Matt Slick Live: December 13, 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! Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, a good welcome to the show. Hope you're all going to have a good time listening today, whatever happens.

We had a good call yesterday. We interviewed Dr. Stan, oh, I'm so bad with names, and we just discussed the issue of neurotheology, which

I hadn't even heard of before, and wow, it's really bad. It's really got some serious problems.

But hey, look, today is a lovely Friday the 13th, or 12 -13 -24, December 13th, 2024.

If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877 -207 -2276, and we can talk.

It's easy to do. Also we're being broadcast on Rumble. You just go to rumble .com forward slash

Matt Slick Live. We're also on Facebook, I think Karm, which

Facebook are we on, Karm .org, I don't know. Some of the things they'll tell me in the text here, in a private chat, and is it

Facebook? Karm .org. We're there. We're also on YouTube, Karm .org,

C -A -R -M -O -R -G, one, you know, one word. So we're on a bunch of different things, but you can,

I think you can just find us on Karm .org forward slash social, social media, and you'll find it.

All right, a matching funds donation for the month of December.

So if you were to support us, which we're hoping you will do, then whatever you donate this month will be doubled.

So if you donate five, it'll become 10. Real simple. We do ask that you set up a monthly donation of, say, $5 or $10 a month.

We don't need a lot, but we just need enough. And if that sounds good to you, if you want to do something like that in order to help us out, that would be greatly appreciated.

So if you were to do, for example, $5 a month for newbies, if you start off new doing that, then that's $60 for the coming year, and that gets doubled.

That's how we've worked it out. So there you go. All right. We can also, if you're interested, you can send me an email at info at Karm .org,

info at Karm .org. And I would check it out.

You can send an email there. Just put radio comment, radio question, and we get to them.

In fact, I'm looking at radio questions. We've got a few in there, so I can get to it. Easy. See?

Easy. All right. Let's get to Chuck from Dayton, Ohio. Chuck, welcome. You're on the air. Hi. Yeah, I was calling to ask, what do you think about the

Legacy Standard Bible? It's pretty good. Oh, excuse me.

It's good. I like it. Let me verify. Man, I suddenly got a cough.

I want to verify something and make sure it's the one I'm thinking of, but yes, it is.

If I switch from the NESB, it'll be to the Legacy. And the reason is because it includes the word

Lord as Yahweh. So if I were to go to, for example, Genesis 19 .24,

and it says there, it says, Yahweh reigned on Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone, and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

I love that. So that's one. I mean, I'm so used to the NESB, but man,

I guess you're going over to that one, the Legacy. It's the NESB, and even better is what it comes down to.

How about that? Okay. Are you there? Okay. All right.

Yeah. Also, doesn't it seem like some of the other, just in general, that it's easy to read?

Oh, yeah. It's like the NESB. See, the NESB is a little wooden, but it's perfectly legible.

It's just the translators try to stay true to the original text, the original meaning as much as possible.

And it's a little wooden in some places, but it's still quite legible.

It's not as smoothed out as a looser translation might be, but I use the NESB a lot every day, and I have for decades.

Okay. All right. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome.

All right. Well, good. Good stuff. All right, then. All right. Let's get to Jermaine from California.

Jermaine, welcome. You're on the air. Oh, hi, Matt. Yeah, I am.

So I had a question about killing versus murder, and I know there's a difference, but does the

Bible really specify when and when not a war situation is arising?

And I ask this because I've seen family members, other people who are there in combat situations, and some people

I've heard give their depictions of war. In other situations, they'd be classified as, like, serial killers, but I know that's not the case.

It is a war, but I've never really done a study on, you know, what's exactly allowed and whatnot, but what would you say about that?

All right. So killing is not always murder, but all murder is killing.

Murder's the unlawful taking of life. Killing is just killing, and it can be of different kinds, but it can also be unlawful.

I mean, killing is lawful, but murder is unlawful. So all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

So if someone comes into my house, for example, and is about to take a bat to my wife, and I shoot that individual, that's not murder.

That's self -defense, and it's the defense of others. That's justified. Not that I ever wanted that to happen.

