trouble with it.

There we go.

I found it. So this is what it says in Jesus says in Luke 1151, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah. That's what he says, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God.

He goes on.

Why did he say from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah? Because Abel was in the book of Genesis and Zechariah was in the book of Chronicles. But Chronicles was the last book of the arrangement that the Jews had.

We have the exact same books. We just arrange them differently today. I don't know why it changed, but they had the same book in where we have Malachi as the last book. They had Chronicles as the last book.

So what he was saying was from the first to the last book of the Old Testament, and that excluded the Apocrypha. Furthermore, when you go to Luke 24, let's see, 2444, I believe it is, Jesus says, these are my words, which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which were written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms will be fulfilled.

So the law of the prophets and the Psalms are the divisions of the Old Testament, which excluded the Apocrypha books, because they were already known as the law of the prophets and the Psalms before the Apocrypha was ever written.

So what Jesus was doing was saying what's written about me is in the law of the prophets and the Psalms, and that's excluding the Apocrypha books. So if he would have said all about me in Moses, the prophets, the Psalms, and, you know, like Maccabees or whatever, but he never did that, never mentioned it.

So Jesus himself never recognized those books as being authentic, and nor did the Jews recognize them as being authentic. So today, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are highly misinformed in when they want to say, well, the Protestants took it out of the Bible.

It was never in to begin with, okay?

Well, I mean, if you were back, if you were around back then, could you have found a Bible that did not have it in there?

Oh, no, they were the King James, original King James translated the Apocrypha with the New Testament scripture with the Bible, but it doesn't mean that it was inspired. So it was never considered to be inspired.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, I'm saying that you, that Protestants think that it doesn't belong in there. So I'm already kind of assuming they don't think it was inspired.

No, no, hold on.

We got a break.

Hold on.

Okay, buddy.

We'll be right back.

Hey, folks, we've got a break here, and if you want to give me a call, 877 -207 -2276.

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

The Apocrypha, the Canon, and Why the Protestant Bible Excludes It

All right, buddy. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with David from Texas. Dave, welcome. You're on the air.

Thank you.

I just wanted to point out something a little bit off topic, but right before I got on, you were saying that people say your voice doesn't match your face. I believe I met you once when I was a little kid back in California when I still lived there, on the street corner and passing up tracks.

Nothing to do with anything, just thought I'd mention that.

Cool. Where?

Where in Cali? I don't know.

Where was that?

I don't know.

What city?

I mean, at that time, I think I lived in Reno Valley.

Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I was a pastor there.

Yeah, I was a pastor in Reno Valley.

Well, I hope you weren't too traumatized.

No. No.

Okay.

I was with my mom.

I think she just wanted to meet you because I guess she had been talking to you or something, I would probably assume.

Okay.

But anyway, so just to clarify what I was saying earlier, I'm not suggesting that when I don't want to say Christian because I want to divide Catholics from Protestants here. So whatever you want to call yourself, if you want to say Protestant, I'll say something else.

But I'm not saying that Protestants have ever viewed the Apocrypha as scripture. I'm just saying whatever it was, it was in the Bible. And that's just not correct.

You've got to be careful when you say in the Bible. And, for example, when there's two ways of saying of meaning that in the Bible, as in it was in the corpus of biblical documents, it was included in a big book of them, or it was in because it was inspired.

So there's at least 21 books mentioned in the Bible that are not scripture, like the Book of Wars, Book of Jasher, Chronicles of David, the words of kings of Israel, the decree of David and the king of Israel, not to mention Paul the Apostle quotes three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander, and Erastus.

So just because they were, so to speak, included in certain quotes doesn't mean they're inspired. Furthermore, the Apocrypha is never quoted by the New Testament writers as being authentic, but the Old Testament is.

And I can give you a bunch of other reasons why the Apocrypha doesn't work, if you want. I can list out seven or eight.

No one ever quotes the Song of Solomon either, but I mean, it's in there.

Well, but it's included in the corpus of the Law of the Prophets and the Psalms. And so in the categories, it is there. And Esther, they say, isn't quoted either directly. But this is why we say, as Jesus said in Luke 24, 44, everything written about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

So that's included. Song of Solomon's included in there. So that's all that's going on. But the Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as scripture. And what's interesting is in Romans 3, 2, it says the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Now, Paul the Apostle, he was a disciple of Jesus. He knew the Apocryphal books. He knew other stuff, too. He was incredibly well-educated, highly intelligent. He said the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, and the Jews rejected the Apocrypha.

The Catholic Church did not include the Apocrypha until the Universal Council of Trent in 1546. And it was in response to the Reformation. They never included it and officiated it until 1546. Many church fathers reject the Apocrypha as scripture.

