Matt Slick Live: November 22, 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.

Hey everybody, welcome to the show.

It's me, Matt Slick.

You're listening to Matt Slick Live, and I hope you want to give me a call.

It's easy to do.

Just dial 877 -207 -2276.

If you want to email me, you can do that as well.

Just send an email to info at karm .org.

Info at karm, C -A -R -M, dot O -R -G.

And in the subject line, please put, let's see, radio comment or radio question.

And then we can get to them.

We usually get to them on Fridays, which is today.

Now, my week has been a little bit upended.

I was not on the air yesterday, and I'll explain why.

A lot of people know my wife's in the hospital, and it's nothing serious.

She's just been having difficulty breathing because of her health and her conditions.

They admitted her, and they're running tests and trying to figure out stuff.

She'll spend two nights in the hospital, it looks like, and get up tomorrow.

And, you know, all that stuff.

So, you know, she's in good spirits right now, but it's just irritating that she's got to be there and have to run tests on this and run

tests on that.

And so I'm talking about that a little bit because there's something interesting I'm hoping will develop out of it.

But for those of you who have been praying, I just want to thank you.

Anika and I, my wife and I, you know, really appreciate that.

She just got through so much.

She's had so much pain and suffering, so many surgeries, so much that she's gone through.

Now, she doesn't like me talking about that on the air, but I do occasionally anyway.

We got talking yesterday, and I've been trying to get her on the air to talk about

her condition and how she deals with it and how

she has her relationship with Christ, how it's affected what her view is,

how she depends on the Lord.

And so I was talking to her yesterday about it.

And I have been trying to get her on, and maybe she will now.

She seemed more open to the idea.

She's worried about not being the gab guy like I am and that she might mess up.

And I said, just listen to me on the radio.

I mess up.

No one cares.

And I said to her, and this kind of relates to a lot of people, I said, you know, you're in

a difficult situation, and you want to continue to trust in

Christ, and you do.

And yet our prayers seem to be unanswered.

What's it like to be in that position and to really go through it, not talk about

someone you know who goes through it, but really be in that position and to experience

it?

I said, you have something unique in that you and your condition and position.

Other people have their condition and position with God, so it's unique to them.

But there is a commonality of us sharing sicknesses and illnesses and trying to deal with this

before the Lord, before others.

And so I'm really hoping that I can get her on the air, and where she would just, you know,

introduce her, but she just liked talking in public, you know.

And I'd introduce her and just ask her to tell everybody what her problems are.

And then we would slowly go through that and see what's it like to suffer and

to trust in Christ at the same time.

I think a lot of people would like to hear that.

I think a lot of people would be ministered to by it if she were to

come on.

So I'm hoping.

And I know there's a lot of people out there right now who some can't get to church.

Some are dealing with chronic pain either in yourself or with others you know.

You have to be a caretaker or be taken care of to some degree.

And I know that's just the reality of the world we live in.

But maybe by God's grace we can get her on and have her talk about it.

And I think that'd be great.

And I'd like some feedback if you guys would like that.

Because I need to persuade her.

And I can't pressure her.

I'm not going to do that.

But if you were to email us at info at karm .org and say something like, I'd love to hear

Mrs. Slick get on the air and just talk about what she's going through.

And her relationship with Christ and suffering while you're a Christian.

And in that.

I think that would be good if you guys were to do that.

Info at karm .org.

And just put a subject line, something like, Matt's wife on the radio.

That would be good.

And then we could get to that.

So anyway, that's it.

There you go.

All right.

Let's get on the air here with Gil.

Oops, I hit the wrong button.

With Gil from Texas.

Gil, welcome.

You're on the air.

Hello, you mean Darryl?

Well, it says Gil, but I guess we mean Darryl.

That's all right.

It happens sometimes.

Sometimes when I pronounce my own name, it doesn't come out right sometimes.

I don't know why.

But anyway, Matt, long time friend.

Yeah, yeah.

Long time caller.

You know, I call in every now and then and, you know, a long time listening to the show.

We talk about theology and various stuff in the past.

We've had enjoyable conversations.

And I didn't hear a lot of the intro when I called after I finally started listening.

And I was one of the ones praying for your wife and praying for you guys, you know, on Facebook and stuff.

And it sounds like your wife's out of the hospital or I didn't hear the intro.

She's still in.

No.

Is she?

I'm sorry to hear that.