I certainly don't. But that's justified. If someone is threatening to kill me, for example, in my house, and they're coming out with a knife, and I shoot them and kill that person, then that's justified.

Now, if I don't like the person's shirt, because maybe I'm a wacko

Democrat who doesn't like Trump and wants to kill somebody, like some of these ladies have talked about using poison to kill men who voted for Trump.

Well, that's ill intent, not lawful, and it's murder if they carry that out.

And so that's just one of the distinguishing marks. Now, we get into the issue of self -defense.

So let's just look at it this way. Let's use our house as an example. We have an invading force coming into our house.

We have the right of self -defense to do what's necessary to stop an invading force.

One person, ten people in our house. And that's in order to protect ourselves, our property, and those in the house under our care.

So we could extend that to war. If someone was invading the United States with intent to destroy, to kill, to take over, we have that right then to defend ourselves and kill people in the process.

And it's not that we want to do it willy -nilly, and, hey, I don't like you, and I'll kill you. We don't want to do that. That has to be done with proper ethics.

Now, let's look at our neighbor's house. The neighbor's having a fight over there.

Now, what do we do? We hear yelling. There's a disturbance over there. And if they're just yelling, we hear them every night yelling, well, that's just the way it goes.

But what if you hear someone say, put that gun away in the middle of a fight?

Now it's a different situation. So now we have, there are different rules, different things you do.

You call the cops. I mean, come on, call the cops. But let's just say then that one woman there is screaming for help.

And you get your gun, and you go over and knock on the door. And she comes running out, and the guy points a gun at you, and you shoot him.

Now, what you've done then is gone into some other situation. And it's justified if he was going to kill you in that situation, where you went to go help somebody else.

Now, we extend that to war, and this seems to be a justifiable option for war. If there's a situation, we have a pact, an agreement with a party, a covenant with a party, a treaty with a party, a nation.

And then we have libeled, not libeled, but we have covenanted ourselves into a situation to go in under certain conditions.

And this is covenant work. And this is the same thing that was done in the Old Testament. It was a suzerain -vassal treaty pattern of defense, self -defense, aiding others.

So it's a biblical pattern. And so we can go in and, under a war situation, defend people and the interests of that party that may or may not affect us in certain ways.

It gets more complicated than that, but we have that right. Now, what if there was another house down the street? I just want to go in there and just take over the house.

There's no reason. I'm not being threatened. My resources are not being threatened. No one in the house, my house is being threatened.

I just go over and do that. That's unjust. What if there's a nation? We want its resources. Why? Because we just want its resources.

And we go attack that. That's an unjust war. Then we, as Christians, can't participate in that war.

We can't say, I will sign up and go attack that other nation. That's done nothing wrong in any way, shape, or form.

We just want its resources. Then we Christians are not to do that. So, I use the house analogy and neighbor's analogy to kind of go,

Oh, it makes sense. It makes sense. And then we extend it to the issue of wars between nations.

Now, let's just say, whatever circumstance, we're in a war with somebody. And we have the opportunity to capture someone alive.

And we decide, Nah, I just want to kill somebody because I want to kill somebody. And you shoot them. That's not permitted.

Not in Christian thought. Not in Christianity. The idea is to preserve life as much as possible.

We want to shoot and destroy and break things only for the greater preservation. And these are the kinds of things that we want to do.

Remember the movie Sergeant York. He was a pacifist. And he ended up going to war. And he ended up shooting a lot of Germans.

And the reason he did this was to save more lives. To stop them from hurting others.

And so it was justified. So this is not just an easy situation to do anything.

But there's a lot of variables and stuff. Okay? That help any?

Yeah, that helped a lot. And that was a great analogy. Can I ask a follow up real quick?

Sure, sure. So, and I get every situation is unique.

And I know God's going to judge individually. That's what he's good at. But some of these people like, say a

Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Who was on an assassination attempt of Hitler. I never hear people say, oh,

Dietrich was wrong. And in my own heart, it's like, yeah, I can't find anything wrong.

Because this person was like a homicidal maniac. So, would you say something like that could be justified in certain situations?