And so, not that I believe in all the church fathers, but many of them said, no, no, no, it's not scripture. The Apocrypha contains no predictive prophecy. None. In fact, Maccabees, which is part of the Apocrypha, says there were no prophets in Israel.

If there were no prophets in Israel at that time, then how could Maccabees have been inspired? Because God worked through the prophets to write what he did. So he didn't have to be inspired. So it has no predictive prophecy.

Furthermore, it teaches giving money for the sins of the dead. Money? That's completely unbiblical. It contains a historical error, at least one of them, when it teaches Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians in Judith 1 .5.

But that's not true. So you see, the Jews knew about this, and the Christians knew about this stuff. They didn't consider it scripture. It's old writings, and it was cool. So when King James commissioned the Old and New Testaments to be translated, they included the Apocryphal books because there's a lot of historical information in them.

They weren't considered inspired, but he just included them in the translation process because they're so valuable. But it doesn't mean they're inspired.

Right. Let's put it this way. If I see an index or a table of contents, I'm not going to mistake that for being scripture. But if for some reason I put the Book of Mormon in the Bible, you probably wouldn't like that because it kind of gives the idea that it's part of the Bible when it isn't.

So if the Apocrypha is not part of the Bible, why was it in every book that someone would pick up to read?

It's not. The Bible I have doesn't have it. No Bible that I have has it.

Until the 1800s when it was moved.

No, no, no. Don't make the mistake of thinking. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Apocrypha was considered scripture. I just gave you the reasons why it's not. And I gave you the reason why it was translated in because it has important historical information in it.

But it has mistakes in it. God's Word doesn't have mistakes. Jesus excluded the Apocrypha and the disciples excluded the Apocrypha as scripture. So those are the facts. So if you want to say, well, why is it included?

Because if it was, I don't know if that's the case or not. It's because it was an important historical document and they were sometimes used for references. But they understood it was not scripture.

Okay? That's it. It's not scripture.

Well, okay. So from here, I'm going to go to another caller again. If you have a question for me, I'll take any question about atheism you want. Or I do have a poll.

Well, if you want to call back, we have three callers waiting. And if you call back, I can question you about the validity of your atheism. And what justifies knowledge and rationality in your worldview.

You can think about that and call me back and see if you can come up with an answer.

What do you do?

Monday through Friday. I can show you, for example, are you a materialist? Do you believe that the universe is all there is?

That's a positive claim. I wouldn't be able to make that claim.

Okay. So does everything, I'll show you something. Do you believe, just find out what you believe. Do you believe that everything operates in the universe, operates under the laws of physics? Do you believe that?

Yeah.

Yes? Will that refute your atheism?

I'll show you how.

Okay.

This is the kind of stuff I do with atheists. I say, look, if everything operates under the laws of physics and chemistry and motion and matter and all that kind of stuff, then that means your physical brain is limited to the physical laws of chemistry.

Okay.

Then that means one chemical state in your brain, at least another chemical state is a chemical necessity, which means from the atheistic worldview that you hold, which requires a materialistic worldview, that everything operates just under necessary chemical reactions.

Then your belief in atheism is a necessary chemical reaction doesn't mean it's true. Therefore, that position in atheism casts doubt on itself and its own validity. Therefore, you can't trust it. So it refutes itself.

Okay.

Real simple. Call back tomorrow or later if you want me to talk some more about it. I'll show you some more stuff.

Okay. All right, buddy.

We got a break.

Okay.

Thanks for Dave calling and being polite. I appreciate it.

Okay.

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

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

Inseparable Operations in the Trinity

Everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, 877 -207 -2276. Let's get on with Scott from Spokane. Scott, welcome back, man.

Hey, how's it going?

It's going.

It's going.

What do you got, buddy?

Yeah.

So I just have a few. I'll start with the easy ones. John 125, they say to Jesus, why then are you baptizing if you're not the Christ? And when I was reading that, it made me just think, is there anywhere in Scripture that's prophesied that Jesus will be specifically coming to baptize?

Not that I'm aware of. So they were talking, I believe that's to John. John said to that question, why are you baptizing if you're not the Christ? But that's a good question. Because Christ's disciples did do baptisms.

Let's look at that.

That's a good question.

Or the prophet, and that's prophesied in Deuteronomy 18. So that's a good question.

Yeah, I saw that already. I was just wondering if I missed anywhere.

But yeah.

So I got another one. I was just wondering if you could show me some of the verses that really, you know, show and reflect inseparable operations.

Yes.

For that, you want to go to, let's see, John 5. Let's see if I'm remembering correctly. John 5, 19.

Yes.

Let me explain what it is first, so it's for people to understand. Inseparable operations is the position that all parts of the Godhead are inseparable and that what is operating in one operates in the other.