No, she's still in.

But, you know, she's not like super desperate or anything, you know.

It's just she's bored and, you know, just bored.

When can I get out of here?

You know, like that.

And they're running tests on her.

Okay. You know.

Well, yeah, I pray that the Lord would cause the doctors to work perfectly.

Right.

You know?

Yeah, man.

Well, my heart goes out to you guys through this.

And I know the Lord is very gracious and loves you all very much.

He does.

Yes.

Yep. Very much.

So what do you got, buddy?

Well, I don't know.

I don't know.

I didn't know.

I was wondering.

I saw you on Calm.

They posted your wedding picture up.

And I wanted to know if anybody's ever told you that you've got the old, the very young, actually

looking Tom Cruise.

Look a little bit, just a little bit.

I wonder if anybody told you that.

People back in the day, they made that comment with Tom Cruise and another guy.

And I'm like, are you crazy?

No way.

But yeah.

And the reason that's up there today is because today is our 37th wedding anniversary.

It's her 37th.

Yeah.

Yeah.

She's in the hospital.

Yeah.

So yeah.

But yeah, I was told that a few times.

And Mark Harmon, too.

I'm like, who?

What?

And then later on, it was a guy, Chris Noth.

Chris Noth for a while.

I'll even admit, he and I looked a lot alike for a couple, three years as we kind of.

Anyway.

Right.

When I'm playing drums, people go.

I'm not going to say anybody looks like me.

That's not good.

Right.

Now, I don't know who that is.

Chris Noth.

I don't know who that is.

Noth.

N -O -T -H.

Okay.

Just because he's an actor.

Yeah.

Sometimes people, when I'm playing drums, and I feel like, man, you look like Dave Grohl.

Back when Dave Grohl was playing with Nirvana, that's who I pretty much look like.

Okay.

Yeah.

So happy anniversary to you guys.

And I'm sorry about you having to be away from our, you know, not being at the house.

That's a drag, man.

Yeah, it is.

But you know, it's what it is.

It's just what it is.

Yep.

It's what it is, man.

Well, that's all I got.

You know, just wanted to, you know, just let you know we're praying for you.

We love you guys.

And I'll tell you, you looked a little bit like Tom Cruise back in the day.

And just pray that you...

Wow.

You know, no real big deal.

If he gets wind of that, he'll be insulted.

He said, if he gets wind of that, he'll be insulted.

What are you saying?

You know.

So that's, you know, but that's what it is.

Yeah, exactly.

The way he's been taking care of himself.

But, you know, on a theological note, I go to a good Reformed church down here in League City.

I'm in League City, which is right in between Houston and Galveston.

Okay.

And I go to this real good Reformed church called Five Solas, Church of Five Solas.

And I've learned lately about sacramental union and what

that really means.

And it's been pretty intriguing.

Your thoughts on sacramental union basically in the aspect of, if I may ask another question, that is.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Sacramental union.

I thought you were going to...

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm not exactly sure what that is.

Sacramental union.

Oh, sacramental union.

Well, sacramental union is the belief that Christ's spirit, like

he's present with the bread and wine.

Not in it, but around it as the sign and seal of...

It's the sign and seal, the sign of the thing signified, which is him in salvation.

So when Christ says, this is my body and blood, well, no, of course it's not really his body and blood.

His body is up in heaven right now.

So it's not his body and blood, but it's a means of grace in that

his spirit attends the element.

So when you analyze and you check yourself, as Paul says, you have to analyze.

Make sure you're in the faith and make sure you don't have any outward rebellious sin.

And that's a means of grace, of sanctification, called

sacramental union, that the spirit of Christ attends the elements.

Yes, and I think it's called consubstantiation.

And I did go to a Lutheran college, graduated from a Lutheran college.

So we had discussions about that, and I did not agree with him, because it was more like...

Go ahead.

Well, consubstantiation, though, I've come to learn, is where they believe the body and blood of Christ attends the elements.

But sacramental union is not that.

Sacramental union is the spirit of Christ, because the body and blood cannot attend the elements, because his body is a

physical, fleshly boned body that's up in heaven right now.

So that's why I disagree with the Lutherans as well.

Yeah, so there's some issues there.

Now, consubstantiation is something that the Lutherans that I've understood do not directly affirm, but they

affirm similarities with it.

And so the sacramental union idea, I understand that.

