Matt Slick Live: January 30, 2025

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, Prayer Request, and Canceling the Discord Meeting

Hi, everybody. Welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick. You're listening to Matt Slick Live. If you want, you can give me a call. The number is 877 -207 -2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call.

Let's see. I don't have anybody waiting right now. I just want to do a little kind of a personal thing here. If you looked up my wife in prayer, the Lord knows what it is. It's health issues and things like that.

That would be really appreciated. And there you go. So there's that. And, well, I'll tell you, I was working on a lot of stuff on the computer. I rebuilt my computer, which I enjoy doing. But there's always a thousand little things that you forget to do.

And I think I finished them. So not a big deal. All right. And so I guess that's it.

Okay.

All right.

Now, tonight, I was going to be on Discord. And I was. We were planning. We've canceled it because I'm going to take my wife to the doctor and stuff. But we're going to have a meeting where I was going to discuss some theology with some Eastern Orthodox people.

They were going to line up, so to speak, and I'm going to ask questions. And there's not a debate. It was, well, what's this? Why this? And the whole bit. And I was going to take lots of notes. And so I'd rather cancel that tonight.

So we're going to move it to another night. I don't know what night it'll be, but I'll let you know when we do that because you guys can go on Discord and you can check it out. And I've been doing a lot of research on the Eastern Orthodox Church, which I consider to be just as apostate as the Roman Catholic Church.

Eastern Orthodox Theology, Recapitulation, and Salvation by Grace Through Faith

Now, when I talk like that to people who are in those churches, well, I'll tell you, I get some interesting reactions a lot of times. But more and more, really what's happening is they just kind of roll with it.

And they just deal with it. Not a big deal. So now some of them get very angry and start calling me demon possessed and all this stuff because they're so loyal to their church. And I point them to Christ.

I point them to salvation by grace through faith. And they will always add works. And one of the things I found recently that they do is due to a particular theory on the atonement called the recapitulation theory of the atonement.

The recapitulation theory. So I was going to talk about that a little bit. I released an article today and I've been working on it for a few days and I'll end up modifying it. But it looks like Joanne's calling.

I'm going to get to that really quickly. Let's see. Part of prayer team. I'm going to get to Joanne. She does our prayer team. I think she had some surgery so she's out of commission. And we'll get to her and I'll tell you about this recapitulation thing.

Joanne, welcome. You're on the air. How are you doing?

I just wanted to say hey to my family. And I miss y 'all. And my voice is all messed up from the tube down my throat.

Okay.

But we're watching you on television. And I'm just so thankful that Karm's not getting my memorials.

I told you you're going to be fine. You just had shoulder surgery. And it doesn't mean like you're still coming out of a little bit of stuff. But that's okay. And so we appreciate you.

During the surgery, my humerus fractured.

Oh, man. Is it because you were hitting your husband? No, it wasn't.

No, never again. But I've had some complications. But I'm just thankful to be alive. And I just wanted to say hey to everybody. And my family. And that I love y 'all. And thank you so much for the prayers.

Praise God. And I knew you were going to go through it fine. Not a problem. And there you go. So you'll be back in the saddle in no time, okay? They'll take good care of you.

I will. As soon as I can.

All right, Joanne.

God bless y 'all.

God bless. Okay. Well, folks, that's Joanne. She's a sweetie.

I can tell. She's a little out of it.

And that's okay. So, yeah, she does the prayer team. And, oh, she has a tender heart. She's just a blessing in the ministry. So she had shoulder surgery. And she's still in the hospital recovering from that.

So there you go. Now, someone was asking about the Discord thing again. So I'm going to let you know. I canceled that for tonight. Because I've got to take my wife to the doctor. The hospital, actually.

They're probably going to admit her. And she's getting ready. Just doing a few things after the show. So I'll be just taking off. So we're not going to do the Discord research thing I was going to be doing tonight with some Eastern Orthodox people.

That's just the way that goes. But I did want to talk about the recapitulation theory of the atonement that they hold to. The Eastern Orthodox Church. And it's really an interesting idea. And I'm confused about it.

I did a lot of research on it. And I don't see how it's efficacious. So let me explain what it is. And we can go through it. So basically, what it is, it says that Adam messed up everything. And so Jesus, what he did, when he came to the earth, he lived a perfect life.

And in his life, death, and resurrection, he recapitulated, or he summed up, brought together, lived all of human experience, yet he did it without sinning. So therefore, by that, he restored the life that Adam lost to us.

He restored human life into what it's supposed to be. And so it's not focused on the atoning sacrifice. It's not focused on Jesus becoming sin and bearing our sin, though they do admit that occurred. No, the real issue here is that he lived a life sufficiently to enable us to live a life as well.