Yes. There is a sense in which you destroy a life to save lives.

And sometimes it's necessary to do that. So, you know, and situations can vary.

And one slight variable differentiation can make something right or wrong. And what if you had a time machine and you go back to when

Hitler was 12 years old. And you have the opportunity to kill him. Should you do it? He was an innocent little boy, relatively speaking.

You'd be killing an innocent boy for something he hadn't done. And if you kill him, there'd be no crime that he'd have committed.

So, what justifies doing it? You see, the philosophy, the ethics, the logic becomes very problematic.

There was a movie actually made along this line. Where some Nazi sympathizers after the war had gotten some genetics of Hitler.

And had impregnated women. And there were these children that were then born in different places of the world.

They were causing the children to have the same situations to them that happened to Hitler as he was growing up.

And so, if at 12 years old this happened to him, then they would do that. So that he was shaped, each one of them was shaped the same way.

And then, I'll tell you what happened at the end of the movie. Because it was really interesting. We'll talk about this stuff, there's a break.

So, hold on. I'll tell you what happened. And then we'll go on some more. 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.

Alright, welcome back to the show. Jermaine, are you still there? Yes, I am.

Alright, well just to finish the thought before the thing. In the movie, they thwarted everything by simply stopping the people who were training the child that way.

They stopped them all from doing it. So each child would have its own life and wouldn't be Hitler anymore. It was just different.

It was good. So anyway, it's a tough question. And there's just a lot of variables.

And Christians have written on this. What's a just war? The best analogy is your house, your neighbor's house, neighbor's neighbor's house.

Things like this in different situations. That's a good analogy. Thank you for being willing to answer the tough questions.

That's why I support the ministry. I appreciate it. I'm up there in the hot seat every day. I think it's interesting how some people would not.

They would condemn those who were in combat, but they don't have any condemnation towards the abortion industry.

So I just find it very morally interesting. But thank you. I appreciate you being with me. You're welcome.

You're welcome. You know, that reminds me. There was a few years ago when, I think it was

Desert Storm or one of those, was there in Afghanistan. And I don't know enough to know which category of appropriateness it was for our country to be involved with another nation in war.

There were some variables I don't know about. But that's not the issue. The issue is I remember talking to a guy who was a

Marine. And we'd known him for a while. And he had a little

PTSD. But he was managing it pretty well. And we just got talking one day. Because I never would ask him questions about being over there.

None of my business. If he wants to tell me, he tells me. I never asked him if he killed anybody, if he hurt anybody, what he had to do.

I just said, look, thank you for being over there. And, you know, I just say thanks. And after about a year, we finally had a conversation.

And he thanked me for not asking him. He says, a lot of people just ask these dumb questions like this.

He says, I mean, you killed this? And I said, no, no, it's not like that. It's not easy. And he said, you're right.

Because my dad was in the service. And I grew up with different military bases and heard conversations.

So I knew. You don't talk like that. But he did ask. And he said, if by chance, he had been involved with killing anybody.

You know, he was just looking at me. And he said, how would that be? He says, I have a problem with it. And I said, well, if it's the case that you did, in a war situation, you're innocent.

As long as it wasn't a malicious intent. You had someone safe under your gun. And you could just, you know, you could tie him up and take him away as a prisoner.

And you just killed him anyway. Anyway, long story short, we went through it. And it helped him a lot.

So there you go. Hey, if you want to give me a call, 877 -207 -2276.

You can also email me, info at CARM .org, C -A -R -M dot O -R -G.

Let's get to Tom from Florida. Tom, welcome. You're on the air. Hello, Matt.

Thank you for the great show. Thank you for your commitment to the Sola Scriptura.

I appreciate that. You just caused me to relax. Sola Scriptura. Good for you.

Actually, I'm not calling to argue. I'm calling to get your perspective on a particular verse that is riddled with controversy with respect to the

Arminian view versus the sovereign election view. And that is that you all know it's Romans 8, 29.

Those he got predestined is preceded by those he foreknew.