And so what I understand about Lutheranism is they're kind of between consubstantiation and sacramental union.

That's my experience as I was discussing this kind of thing with them back in the 80s at a Lutheran

college with some Lutheran professors, and I could not accept their view.

I did not see it as being true.

So we had these discussions, and I ended up rejecting consubstantiation.

And they would also attend the idea that in the partaking of the communion elements

that...

I'm trying to remember that accurately, not trying to misrepresent them.

If I remember correctly, it was in the elements grace is actually participated in by the

individual, and it's a means of grace being received for that person.

And I always wanted to ask more questions.

Well, what do you mean?

Grace is a substance infused like Catholicism, or is grace just God's attitude?

And it's called congruent merits or condign merits and meritorious

things.

Anyway, and I could never get a satisfactory answer.

So that's why I'm not exactly sure what their position really is, because I don't know if they know.

Right.

Yeah, for sure.

I hear you.

I hear you.

All right, Matt.

Oh, man, it was great talking to you.

My heart goes out to you guys and your position right now.

I love you very much, man.

I love you guys a whole lot.

And pray for God's grace and mercy, and you will come home very soon, man.

Hey, I appreciate that.

I do appreciate that, brother.

Well, God bless.

Thanks.

God bless, Matt.

Take it easy, man.

Okay, thanks.

You know, he said something that just kind of struck me.

I've heard recently is I've talked to some people on the phone, and just every now and then over the years, people will say,

Matt, you don't know me, but I know you.

And we'll get back in the break.

I'll tell you what that's about.

It was really interesting, some of the things people have said.

But, hey, look, why don't you give me a call?

877 -207 -2276.

Be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned.

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

Here's Matt Slick.

All right, everybody, welcome back to the show.

We don't have anybody waiting, so if you want to call me, the number is 877 -207

-2276.

And I want to hear from you.

Give me a call.

Also, you can e -mail me, info at carm .org.

Info at carm .org, C -A -R -M dot O -R -G.

And put the subject line, radio comment, radio question.

And we'll get to some of those comments and questions here in a little bit.

Yeah, I was just saying that I was talking to people, and every now and then they'll tell me.

They go, Matt, I've been listening to you for a long time, and I know you.

And you don't know me, but I know you.

And I get a kick out of that.

And they'll repeat things that I say, and I chuckle.

You know, stupid things that I say for fun.

And it's always nice to hear that, by God's grace, being able to influence people in a positive way.

That's what it is.

The great majority of them, when they say that, are very positive and very gracious, and I enjoy that.

So, like I said, if you want to call

me, 877 -207 -2276.

And you can also email me at info at carm .org.

We've got a call coming in.

And in the meantime, I think what I'm going to do is get to a question here.

And then we'll get to the caller.

This is a big question, though.

Let's see.

What do you think about what is said in, and then it says, the fate of the wicked for conditional

immortality.

Is there really a hell?

What's it like?

Also check that, blah, blah, blah, which is rebuked, whatever.

So, Richmond and Lazarus couldn't be a parable because parables don't call characters by name.

All right, so it's on conditional immortality, which what that is,

is it's another term for annihilationism.

And it's the view that there's two main views in conditionalism or annihilationism.

One is that as soon as you, well, there's three views.

Let me put it this way.

As soon as you die, if you're wicked, you just stop existing from then on.

Another view is that you go into a state of soul sleep or awakened, and then

you're punished, and then after your punishment's done, then you go into a non -existence.

Some say they go into soul sleep, and then they're awakened and judged right away, and then they go into non

-existence.

And this is, that's what they teach.

Now, we got a caller.

I'm going to get to the caller, and then I think I'm going to teach on the fallacies of conditionalism and annihilationism, and why it's so bad

and why it's wrong.

Let's get to Rusty from South Carolina.

Welcome.

You're on the air.

Hey, Matt, how you doing?

Doing all right, hanging in there.

That's good, that's good.

And I'm praying for your wife and for a quick recovery.

Oh, thanks.

So is there more than one way that you can be equally yoked?

Unequally yoked, or equally yoked, which one?

Unequally yoked, unequally yoked, unequally yoked.

Yes.

You know, a believer should not marry an unbeliever.

That's one way.

A believer should not date an unbeliever.

We could make the case, depending on certain circumstances,

like an unbeliever and a believer going into business together.