Yet there's distinction is retained. So one of the verses used to support that is John 5, 19. The son can do nothing of himself unless it is something he sees present tense. He sees the Father doing. So that's one thing.

And Jesus says in John 5, 30, I can do nothing of my own initiative. As I hear, I judge. Well, these are present tense conditions and actions that Christ is relating to God. So therefore, these are the things that we would use to support inseparable operations.

Okay.

Okay.

Is there any more than John 5 that I haven't seen?

Let's see. I wrote an article on it. Let's see if I did put more in there on that. Those are the two I just happen to remember. And so let's see. Come on.

Where are you?

Oh, interesting.

So here we go. I got my article.

And come on.

Open up.

So we have John 6, 38. I've come down from heaven not to do my own, but the will of him who sent me. So he's doing in present tense the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, he'll teach you.

That's a bit of a futuristic one. The helper comes whom I will send to the Father. So the Father and the Son both send the Holy Spirit. So there's an inseparability there. And John 16, 13. The Spirit will not speak of his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak.

You got some noise in the background. And so this is how the Holy Spirit contains or is said to contain the same attributes inseparably of the Father and the Son.

Okay?

Okay.

You got time for one last quick one?

Yes. Go ahead.

Okay.

So the Jews, apparently they're still waiting for a Messiah. And so my question is, you know, at the time of Christ, they were hoping for a Messiah and take care of the Romans and establish, you know, sort of a just rule for Jews.

What are they waiting for now? I mean, what is their eschatology like for a Jew?

Well, I think there's divisions within Judaism in answering that question. And from what I understand, they are still waiting for the Messiah to come here. And some Jews just look at it as, I think what they do is they look at it as just a symbol.

It's not really going to happen in the literal sense. So I don't have a whole bunch of knowledge on that. I have a friend who knows a lot about that kind of stuff. Maybe we could have him on sometime and have him as a guest host.

And people can fire questions about Judaism on him.

That might be a good idea.

Set it up like two weeks in advance.

Yeah, that sounds fun.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, yeah, that's all I got. I will go into Costco now and have a good day, my friend.

You too, man.

God bless, buddy.

All right. Now let's get to Elijah from Philly. Elijah, welcome. You're on the air.

Jesus as the I AM, the Messiah, and the Meaning of John 8:24

Hey, man, how you doing today?

Doing all right, hanging in there. So what do you got, buddy?

My question is about the statement where Jesus said, unless you believe that I am, you'll die in your sins. I'm going to give you my response to how I would answer a Unitarian.

You're a Unitarian?

No, no, I'm Trinitarian. But I'm saying I'm going to give you my response to how I would answer them. And I would like to know what you think of my response. So if a Unitarian would tell me that Jesus in that verse is not saying that he's God, but he's saying that unless you believe that I'm the Messiah, you will die in your sins.

I would respond by saying Muslims also believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and they also believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and they're still going to die in their sins as well. So that argument doesn't work.

So what do you think of my response?

That's a good response. I'm going to steal it, use it, and claim it for my own. That's pretty good. Oh, did I say that out loud?

Oh, man.

That's pretty good. I like that.

Yeah.

Good stuff.

Yeah, and I also thought about maybe a counterargument that they might throw at me. So the counterargument that I imagined in my head is that maybe they would say, yes, Muslims do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but they don't believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day.

So that's what truly damns them, not them believing that Jesus is God or whatever. So what do you think about that response?

I'd say, well, he didn't say in John 8, 24 that you have to believe he rose. He just says you have to believe that he is the I am. So the resurrection issue isn't what Jesus clarified as being necessary.

So since the Koran uses the word Christ numerous times, which is the equivalent of Messiah, so then they're believing, I'd say the Unitarians, apparently they're believing what you believe. See, I like that.

That's pretty good.

Yeah, good stuff, man.

Hey, I got one for the Muslims I ask. I say in the Old Testament, the name of God, Yahweh, is used like 6 ,000 times or something like that. It's just insane. And in fact, let me go check. So I always have to remember this.

Let's see. First Kings 8, 60. And it says Yahweh is Elohim.

All right.

So what I'm going to do is do a search for that exact. And it occurs 6 ,517 times. So I say to the Jews, I say his name, I mean, to the Muslims, I say his name is I am. That's what he says. I give him the information.

I said, how come he's never called that in the Koran? How come he's never said to be the I am? It's a good question. Anyway, so good stuff, man. All right. Appreciate it.

Can I ask you one more question?

Sure. Go ahead.

Okay.

I have Bishop Jerry Hayes' book called Godhead Theology. And I'm trying to find that page in here, but he had a commentary on Mark 12, 29. And if I remember correctly, as I try to find it, but if I remember correctly, he said in Mark 12, 29, if you look at the Greek there, he said that, I think he said that the word for one there is a numerical one.