And my question is about that word foreknew. And I know you have studied Greek. And can you comment on the meaning of that word foreknew?

Is it active? Et cetera. Thank you. All right. So, yes,

I know there's a controversy about this. There's two main views. And then I'm going to show you something. I'll give you my opinion.

So he foreknew. The Arminians will generally say that God knows what you're going to choose in the future and he predestined you because of that.

That's a loose thing. So it would be translated like this then. Those who he foreknew, he looked into the future to see who would pick him and he predestined them.

Because he knows what they're going to do. But that would mean that God had to learn and it would mean that God's choices are based on man's choices.

And that reduces the sovereignty of God. And in Arminianism, in this sense, it exalts man and reduces

God. And that's, of course, the fault. It shouldn't do that. On the other hand, the

Reformed view says that they were known ahead of time and that they are the same group. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined.

So not of the same group. It does not say of those whom he foreknew some he predestined whom he knew would pick him.

It says those whom he foreknew, he also predestined. They're the same group. So what does this foreknowing mean?

Well, let me give you my opinion by going someplace else and then come back to here. Matthew 7, 22 and 23.

Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, do we not prophesy in your name? In your name cast out demons and in your name perform many miracles and I will declare to them,

I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness. Now, the word to not know,

I mean, I never knew you is gnosko, gnosko. The word foreknow in Romans 8, 29 is prognosko, just P -R -O in front of the same word.

Now I'm going to go to Jeremiah 1, 5. Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.

And before you were born, I consecrated you. Another different Hebrew word for know. Good as Hebrew, not

Greek. Interesting. Now let's go to Galatians 4, 8.

However, at that time when you did not know God, you were slaves of those which by nature are no gods.

Verse 9, but now that you've come to know God, or rather to be known by God.

How is it that you have turned your back? Now, that word there is that you're known by God, that's also the word gnosko.

To know. Foreknow is prognosko. But now that you've come to know

God, or rather to be known by God. Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined.

Now I'm going to go to John 10, 27. My sheep hear my voice and I know them.

Gnosko, again. And they follow me, and I give eternal life to them. Okay. What I believe, this is my opinion, on the day of judgment, if God says to you,

I don't know you, that's really bad for us. It means you're going to hell.

If he says I know you, it means you're his sheep. Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined.

The ones he had known in a salvific way, beforehand he predestined. To become conformed to the image of his son that he would be the first born among many brethren.

And those whom he predestined, past tense, he also called, that's past tense, that word right there is past tense.

And it comes from the Greek kaleo, to call. And those whom he called, past tense, he also justified, past tense, and those whom he justified he also glorified, past tense.

How were we glorified? Now we could make the case that glorification is a future thing, it hasn't happened yet.

So, 1 Corinthians 15, 35 through 45, glorification of the body, but if that's the case, why is it spoken of in the past tense?

Because the foreknown ones are the predestined called and glorified. Because God doesn't make any mistakes in his decrees.

And so when I look at this, I say the ones he foreknew means the ones he's known in a saving way.

Those are also the ones he predestined to be saved. So hold on buddy, we've got a break.

We'll be right back in comment after the break. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. If you want, give me a call at 877 -207 -2276.

We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick Live!

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

Alright, and welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, the number is 877 -207 -2276.

Alright, Tom. You're back on, buddy. Hey, thanks. Thanks for the explanation.

Please allow me to quickly contrast the two views and see if this is what you said.

The Arminian view would interpret the word foreknown as, hey, God knew about you and your behaviors and choices in the future.

That might be an Arminian view. Yeah, more or less. or the

Pauline view here associated with sovereign election uses that word new to actually mean selected for or reserved for salvation.

Kind of. God, look at it, it's there, but there's more.

See, God is faithful through whom you're called into fellowship with His Son, Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 1. He desires to be among His people.

Build a tabernacle so I can dwell among my people. Exodus 25. Jesus says

He lives in us. John 14. There's this relationship, this intimacy, foreknow.

It deals with the knowing of God in that saving relationship that He's going to have with those who

He's called and given to the Son. It's what you said, but think also of a loving relationship that He's worked through Christ.