Now, that's a little more of a gray area, because, you know, when I have a bank account at a bank, it might be

unbelievers working there, and I have business dealings with them.

So we're not going to be too legalistic here.

But generally speaking, you don't want to be in a contractual agreement, one

form or another, where you are working depending upon the goodness and morality of an unbeliever.

That's not to be had.

So it's difficult for us to implement that in this world, because there's such a mixture of believers and

unbelievers in so many businesses.

So you could have an atheist who is a business owner, and we can go get his food,

or whatever it is, or whatever he sells, and that's okay.

Are we supporting his atheism?

No, we're just going to a business.

We don't have to ask if the owner is an atheist or not, for example.

But then you might find out he's an atheist.

You might want to say, I don't know if I want to support an atheist business, but what if the employees are Christians?

Well, then what do you do?

See, it's just this gray area here.

We've got to be careful.

So what we've got to do with situations is ask God to give us wisdom.

And we don't want to openly support the idea of unbelief and anti -Christianity.

But then again, let's say, for example, the leftist news media, which is anti -Christ.

Should a believer work for an anti -Christ news media outlet?

Well, on one hand, no, they should not.

But on the other hand, what if they're doing it in order to get in to influence people for good?

You see, this is just not easy.

And then I remember in seminary, we were talking about this, and should an actor who's a Christian

play, say, a murderer?

It was a great discussion.

And the conclusion was he should, or he could, if

in the film or the situation, you know, whatever, he gets what's coming to him properly so that the

judgment of the wicked occurs.

He doesn't get away with it.

Otherwise, they'd be glorifying evil.

So that was a good conclusion.

If you're going to play a part where he gets away with everything and is glorified, you can't do it.

I thought that was good.

So unequally yoked can have many shades of meaning in different situations, and we just have to be wise

about it.

Okay, so let's say if someone married and we both saved,

but the marriage counselor tells us that we're unequally yoked.

In what sense are you unequally yoked?

It's possible for him to say it, but what does he mean by it?

Right.

That's what people keep asking me.

He's just saying you're unequally yoked.

Yeah, what does it mean?

What does unequally yoked mean?

But he said that he can fix it

to the point that we can become equally yoked.

Yeah, you'd have to ask him in what area is he talking about?

Because if you're both believers, you're not unequally yoked.

And if he says one's a believer and one's not a believer, well, that's an issue.

But if you're married to an unbeliever and you're in a state of being married, you've got to stay married.

And then you pray and you do stuff.

But it's just to ask questions.

Yes, that's a good point.

Thank you.

Yes, I am going to ask that.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome, brother.

No problem.

Okay.

Anything else?

I have one more question.

Yes.

I can hear that we have a soul and a spirit.

I know the Holy Spirit is aiming for me being saved, but

do I have a spirit in a soul?

Like, does my heart beat to my soul?

Well, there are different views of soul and spirit.

The two views really are dichotomy and

trichotomy.

Di means two, tri means three.

In one view, soul and spirit are the same thing.

The other one, soul and spirit, are different.

Body, soul, spirit.

So that's all it is.

And both views are biblical.

Anyway, we've got a break, so hold on.

I'll put you on hold and pick you up on the other side of the break.

We'll be right back, folks.

877 -207 -2276.

We'll be right back.

It's Matt Slick Live!

Taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick.

All right, everyone.

Welcome back to the show.

I guess our caller dropped off.

We have another caller now.

Let's get to Jay from Ohio.

Jay, welcome.

You're on the air.

Hey, Matt.

How's it going, man?

Oh, it's going okay.

Hanging in there, buddy.

What do you got, man?

Yeah.

Sorry to hear about your wife, by the way.

I'll be praying for you guys.

She needs it.

She needs a lot of prayer.

I don't tell you guys even a tenth of everything.

But yeah, she's a poor girl.

Sure.

So, okay.

Awesome.

Hey, so I wanted to ask you a question, man.

Would you consider yourself to be pro -life?

Yes.

Like you would use the label pro -life, I mean.

Yeah, I don't believe in killing babies in the womb.

I think that's wrong.

Yeah, amen.

Have you ever heard about House Bill 813 from Louisiana

in 2022?

No. Okay.

So, I'm an abortion abolitionist.

So, I would distinguish myself from pro -life.

The reason for that, what kind of like opened my eyes to the differences between the two.

In Louisiana in 2022, there was a bill.