And then by that whole atoning process, we can become saved. And this makes sense inside of Eastern Orthodoxy because in Eastern Orthodox theology, there is no instant forgiveness of sins when you believe.

So I was discussing this with some Eastern Orthodox people, and one gentleman was discussing, and I had this question for him. I said, is it the case that all your sins are forgiven right now, or is it not the case that all your sins are forgiven right now?

And most of the people in the room said it was a false dichotomy, didn't represent their position in the whole bit. And I really tried to teach them basic logic. They didn't understand it and get it. It took 20 minutes to say, look, no, no, no, this is a true dichotomy, and it is a valid question to ask you.

And when they explained their position, recapitulation theory, along with sacramental salvation, which means that their salvation occurs through the participation of the sacraments. So I said, look, gentlemen, I said, it's either the case that all your sins are forgiven right now, or it's not the case that all your sins are forgiven right now, and what is true is it's not the case.

I said, that's what you answer. This is not hard. What I really find interesting a lot is when I deal with people in cults and false religions is I'm intrigued by the lack of critical thinking that is so common among them.

It's really amazing. In fact, let me explain something else. Look at this. This is James 2 .14. Now, James 2 is a great pericope, James 2 .14 through 26, where he talks about faith without works is dead.

And so I'm going to give you an example of something. So what the cults will often do, and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, they'll go to this section of Scripture, and they'll say that what's being talked about here is salvation before God.

Now, I'm going to go through it a little bit, and just kind of do two things at once. I'm going to teach on what this section of Scripture means, and weave in the issues of false religious systems and what they do.

But verse 14 starts off. It's particularly interesting. I'll tell you what happened when I was talking with somebody. It says, What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith? Can that faith save him?

And this person I was talking to is a Mormon, and he knows Greek pretty well, and he does. And he says that the word that is not in the Greek. And he says, Can faith save him? And I went and looked at the Greek.

I was driving when we were having this discussion. I got home, and I got on my computer. I was able to look at the Greek, and it says the faith. And I said, You've got that wrong. It doesn't say that, you know, S-O-S.

It says hey, which is the definite article feminine. And I said, So this is the word the. Now, can the faith save him? The faith being the faith that's under discussion. So here's the thing. Check this out, all right.

So what use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that or the faith save him? Can the faith that he's discussing, can it save him? Now, I'm going to tell you what happened, because this is exegesis.

This is learning how to read Scripture. And I'm going to give you an example of the mistake that this person made. So before I do that, I'm going to read the different versions on the last part of that verse, can that faith save him, out of James 2 .14.

That's what the NESB says. The ESV says can that faith save him. The King James says can faith save him. The LEB says that faith is not able to save him. The CSB says can such faith save him. And the ASV says can that faith save him.

So obviously what's going on is the translators understand that the issue is the faith that he's being spoken of here, the faith that has no works. Can it save you? That's the topic. So this is, having said all of that, what this guy was doing was saying it's not about faith, it's about salvation.

The topic is about salvation. And I said, no, it's about faith, the true faith. There's true faith and false faith. And the true faith is the faith that saves. The topic is faith. And the indirect object, I said, it's not really an indirect object, but I said, the indirect part there is the issue of salvation.

The main thing that he's talking about here is faith. And the guy said, no, it's salvation. And faith is the secondary thing. So here's what he says, what he says again. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?

Can that faith save him? That's the topic. It's the faith. Now, this guy was a Mormon. And he was in the room with me and some other Eastern Orthodox people. And the Eastern Orthodox people were saying that he was correct.

And it's obvious he was not correct. But they had to say that because, simply because, they hold to the recapitulation theory of the atonement, which necessitates that you earn your salvation not by faith in Christ.

You don't earn it when you have faith. It's not by faith in Christ that you're justified before God. No, what happens is that you live a good life. And that in the process of the atoning sacrifice, you can then participate in the energies, and the true faith with the works will save you.

And because of that, they would read all that into the text, and they got it wrong. Anyway, that's what happens a lot with false religious systems. And hey, there's the music we'll be right back after.

These messages, please stay tuned.

James 2, Faith Without Works, and False Readings of the Text

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

All right, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, it is easy. Just stretch your phone number to 877 -207 -2276. And if you want, you can easily just give me an email. Send an email to info at karm .org.

Info at karm .org. And in the subject line, just please put in radio comment, radio question, and we can get to it from there. No big deal. So we have nobody waiting right now. So what I was trying to say is on the issue of...