I see. And He would not have that with a non -believer, obviously.

Correct. He says to the unbeliever, I never knew you. Get away from me. He never knew you, nor foreknew you.

Right, or foreknown in that sense. In that sense, right. He knew about, if you will, because He's God.

I'm with you, Eric. A little bit more info. Give us more info on this, okay?

Because the word foreknow, oh, I had it right here. Where'd it go? I did it during the break.

The word prognosco only occurs five times, or six times, excuse me, in the

New Testament. In Acts 26 .5, and this is how we find out what the word means.

We look at its semantic domain, its context. So in Acts 6 .25, since they have known about me for a long time, in verse 4, it says, all

Jews know my manner of life. You thought which beginning was spent among your own nation at Jerusalem since then.

You've known about me for a long time. That's prognosco. That's foreknow. But it's not used in that sense of a loving relationship, a

God -saving work. It's just how it's used, that you've known me. But it's interesting that it's not a knowing in the future, it's a knowing in the present, in that context.

And then Romans 8 .29, the thing we've been looking at. And then in Romans 11 .2,

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Or do you not know that the scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel.

So he's foreknown his people. Interesting. And then in 1 Peter 1 .20, he, let me get the previous verse, but with precious blood as of a lamb unblemished and spotless the blood of Christ.

For he, that's Christ, was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared these last times for the sake of you.

So now we see in that part of the word, there is certainly a relationship aspect of foreknow, but also causation is foreknown before the foundation of the world.

But it's appeared in these last times. So that would be consistent with the ones who are foreknown are predestined.

And then the last verse is 2 Peter 3 .17. And I'll read the previous verse for context.

In all his letters Peter's saying about Paul's writing, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand which the untaught and unstable distort as they do the rest of the scriptures,

Peter's calling Paul's writing scripture, rest of the scriptures to their own destruction. Verse 17. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand be on your guards that you cannot carry it away.

So here now it means you can know beforehand something. And that's fine.

So the word has a range of meanings. So it's not in what's called a semantic domain.

But we don't want to take the meaning of one place and transfer it to the meaning of another. And this is why Romans 8 .29

is so critical when I say to them the foreknown ones are also the predestined ones. So if it's foreknowing everybody, then he predestined some, that would not fit.

Because it says those who he foreknew he also predestined. They're the same group. So the Arminian or any position that would say that God knows who will pick him and all that, anything like that is simply not correct according to the scripture right there in Romans 8 .29.

Okay? Very good. Thank you. The context and the use of foreknown or foreknew in Romans 8 .29

is reserved for the saved, the elect. Yes. In that one, yes it is because they're the same group.

Yes. Those who he foreknew he also predestined. Because the same group by that association and the way you express the tenses.

Well, thank you. I'll let you get to the next caller. Appreciate everything you do. You're welcome. Alright, God bless.

Alright, alright. Now we have nobody waiting right now. If you want to call the number it's 87720 72276.

Okay, today's Friday the 13th. Why is it a bad number? Why is it a bad day? Why is it an unlucky day?

Well, my wife was born on Friday the 13th, which explains why she married me. But aside from stuff like that, why is it considered a bad day?

Well, there's a potential reason. Potential. Now, there is something in scripture called gematria.

And what it means is mathematical values of words. And so in Hebrew and in Greek, Old Testament is

Hebrew, New Testament is Greek. When they wrote, they only had one set of characters.

They had one set that was both numbers and letters. That's for Greek and that's for Hebrew also.

So when they would do that, that was just one set. So if you wrote a word you're also writing a set of numbers.

So the Greek word for fish, ichthus, has a mathematical value of 1 ,224.

That's just information, okay? That means all the letters, which are also numbers, added up. Okay, well the reason

I'm bringing this up is because it turns out, I haven't verified this, but I read it someplace, that whenever it talks about Satan in the

Old Testament, the section of scripture, when you add up all the letters, divisible by 13, exactly.

Interesting. All right, well here's some more trivia. So, during the

Jewish calendar, let's just say 6 o 'clock and then the non -Jewish calendar, we're going to say at midnight.