And it was actually the first bill that was ever passed of its kind in U .S. history.

And it would be equal protection for all humans.

So, the child inside of the womb would receive the same protections as the child outside of the womb.

Which by implication, if you murder a child in the womb.

Yeah, amen.

So, it got, it was the first bill of its kind.

And these bills go up all the time.

They're called equal protection bills.

And it was the first of its kind to actually pass the initial voting

and get onto the floor for a vote.

And it had the majority support for it.

So, I believe it was five to two in support of it.

And before it went out to be voted on, over 70 of the nation's

biggest pro -life organizations wrote an open letter to those legislators telling them not to

pass that bill, basically.

So, it was slated to pass.

Hold on, hold on.

So, do you have a question or anything?

Because I'm not familiar with all of this.

So, I can't comment on it.

But is there something you want to add to that?

Yeah, that's why I wanted to ask if you kind of were familiar with that bill.

And if you would use the label pro -life in itself.

Well, what's the bad aspect of the label pro -life?

Why is it bad?

Well, yeah.

No, I mean the label itself is fine.

But what the problem is, is like that bill as an example, that's just one

case.

It happens all the time.

But pro -life organizations, when these bills of equal protection go up, they actually use

their money to lobby against those bills or persuade legislatures to not

pass bills of that nature.

And the reason for that is because...

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't know about that.

Yeah.

You should look into it, man.

It's actually really, it's a really crazy thing.

Because people give money to pro -life because they assume that pro -life wants to

criminalize abortion.

They want it to be ended and the children to be protected.

What's the, if you had to say one thing, the pro -life movement, that they're doing this is bad, what is

that one thing?

If you could just pick one.

They are not seeking equal justice for children being murdered.

Okay, so you mean, are you saying that people who've had abortions should be

jailed and executed?

Well, no law works.

If you've done something while it was legal, you would retroactively be penalized for it.

What it would do would just be...

Is that what you want for the future?

Like I said, just...

No, no, definitely not.

No, it would just be...

Okay.

Then what's the thing that's...

No, it would criminalize...

Go ahead, I'm sorry.

No, I'm trying to understand why the pro -life stuff is bad in this regard.

I don't understand what the issue is.

Well, the issue is like we're commanded in scripture to, yes,

not commit child sacrifice, oppose child sacrifice.

That's all good.

We agree on that.

Yeah.

But we're also commanded and Isaiah 10, 16 through 17, for example,

we're commanded to seek justice for the fatherless as well.

So when a child is murdered in the womb, but nobody is held

liable for murdering a human being, an image bearer of God, we are not bringing justice

to the fatherless in that case.

And in this...

Yeah, I agree.

The reason I brought up that bill...

Yeah, for sure.

The reason I brought up that bill is because this open letter...

And again, these are like the biggest right to life, all these people from all over the country.

They wrote an open letter to those legislators and they said, I'm paraphrasing here, we

unequivocally and explicitly do not want to criminalize any

mother who basically commits an abortion.

So at the end of the day, they want to end abortion, but they don't want to criminalize abortion

when a mother kills her own child.

I get you.

That's what the...

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's worth a discussion.

That is worth a big discussion.

A lot of experts...

Yeah, it's a big deal, man.

Discussed.

That's just one example, that Louisiana bill.

But like, I live in Ohio and we constitutionally protected child murder last year.

Before that bill, or before, I'm sorry, before that issue was on the ballot to be passed,

an organization that I work with here in Ohio actually put forward one of those bills for just basic equal protection

for all humans.

And the Ohio Right to Life actually lobbied against that bill to get it to fail.

Yeah, I'd like to know what the reason is.

You know, because somebody would call up and say they did this and it's wrong.

Okay, well, what was the reason?

What was the reasoning?

It's one of the things I've learned about research.

People might have information or research knowledge that we don't have.

I'm not justifying anything.

I'm just saying the first thing I would do is, what's the reasoning?

I want to know if the reason's good, I want to know if the reason's bad.

I want to know.

And without knowing that, I couldn't comment.

So, you know.

I can tell you by their own words, because they actually say it in that open letter.

It said they believe every woman who has an abortion is a victim along with the child that was

murdered.

Therefore, you should never penalize a woman.

Yeah, but it may be true in different senses.

When they say they're a victim, that's not a very good description.

It's not a very good, much of anything.

So, I say, well, what do you mean, you know, victim?