Theology is interrelated. See, when you have a bad soteriology, you can have a bad doctrine of something else. Now, if you have a bad atonement theory, then it's going to lead to other things. How is it that...

Yeah.

How is it that... Got a couple things going on. If Jesus just lived a sinless life and he lived a good life, how does that save you? See, this issue is called PSA, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Penal means law.

A penal colony, you know, things like that, prison. The legality of the place of Christ being under the law, canceling the sin debt, equating sin with legal debt. He did all of this, and then he paid the requirements of the law.

So this is clearly substitutionary work that he did. Isaiah 53, 4 through 6 talks about that. He bore our sin in his body on the cross. 1 Peter 2 .24, now he did this. So these are issues that are clear.

It wasn't his life that saves us per se. It's the place of the sacrifice where Christ bore our sin in his body on the cross, and it was there he atoned for our sins, and it was there that he was a propitiatory sacrifice.

All right, so we could then, in the PSA idea, we could say, okay, I get how it works, how we're saved. You see, Jesus bore our sins, canceled the sin debt, and what we do is, by faith, that righteousness that belongs to Christ is imputed to us, and he removed that sin debt, and so this is all received by faith.

So we can then connect the dots, but in the recapitulation theory of atonement, RTA, recapitulation theory of atonement, in RTA, how does that work? Because I have yet to find in the research that there's an imputation of righteousness that occurs by faith.

That's critical, because if it's not righteousness imputed by faith, then it must be righteousness by some other means, not by faith in Christ, but by what you do. So this makes sense now, more so to me, in that the RTA, along with the system of works that the Eastern Orthodox Church espouses, the system of the sacraments, that you have to participate in sacraments and do good works, keep the law, and various things in order to be saved.

So this is the stuff that I have been dealing with with these guys for a long time and discussing them, and it's really interesting to me how people are so, I don't know how to put it, brainwashed? How they, I guess, I don't know what else to say.

It's like, in my mind, I see them as being brainwashed, because they can't see just simply what the scriptures are saying, you know? And I show them scriptures, like this thing of James 2, and what it uses is, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, can that faith save him?

And it's that faith that is a topic, and the result of good faith is salvation. But they said, no, no, no, it's about salvation, not about faith. And it's just not what the text says. But they have to say that because their theology is more important than the word of God.

And it goes on, the text says, if a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, go in peace, be warmed, and be filled, yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

Even so, faith, if it has no works, is dead being by itself. And of course, we would agree as Protestants, yeah, if you have faith, let's see the works that are accompanying that true faith. If you say you have faith, let's see it.

If you say you really believe in God, let's see the proof of it. And if you say you have faith, and you're fornicating, you're out watching bad stuff you shouldn't be watching, you're living with a boyfriend-girlfriend situation, you're out doing the bad stuff, don't call yourself a Christian, because that's dead faith.

You know, if you're doing all these things, there's no conviction, there's no anything, that's it. You can't say you're a Christian and then live like you're the devil, and, you know, just don't do it.

And so, this is what James is talking about here. And then it goes on, verse 18, which is really critical, and I focused on verse 18 a lot with him. And they still refuse. Now, I'm going to introduce a concept, you tell me which one this is, or, you know, answer yourself there.

Is this the vertical or the horizontal? Now, the vertical is between God and man, horizontal is between people. And when I went into this text, it was really interesting, the mental linguistic gymnastics that the Mormon went through, who knows Greek pretty well, who was aided and abetted by the Eastern Orthodox.

And I want to ask these EO guys, do you think, this guy's helping you out, do you think he's a Christian? Because, you know, God gave him another planet and all this stuff, and Mormonism, and that's a whole other story.

So, anyway, they haven't answered, I haven't asked the question, but I'm going to answer, ask them, because I think it's interesting, that the Mormons and the Eastern Orthodox work together when it comes to the doctrine of salvation, and the same view, that true faith will have true works, and the combination of your true faith and your true works with God's grace will manifest in forgiveness of sins.

That's what they teach, it's false doctrine. So, anyway, here's what it says in James 2 .18. Someone may well say, you have faith and I have works, show me your faith without the works, and I'll show you my faith by my works.

And I said, that's the horizontal,.

It's between people.

Between people, right? It says, someone. I said, someone.

It's a person, right?

It's not an angel. It's not God, right?

Someone may well say,.

You have faith and I have works, show me your faith without the works. I said, is it God? They said, no.

Is it an angel?

No.

Well, then who is it?

It's hypothetical. It's hypothetical. Yeah, it's a hypothetical someone.

Well, is it a human being?

It doesn't say just hypothetical someone. I said, well, it says up there in verse 14, my brethren.