So 6pm and midnight, we're going to use those. But in the Jewish calendar, the day changed at sunset.

So sunset could be 5 o 'clock, 6 o 'clock, 7 o 'clock, 8 o 'clock, depends on the time of the year.

But just for the illustration, let's say in this particular time, it was at 6pm. That's when it shifted from the 13th to the 14th.

The day 13 now is the 14th. Well that would mean then, that for other people, it's still the 14th.

So, at 3 hours after 6pm, 9pm, it's the following day for the

Jews. But, for the Egyptians, for example, it would still be the 13th.

The 14th of Nisan is when the angel of death came over Israel and killed the

Egyptians, the first born. But it was the 13th for the

Egyptians. Okay? So some think that it happened on that Friday the 13th for the

Egyptians, a bad day, but it was the 14th of Nisan for the

Jews. Which would make sense. The Sabbath, the rest, atonement, things like that.

So that's one of the theories about that, okay? Hey, there you go. How about that? Isn't that fun? Each year I talk about that.

Let's get to Jeff from South Carolina. Jeff, welcome. You're on the air. Good evening,

Matt. I just had a, my mom's in the hospital, had her, she injured her hip the other day, and she's at the

Pineville, Atrium Pineville, and I was reading the Bible a lot. Okay. I was reading

Matthew, I think it's six. I'm on the road now, I can't read it, but about the eye being single. If the eye was evil, then the whole body is single, and then

I don't, I mean, I've read that a lot, and it always intrigued me. I couldn't quite, is it what you're looking at, or I couldn't quite understand it.

I mean, so Matthew 6, let me find the passage, okay? And, so the lamp is, this is

Matthew 6 .22, the lamp, the eye is the lamp of the body, so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.

If your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. It's just, there's a word for it in linguistics, where one thing represents the whole.

So if your eye, the thing you're seeing, is bad, what you're viewing and what you're contemplating is evil stuff.

And you're viewing it, participating in it, your whole body's going to be affected, your whole soul, everything about it is affected.

And if what you're doing is good, you're viewing those good things, then metaphorically, everything's going to be good.

These are generic wisdom statements, is what they are, from Jesus. That's all that's going on.

So that's what you're looking at, you're entertaining yourself with, and things like that. So if you're looking at porn, you're looking at stuff like that, it'll fill your heart and your mind.

It'll be dirty. That's why the Philippians Philippians 4, 6 through 8,

I think it is, says to you know, in verse 8, focus on the good things, what's right, pure, and loving, and let your mind dwell on these things.

Okay? We've got a break. All right, buddy. Okay. Hope that helps. God bless. I appreciate it. All right, Jeff. God bless.

Hey folks, 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.

Welcome back to the show, the last segment of the hour. Just want to let you know that this month is

Matching Funds Drive month. If you like what you hear, you want to continue to hear it. Maybe you might want to consider supporting us.

We don't ask very much. Just maybe how about $5 a month, maybe $10 a month.

You can set it up easily. Just go to CARM .org C -A -R -M dot O -R -G forward slash donate.

There you go. That would be easy. Set it up. Let's get to Archie from Virginia.

Archie, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, what's up,

Matt? Oh, not much. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I hear you fine. Okay, good.

Good, man. I work at a hospital.

Anyways, one of my patients who's a Christian seems to have a really good relationship but he came up with this crazy stance on the second coming and he's got it all.

He's got an answer for everything that I said. Jesus has actually already come back and the time, and he references the last three chapters of Revelation that the time after the tribulation,

I guess when, and I'm not very well with the end times, but the understanding of the tribulation and then after that the devil's released for a short time.

Is that right? It's called preterism. It's called preterism that Jesus has already returned.

Preterism. And that we're actually the resurrected saints that are supposed to be reigning with him,

I guess, but we don't know it because we're being deceived. Okay, so there's what's called amillennialism, premillennialism, postmillennialism, there's preterism, partial preterism.

There's dispensationalism. All these are eschatological. But let's just keep it simple for now.

The preterist view says that Jesus returned in 70 A .D.