I'm very precise.

I always want to know more.

And a lot of times I talk to pro -aborts and they can't define things.

They don't understand things.

So, I always want to know more.

Why is this?

Why are you saying that?

Okay, so they're a victim in some senses.

They are in another sense or not.

So, which senses are they?

Which senses are they not?

And then, having knowledge of both of those categories, why are you saying this or that?

That's how I am.

So, I can't tell you because I haven't done that with them.

Yeah, I agree with you, man.

And it's one, it's a lame excuse to just blanket statement, say that

every woman who has an abortion is a victim.

I agree with you.

It doesn't make sense because one person is being murdered and one person is not.

So, they're not victims in the same way.

See, this is the problem.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

This is the problem with lack of definitions.

So, if someone says they're a victim, you say to them, in what sense do you mean this?

You have to ask the question.

You have to define their term in the context of what they mean.

Because you could have a woman who was sexually, let's just

say abused, etc., etc.

And she's victimized in that.

But does that justify an abortion?

And so, it's more details and we have to examine them.

It's a very emotional issue.

And the thing I've noticed about emotional issues is people stop thinking when they have an emotional issue.

They just let their emotions rule.

That's why I say I need to ask more questions.

And then by asking more questions, I mean people say, oh, you support it.

I didn't say that.

I'm saying I need more information.

Sure.

Yeah, I'm not accusing you of that, just to clarify.

Oh, I know.

Yeah, it's a very public debate.

If you were to look into this, it's all out there.

Pro -Life makes these statements themselves.

They give several reasons why they believe women are victims.

All of them, of course, not justifying murdering a child.

But yeah, I would just implore you to look into that because it is a very serious thing.

And it's stopping criminalizing abortion in our country.

Well, I'll put it on the list of the other 800 questions I've got to answer.

Yeah.

250 topics I've got to research while we're overhauling the website.

Yeah, I hear you, man.

Plus husband duties right now.

Plus husband duties.

Plus I'll be 68 next month.

So when you're 68, you're slowing down, and I am slowing down.

So I think I'm slowing down enough my wife can start tolerating me.

I don't know yet.

We'll find out.

Well, my brother, if I could nudge you, this one issue, there's a lot of innocent people dying.

So it is definitely worth checking out.

That's right.

It's a big deal.

I'd love to debate some experts on it.

I'd love to debate.

Yeah, the pool boards, the womb scrapers.

All right, buddy, there's the music.

We've got to go.

Okay?

So God bless.

God bless you.

All right.

Hey, folks, be right back after these messages.

877 -207 -2276.

Be right back.

It's Matt Slick Live!

Taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick.

Hey, everybody.

Welcome back to the show.

Interesting calls today, and we're at the last segment of this hour for this day of the week.

And I want to say thanks to Laura, who gave a $5 rant on Rumble.

What that means is a rant.

You'd think it'd be bad, but no, it's good.

It's someone who is just putting a little money in and helping out, and helped out the ministry there.

So that's it.

And I want to say thanks.

All right.

Now, let's see, let's see.

So I was talking about annihilationism and conditionalism because it was an email that came in.

And what conditionalism is, in my view, is really false doctrine.

There's a lot of people who affirm it and who think that the idea of God punishing someone forever is just

morally wrong.

When I encounter them, I ask them, okay, what standard of morality are you using to

make that assessment?

And they might say, well, it's common sense, and I just rebuke that.

But the only standard they can have that's any authority is God himself.

So I ask them, you know, if God's authority and the standard of morality, can you show me

a verse in the Bible where it suggests the idea that punishment forever

is immoral against God's character?

And there isn't a verse that says that.

Now, what they'll do is they'll say things like, well, God says that they will be remembered no more

or the soul that sins will die and various things.

And they say it's inferred the idea that they don't exist anymore.

And that's why we draw that.

And I say, well, let's look at each one of those verses.

And I do.

And I find out that, well, I could see why you might say that, but the verse doesn't necessitate that.

It's just that you're reading into it, and you're looking for anything that might support your position.

Because the verses could also be understood in a different way, and yet you negate that possibility.

So how objective are you going through these verses?

What I find with the conditionalists slash annihilationists, in my opinion, is

that though some of them might be educated on the other side, they generally will still

interpret verses through their position.

Now, there are certain logistical problems with annihilationism and conditionalism.

Let me go over some of them.