So who's he talking to?

Okay, and someone may well say, is it a hypothetical human being? It doesn't say. It's just, they can't give an inch. Okay, they can't give an inch, right? Because they don't want the horizontal to be the fact here.

They want their false demonic doctrine to be clear enough. They have to do good works in order to be saved. So I said, so someone may well say, you have faith, I have works.

Who's the you?

It said, we don't know who it is. It's just a rhetorical individual who doesn't really have any specific existence. I said, okay. So is it talking about angels hypothetically?

No.

Well, then who is it talking about? And it was really kind of dumb because it was interesting. And so this is how it went. And then they claim victory. Yeah, that guy beat you up so bad, Matt. I'm laughing.

I said, okay, that's what you guys think. You know, it's all right. But it was really bad, you know. And so this is the kind of thing that I have to deal with on a regular basis.

And then they claim victory.

And that's okay. They can claim victory, you know, whatever. But they do it so arrogantly. And they do it with such confidence. And they do it when they can't. They couldn't argue the weight of a wet paper bag.

Oh, it's bad news. Hey, there's the music again. So I can barely hear it, but there it is. Hey, we'll be right back after these messages. So please stay tuned. We have a Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina.

Please stay tuned.

Be right back.

The Incarnation, the Pre-Incarnate Christ, and Jesus in the Old Testament

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

Everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, the number is 877 -207 -2276. Let's get to Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina. Patrick, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt. How you doing?

Doing all right, brother. Hanging in there. Hanging in there, man.

What do you got? That's good. My question is about, you know, John 1, 14, the word became flesh. Now, that was Jesus when he was born, right?

Yes, that's the word became flesh. The union of the two natures, the divine and the human, is what we call the person of Christ, and that's who Jesus is. That occurred 2 ,000 years ago.

Yes.

Okay, but in the Old Testament, was Jesus in the flesh?

Not incarnate. He may have appeared in a fleshly form, and I can show you where, like in Genesis 3, the sound of the Lord walking in the garden, and Exodus 24, 9 through 11, Exodus 6, 2 and 3, varying verses, but he was not incarnate.

There's a difference between what's called a manifestation or an appearance and an incarnation. The incarnation is permanent. Christ will always be man. He will always have two distinct natures. That's from 2 ,000 years ago on for eternity, but in the Old Testament economy, the pre-incarnate Christ appeared because it was never the Father, per John 6, 46, and so he appeared, but not as an incarnate form.

It looks like he just appeared as manifestation.

Okay?

And you like, you know, you always ask people, is Jesus in the flesh today? So Jesus is in the flesh today.

Yes, he is. He died on the cross. He prophesied in John 2, 19 through 21 that he would raise up his own body. In the Greek, it's a gero, which is the future active indicative, which means that he performed the action of his own resurrection, and yet the Father and Son also raised him.

That's Trinitarian theology. And 1 Corinthians 15, 35 through 45, talks about the resurrected body being the glorified body. And furthermore, Jesus retained the crucifixion wounds when he appeared to Doubting Thomas in John 20, 25 through 28.

It says, put your hand into my side, your finger into my hand. So he retained the crucifixion wounds, and so that's who he is.

Okay?

Well, could it be that Jesus resurrected back to being the Word of God?

It's not an issue of back to the Word of God. He is the Word of God. Right.

He's the Word of God today, but like flesh and blood cannot go into heaven, so how can he be in as a fleshly body in heaven?

Well, flesh and blood is an idiomatic term used of the sinful kind of self. Flesh and blood did not reveal it to you. Jesus said to Peter, but my Father who is in heaven. So Jesus, if you'll notice, he says a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

I think it's Luke 24, 39. So the issue here is that the blood of Christ was drained out. It was the means by which we are cleansed of our sin, Leviticus 17, 11 and Hebrews 9, 22. So the sin offering of his blood was drained out on the cross.

He has open wounds after his resurrection. No functioning blood in his system. But so it's flesh and bones is what he referred to himself as, not flesh and blood.

Okay?

Okay.

I just still don't understand how he, why wouldn't he be in flesh in the Old Testament if he, you know, resurrected in a glorified body? Why wasn't he in that same body in the Old Testament?

Because he hadn't been born.

He wasn't born of a woman in the Old Testament. That's the reason I say that Jesus can't be in the Old Testament because he was born in the New Testament because that's kind of oxymoron to think that Jesus, the word of God was in the Old Testament.

That's right. That's why I say, I do not say Jesus was in the Old Testament. I don't say that. I say the pre-incarnate Christ. Because Jesus, by definition, came into existence 2 ,000 years ago. Now the word, the divine nature is eternal, second person of the Trinity.