So you're Christian? Yeah, that's what he said. The way to refute it is very simple. And all you've got to do, but if you work there you've got to be careful how you talk to patients and stuff, but you go to Acts 1, 9 -11.

Acts 1, 9 -11. And what you do is you camp out on this. This is what it says.

And after he had said these things, he was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received him out of their sight.

And as they were gazing intently into the sky while he was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.

They also said, men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? Or into the heavens? Rournos in the

Greek. Rournos, heavens. Why look into the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven.

The angels prophesied he's going to come back in the cloud. So what you do is you just say to the praetorist, that's what it says.

And I've had praetorists at that point say to me, you have to understand the context, Matt. I say, okay, what's the context?

The cloud of witnesses. And it's all about the symbolism that is meant in the return.

Because a cloud and a cloud of witnesses, and they just go, okay, this is what they were done. And I ask them, did

Jesus ascend up into the sky here? And you have to say yes because that's what happened. Did a cloud receive him out of the sight?

Yes. Do the angels say that's how he's going to come back? What are they going to say?

What they have to do is just, they go off on a tangent. Well, you see, the word sky over here, over there, it means this.

And then you do that. You just wait and I just go over the verse again. Over these three verses. Let's go over it again.

And I keep saying it to them, Acts 1, 9 -11. Yeah. Okay. And that every eye will see that's in there somewhere too, right?

Yeah, that's later. I told them that. But also, what you can do, you can cross -reference it with 1

Thessalonians 4, 16. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven.

And that's the same word as you look into the sky. Alright? The same word in Greek.

Sky is how it's translated in the NASB. In Acts 1, 11, but it's the

Greek word ouranos. Ouranon, actually. And so, that occurs also in 1

Thessalonians 4, 16. So the main word that has cognates is ouranos.

And it has cognates. It has forms in Greek. But it's the same word. It's ouranos.

Okay? So the Lord himself will descend from ouranos, from heaven, with a shout of the voice of the archangel, the trumpet of God.

The devil arrives. They'll be caught up together to meet him in the clouds where the Lord is. You say, wait a minute, doesn't even

Paul teach he comes back in the clouds? And this is what the angel said in Acts 1, 9 -11. And you just go back and forth between these two verses if you want, two sections.

And then, but you have to be careful because if he's in the hospital, you don't want to keep him in there because he'll blow a gasket.

Okay? Yeah, yeah. So, but he says that he did return that way and that everyone knew it at that time.

And that there's like hospitals with thousands of rooms or whatever and there's no bathrooms, no toilets.

He's like, I forgot what he was trying to get at, but he says, he's talking about there's evidence that what you do at this point, everyone on earth at the time knew it.

Yeah, he doesn't know what he's doing. Walk over to his IV bag and just check the solution. Make sure he doesn't get too much painkillers because he's, it doesn't make any sense.

This is a phenomena that occurs with people who just believe a certain something and they adjust everything to this one thing.

And it just doesn't work. They say that he came back in 70 A .D. with the destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Rome.

And that's how Jesus came back. It's ridiculous. You know, it goes back in the clouds. So what I do when I talk to the preterists is

I just go to Acts 1, 9, 11 and I read it over and over and over and over again. Well, yes, but you see, let's go back to the verse.

They get upset with me. They do. But I say, but that's what it says. That's not what it says. It's not hard, is it?

Yeah. Okay. That viewpoint, they said, say that again, he came back as the

Roman army, or with the Roman army? Yes, that's, yes, you see, yes, because the

Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. And I've been there and seen some of the stones that were thrown down.

I've seen them on the ground. It's really interesting. And so if you go to Matthew 24, it talks about great problems and toils.

And this kind of language is used in the return of Christ. And so they'll say, yeah, there's wars, there's rumors of wars, and this is what happened in Jerusalem.

But, you see, just like Jesus said, wars and rumors of wars, that's where he's going to come back.

That's what they were doing back then. Yeah, but there's wars and rumors of wars all over the place. And he said he'd come back from the clouds.

I'd say, let's go to Acts 1, 9 -11 again. No, I don't want to go back there. And I'd say, why not? That's what it says.