And I can't get every single sub -view that's out there, but I can do the main ones.

So one idea that I'll get into this generic view, one of them is called

soul sleep.

And that when the physical body dies, the soul goes into a state of sleep.

Now, some annihilationists hold this, okay, conditionalists.

It goes into soul sleep.

This is a serious problem, and it leads to heresy.

And they say, no, it doesn't.

Well, yes, it does.

Let me show you how.

They say, now, Jesus is a man, right?

Yeah, okay.

And you're saying then that when a human person dies, his soul goes to sleep.

There's no consciousness.

There's no awareness.

It's just in a state of non -activity.

That's what soul sleep is, right?

And they say, yes.

Okay, good.

Now, there's a doctrine in Christian theology called the communication of the properties, the communicatio

ideomatum.

That means that Jesus, as one person, has two natures.

That means, that's hypostatic union.

And the communication of the properties says that the properties of each of those natures

are communicated to the person of Christ.

So the properties of humanity, the characteristics, qualities of humanity

are attributed to Christ, as are the qualities, characteristics of divinity are attributed

to the person of Christ, the one person.

If during the period between the crucifixion and the resurrection, was

Jesus, I ask them, was he still one person with two natures?

And most of them are astute enough to say, well, yes, of course.

Then if soul sleep is true, are the properties, are all the properties of humanity being

communicated to the person of Christ?

Now, this is a little nuanced here because they might say the properties exist but

aren't active.

If they say that, I say, well, then properties exist but aren't active.

So then how can you have a property that's not active?

It's not doing anything.

A non -active property that has no expression is the same thing as no property.

There's no difference because there's no energy being expressed.

There's no activity being expressed or just nothing.

So how do you tell the difference?

This is where it gets very difficult for them to justify their position because they're stuck at this point.

Logistically, it's just a bear trap for them.

So the problem here is that in their view of soul sleep where there's no activity

of the soul, then of the human spirit, but yet there still exists.

I don't understand how that works.

How do you have non -energy, non -activity of something that still exists but is human by nature?

And you can have that of a rock.

I mean, electrons are circling the protons, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about in humans thought and will and intention and speech and

motivation and awareness of God.

And all these things cease in soul sleep.

They're just gone.

Now, they might come back when the soul awakens, but that's another problem.

It has to do with continuity.

Maybe I'll get to that.

I don't know.

So what you're telling me then is that if Jesus, when he died, his human nature were

in the soul sleep, then how is the communicatio idiomatum retained?

How is the communication of the properties of both natures of the one person retained?

This is a serious problem.

They need to answer this.

They need to answer it with great detail.

I haven't read any answers.

Maybe they do.

I stopped studying that issue about three years ago when I wrote 182 articles.

Literally 182 dealing with annihilationism on my section on karma where

I did a lot of word studies.

I really got into this, and I learned a great deal.

So I need to see the exact response to that.

I'd like to write a response to that as well.

But nevertheless, it's a major, major problem.

Let me tell you something.

One error is never by itself.

Errors always are accompanied by other errors.

It's always the case that error begets error.

Just think of a hairball.

You pull one hair.

It's attached to others.

It's next to others.

It rubs up against others.

And the whole thing is ultimately affected.

So if you say that the soul sleeps, you have that problem with the person of Christ.

Well, here's another problem.

Sometimes I'll ask, well, what does soul sleep?

Well, it's non -activity.

Then if there's non -activity, is there still existence?

That's a philosophical question.

Because if something has no activity, is it existing?

If there's nothing in it.

So a rock, for example, has activity in it.

There is transference of heat.

There's gravitational forces upon it.

There's nuclear energy being expressed in its molecules in various relationships.

And then there's half -life problems.

Not problems, but half -life issues.

The varying elements that are within it that are decaying.

Because it's just the nature of half -life stuff.

So I say there's always energy going on.

If there was no energy in the rock at all.

No electron movement.

No half -life decay.

No interaction with gravity.

Does it have any existence?

That's a question.

Because if they want to say it does have existence, how can you have existence with no attribution related to actuality?

How do you have that?

So it's a very difficult thing for them to say.

Well, it has existence, but it has no effect on anything.

It's not affected by anything.

Well, that's what God is.

So then, are you saying it's like God?

You see, it gets really problematic for them.

Well, if that's the case, that there's no activity.

Then you functionally have something that's the same as non -existence.