But the union of the divine and human natures did not occur until 2 ,000 years ago. And the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person. That's called the communicatio ideomatum, the communication of the properties.

So Jesus has the properties of both nature, divine and human. That's who he is. That began, that union of the two natures in the one person began 2 ,000 years ago. But before that, I just say, is the pre-incarnate Christ, second person of the Trinity, normally speaking.

Okay?

Well, you know, like you say, 2 ,000 years ago, but the Old Testament is older than that. So when the word became flesh, it was when Jesus was born. But the word was still in the Old Testament. So couldn't it be the one who was in the garden, I guess, is the word?

Yes, the pre-incarnate Christ. That's who was walking with Adam and Eve.

Yeah.

And the reason we say that, because the Holy Spirit that never is said to appear in a anthropomorphic form, in a form of a man, of a human being, it's always wind or fire being poured and things like that.

And Jesus says in John 6, 46, not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who's from God. He has seen the Father. And then 1 Timothy 6, 16 is speaking of the Father in the context. He was an unapproachable light whom no man has seen or can see.

Stephen says in Acts 7, 2 that God appeared to people in the Old Testament, to Abraham. And it says this in many places in Genesis 17, 1, Genesis 18, 1, Exodus 6, 2 and 3, Exodus 24, 9 through 11, Numbers 12, 6 through 8, where God appears.

But Jesus says it's not the Father. So I ask people, who is God Almighty who appeared in the Old Testament who's not God the Father? Pre-incarnate Christ. That's the answer.

Yeah, it would be the Word of God because it's impossible for Jesus himself to be in the Old Testament.

In that sense, very good.

Even you'll admit to that, that he came about 2 ,000 years ago.

Right. The incarnation occurred 2 ,000 years ago. The union of the two natures occurred 2 ,000 years ago. The union had not occurred in the Old Testament time. So it's the pre-incarnate Christ, the second person of the Trinity, the Word, who was manifested.

Yeah, but that would be simpler to describe. As you say, the Word was in the Old Testament. Jesus was born of a woman and he was on earth. But that's why I believe Jesus can't be God on earth because he was born of a woman.

When he resurrected, he goes back to being the Word of God, which he is today, which makes it easier to explain this.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Patrick. We've had this discussion before, all right? So the pre-incarnate Christ, the Word, the Word is God, is in the Old Testament.

Right, the Word of God.

Yes.

So when you say pre-incarnate Christ, that's a wrong statement.

No, it's not.

Because that's not in the Bible.

No, okay. When you go to John 1 .18, okay, it says, No one has seen God at any time, the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father. He has explained him. He's revealed him. He's the one that you look to.

He's exegeted him. So that's what the Greek is, exegesato. So we have to understand that the Trinity is true. One God in three distinct simultaneous persons. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit.

The pre-incarnate Christ is the Word in the Old Testament. In the New Testament is the incarnation of the Word, where the union of the divine and human natures occurred, and the properties of both natures are ascribed to the single person.

Therefore, we call him Jesus. Jesus died on the cross and three days later rose from the dead. And he still is the union of the divine and human natures, and he will be like that forever. All right? That's orthodoxy.

That's biblical truth.

Okay?

Yeah, but in Revelations 19 .13, it says, His name will be the Word of God, speaking of Jesus. So Jesus died on the cross, the human, but he resurrected to the Word of God, which I'm just trying to say that it's easier to explain than to try to say Jesus was in the Old Testament.

No, I didn't say that. You had it right for a bit. Now you're changing the words.

Okay?

So it's the pre-incarnate Christ, second person of the Trinity, who's manifesting in anthropomorphic form in the Old Testament. That's who that was. It was never the Father. The Father's never been seen.

Jesus is comprised of two natures, divine and human. He is that and still is that forever.

Yeah, but the hypostatic union, Mary didn't give birth to a hypostatic union. She gave birth to a human.

No, she gave birth to a hypostatic union. She gave birth to Jesus.

She gave birth to God, which is not a true statement.

No, we don't say that she gave birth to God because it depends on how you define God at this point. She gave birth to the union of the divine and human nature, the Word and the human nature, because it says, in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, verse 14, Word became flesh and became the mouth.

Right, it changed. That's what you have to understand.

No, no, no, no, no.

No, no, no, it didn't change. No, no, no. You can't say that. If you say it changed, then it's no longer what it was. You see, there's an issue called continuity. When something exists, it continues to exist.

If it stops existing, then it doesn't exist anymore, period. So, God always existed, and the Word, God, became flesh and continued, and still continues.

Okay?

Hey, we got to go?