And they get irritated because I just keep saying the same thing, because it refutes preterism.

It just does. Okay. Nice, nice.

Yeah. Well, yeah, I knew it just didn't feel right. I mean,

I listened to him for like 10 -15 minutes, and everything I said, he had an explanation for.

And I was just like, well, I mean, wouldn't that mean that basically Jesus is lying to us now?

No, no, no. They would not say he's lying, that Jesus is lying. They're just saying that the interpretation is different.

They're not accusing Jesus of any sin. So don't say that they think he's lying, or that your position means lying.

It's just how they interpret it. But they're wrong. And Acts 1, 9 -11 demonstrates it.

I'm not kidding. I know a lot of stuff about this stuff, and that's where I go. Acts 1, 9 -11, and sometimes

I'll cross -reference it with 1 Thessalonians 4, 16, 2 Tetra Fibers 2. And if I really want to have fun,

I go to Matthew 24. And then I go to Matthew 13. And then

I really have fun with them, because they can't answer these kinds of things with their view. But Acts 1, 9 -11 is really where you want to go.

Just trust me. Acts 1, 9 -11. And what was the first Thessalonians 1?

4, 16, with the voice of the archangel? Was that that verse? Yes, in the trumpet of God, in verse 17.

And they'll meet him in the air, in the clouds. And I ask people, where are we going to meet him? In the air.

With the clouds. Is that what it says? Yes? Is that what it means? Let's just see what he says.

No, it doesn't mean that. This is something else I'll do to people. I did this a couple of days ago.

Someone said, he's a Catholic. He said, Matt, it's just your private interpretation of something. It's all you're going with. And I said, no,

I don't think I'm that intelligent. Why do you ask? And he paused. And he went on with something else.

And he says, well, it's your interpretation of things. We just don't believe interpretation. And I said, well, no,

I'm not that good looking, but thank you for the thought. And he was totally confused. And I said, look, if it's just a matter of interpretation, then

I can make words say whatever I want, right? Isn't that what you're accusing me of? I can just make it up. But you can tell that it doesn't make sense to do that when

I say your words, I just interpret them any way I want. Words have meanings in their context. We can understand what those contexts are.

And to step outside of the context and say something else is just ludicrous, as I was exemplifying. And that's it.

So when they say you can interpret it different ways, say, well, you can interpret it different ways. But what does it say? What does it say?

Acts 1, 9 -11. Okay. Acts 1, 9 -11. Over and over with the preterists.

Yeah, it destroys them. Nice. And what does preterists stand for?

It doesn't stand for anything. It's the view that Jesus returned in 70

A .D. It's called preterism. And then they think we're the resurrected saints or something?

I don't understand it. I ought to look into it more. So what would they think? What are we waiting for?

If he's already come back, then what's the next thing to happen? The new heavens and the new earth aren't here yet.

You did say that much. Yes, because they hold to what's kind of a postmillennial view in that everything of Matthew 24 was fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

And that new things will occur with the new heavens and new earth made later on as Christianity takes over.

Okay. And so that he, yeah, so the battle of Armageddon, that's already happened too.

He said that it's... Sorry. I ought to look into it some more.

I still don't understand. So what would be the next event to happen? Just hypothetically, if they were right, the preterists were right, what do they think the next event to be is?

It depends on the preterists. But generally speaking, from what I understand about preterism, there's going to be a future resurrection, a future new heavens and new earth.

Some hold, that I've understood, some hold that Jerusalem will rebuild a temple and other things are going to come with the

Antichrist. But some say, no, the Antichrist was back then in the 60s and 70s. So you have to just find out what that particular one holds to, because there's variations within it.

Okay? Yeah. That's wild. Well, thanks, Matt, man.

Love your program. You're awesome. Really appreciate it. God bless. God bless.

Okay. Hey, folks, perfect timing again. So there's the music. We've got to go. May the Lord bless you and by His grace we'll be back on air on Monday.

I hope you all have a great weekend. We'll see you Monday. God bless. Bye. Another program powered by the