Now there's another problem that comes up.

If you have non -existence, then you have a continuity issue.

Let me explain.

Let's say there's a particular wooden chair.

And it's rather simple.

And it's a wooden chair.

And it's not that comfortable to sit in.

But you can carry it and put it over here and put it over there.

And I built this chair from these exact plans.

And it's very precise.

And I have exact machinery.

And I built this thing.

And I built two of them.

You can't even tell which one is better or worse.

Or if the measurements are different.

I mean, they are precisely equal.

That's how precise I get.

Now, let's go back to the first chair.

Now, before we make two.

There's just none.

Then I make one chair.

Let's look at this one chair.

So here this chair is existing.

And then what I do is I destroy that chair.

I break it apart.

And I put it in a fire.

And everything's turned into carbon and smoke.

And it's gone.

The chair doesn't exist.

Now, I build another chair exactly like that chair.

Now, here's the question.

Is the chair the same as the other chair?

In one sense, yes.

In one sense, no.

It's the same in that it's an exact copy of.

Now, here's the question.

Is the second chair the first chair?

The answer definitely is, well, no, it's not.

It's exactly like it.

But it's not the first chair.

Well, this means the continuity of the first chair stopped at its non -existence.

And so, therefore, to say the first one is also the second one.

It can't hold because there's no continuity of existence between them.

That means the second chair is made an exact image of the first.

But it's not the first.

In soul sleep, where we have the issue of non -continuity due to non -existence,

where there's no energy, no activity of the soul, spirit, or anything, no

energy being expended, then there's no difference between that and non -existence.

So this is a problem.

So it's equivalent to non -existence.

Well, then, if that's the case, how do you have continuity?

When you say the soul is now awakened, how do you know it's not recreated?

Because there's no continuity between the first and the second.

This is a philosophical, logical problem in that particular position of

annihilationism.

Though not all hold to it.

So another view is that they are conscious and activity is being expressed.

Now, this is said in order to alleviate the problem I just talked about.

I say, okay, what attributes are in an active state during the soul sleep state?

And they're stuck.

Because what are they going to say?

Well, he's thinking.

Well, how do you know that?

Show me in the Bible.

Show me in the Bible in your soul sleep idea that any activity of any sort in what's going on in the afterlife.

What is it?

They got nothing.

Because the only thing that they can say that does occur in the afterlife is not a parable of

Luke 16, 19 -32.

Luke 16, 19 -32.

It's been a long time since I've quoted that one.

Lazarus and the rich man.

They're both conscious after death and aware of each other and talking.

Now, if soul sleep is true, then why is Jesus speaking of a parable that refutes soul sleep?

In 2 Corinthians 12, 2 -4, Paul says, I know a man in the body or out of the body.

I do not know.

He's caught up in the third heaven.

He heard things, et cetera.

So that's also against the idea of soul sleep.

So where in the Bible does it say that any activity of the soul occurs?

And what is that activity from your particular version?

And they don't have any answers to that one because it doesn't exist.

Here's another thing, another problem with annihilationism.

Like I said, there's many variations of it from people who hold to this stuff.

Let's just say, for example, let's just say that there is a

person who holds to the idea that when you die, an unbeliever dies, he goes to a place

of punishment.

And then after punishment, enough punishment's been expressed upon him, then he's annihilated, and that's

his final judgment.

Well, the question is problematic.

I've got to hurry because we've got about a minute left in the show.

The problem here is that the punishment is due to his sin, right?

Yes, the sin is the breaking of the law.

So the punishment is due to what the law requirements are.

Yes, that's true.

So then you're saying he meets the requirements of the law through his punishment, right?

Yes.

If he's met the requirements of the law, why is he annihilated?

If he's done what the law requires.

Why is his punishment then stopped but then nonexistent?

If he met the law, why is he saved?

There's all kinds of logistical problems in annihilationism, and they have difficulty getting through these.

They really have to do mental logistical gymnastics to get through them.

There you go.

I'm out of time.

May the Lord bless you, and by His grace, we'll be back on the air on Monday.

I hope everybody has a great weekend.

And please continue to pray for my wife and others that you know about who are ill and suffering and having issues and things like

that.

May the Lord bless you, and I hope you have a great evening, and I hope you have a good weekend and a good day

in church on Sunday.

May the Lord bless you.

God bless you.

I'm out.

Another program powered by the Truth Network.