Matt Slick Live: September 25, 2024

The following program is recorded content created by The Truth Network.

Program Introduction and Prayer Requests

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.

All right, everyone, welcome back. Welcome to the show. Hey, I hope you're going to have a good time listening for whatever's going to happen today and ask for your mercy and grace upon us. We need your prayer.

Would you please consider lifting us up? We need that. We need your prayers. And also, some of the people who work with CARM were involved in a car accident today. They're in the ER getting checked out.

So Charlie and his wife, you can pray for them. We can appreciate that. All right. Now, if you want to give me a call, as always, the number is 877 -207 -2276. And if you want to email me, you can do that also.

Just send an email to info at CARM .org. Info at CARM .org. And I'll put the subject line, radio comment or radio question, and we can get to those later. That's what we do. So having said all that, for this nice September 25th, 2024 date, how about we get on with Mark from California.

Mark, welcome. You're on the air.

Dichotomy, Trichotomy, and the Hypostatic Union

Hi, Matt. I met you at the Strong Conference, Strong Tower Conference for Ministry to Muslims. You met me and my wife, Norma. And anyway, I was going to show you a view of my Biola professor's logic diagram of the Trinity and Christology.

And my question was, what's your view of the nature of man and Christ's humanity? When you look at the two of them, what did Christ exactly take on versus what is dichotomy or trichotomy or something of both?

Okay, you're talking about a lot of different topics. Dichotomy is that the human being is consisting of two parts, soul and body, and that where the soul and spirit are interchangeable. Trichotomy is the view that humans are three parts, body, soul, and spirit, so that soul and spirit are separate.

Both are within orthodoxy, and you'll see that the soul and spirit are used interchangeably, which is why some people go to dichotomy, where some like trichotomy because it's Trinitarian-ish and they like that, some other things.

Now as far as the human nature of Christ, he was 100 human and 100 God. In other words, each nature was completely one human, one divine. But Jesus did not have a fallen nature, where we do. We are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2 .3.

We're born into sin and under condemnation, Ephesians 2 .1. The reason he was not, the theory goes, is because sin is transferred through the federal head. Federal headship is that the male represents descendants.

So since I had a human biological father, then the sin nature is passed down from him to me. And so I'm born in that fallen state. This is why Romans 5 .19 says, through the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners.

And what that means is they were made, I think it's a passive indicative, which means that it occurred to them. All right, so Jesus did not have a biological father. So the sin nature, the theory goes, we don't know for sure, but it's a theory, was not passed down to him.

But because he's got a human mom, then he has a completely human nature. So I don't know if those things answer your question, but there you go. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. And now I send you back on the 20th, an email to the info at karm .org with a trichotomy, with the Trinity logic diagram that this professor at Biola had made. I think that might be a copyrighted thing, so I'll let you guys know that.

That's all right. One sec, though.

But you say Trinity. It's different than we're discussion of human human nature.

Yeah. But it's the reason it's it's it plays in is Christ took on humanity. So that humanity obviously wasn't the fallen humanity. And he had he still had his divine nature, right, even though he had the human nature.

Right. So. Right. And the reason I've asked this is because in recent times, the trichotomy view of man seems to be really people get angry when they don't even know there's another view and you just tell them about the two views.

You haven't told him anything. They get mad at you because you suggested that there is this other view of man that's just two. And I have an opinion that the man are born with the two views to two natures.

And the third nature's dead. No, you never got it because it died in Adam. No, no. No, you can't. We're going to get the third nature. No, no, no. You can't use those words that way.

You can't do that. You can't say a third name. He's what? Those were sure that three parts. There's three the idea of three parts a man. Okay, I'm gonna be careful when you say parts also, so Believe it or not in theology words Precision of words is important.

So what you can do is say there's a view called Trichotomy a view called dichotomy and you don't want to assign the word nature to each of them unless you know about Some philosophy dealing with ontology and properties emanations essential properties and Accidental properties and things like that so you can clarify.

I do. I do know I'm aware though. Oh, that's good. All right. So what I would say is when I talk to this people and they ask me about it I say here are the two views both are within orthodoxy and we should not Mock or condemn anybody else for a view that we don't agree with on this particular issue.

That's where I travel. Okay.

Yeah, so so in where. When it comes to the Trinity man God took their suggestion in this diagram deck what Jesus what God took on humanity and you you you you said it right, but when he took on his asthma, it was limited to the two substance of Man body and soul or body well.

We can't say we can't see you talk about the Trinity and then then you jump over to what it looks like dichotomy. So what you're talking about here is the second person of the Trinity. Becoming in union with the human Person human nature and then call it the hypostatic union.

So What does that mean. There's it can get complicated. You can just make it complicated. We don't want to say Jesus is a human person because. The person is not just human. But he is a person with two natures.

And so if we say for example, if he's just a human person then we're negating the divine. If we say he's a divine person. We're negating the human. So when we get to the issue of dichotomy and trichotomy.

And I'll separate that from the incarnation for a moment while we talk about it. And I will just relate to the doctrines and say we don't know which is accurate. Which one is the correct one and so we need to be gracious now if we apply them to the incarnation then we go trichotomy dichotomy and See how either one of those views would affect the hypostatic union.

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah, and I understand that Humanity can't be separate it comes as a package this body and the soul. And if you say trichotomy the spirit, they're all union.

You can't separate one of them out from the other. You wouldn't be that human that then. Yes, you can't. You can separate. No, I mean Let's just say the body hoping this one away and it wasn't there no more.

No, no I mean this you said you can't separate them. Yes, you can. In 2nd Corinthians 12 2 through 4 Paul says I know a man whether in the body or out of the body I do not know but such a man is covered third heaven heard and saw things etc.

So the human spirit let's just use that for shorthand was separated from the physical body and was continued on Consciously after death after this in the heaven, okay.

Okay, I agree with that. After death it's separated and and and at some point we're going to get a new body. Right, so it's going to be restored. To whatever it is. So that's that's where the tricky thing comes in with when somebody Pushes to trichotomy view.

What did Christ exactly take on as a human? He didn't take on that fallen nature that he had his own divine nature. That was.

There. Well, here's the thing. You see if we're talking trichotomy some people hold the view that the soul is in the form of spirit and. Okay, so no problem. I don't I don't know what that really means and I don't want to argue with him about things that are so ambiguous.

I just say okay. It's a view and I don't worry about it because it's within orthodoxy and that's fine.

But oh, yeah, I agree. Both views are orthodoxy, you know.

And I wouldn't really worry too much about the issue of How it relates to the hypostatic union because the Bible doesn't tell us as long as they don't get too adamant about something that might potentially lead into heresy.

Yeah I Not adamant about it all I just think that dichotomy view fits better when you look at Christ in it and And his human nature That he took on is because what fell at when when when Adam fell in the garden The number one thing that's passed on is the The dead the relationship the dead relationship with God.

Man doesn't have it When he's born the only way you get it. Yes. Yes is To have godly sorrow and repentance and knowledge. Christ is Lord and Savior. Then you get the Holy Spirit. Now you're whole again.

So so that's where I'm coming from. Is that? This idea that comes out of Aristotle's ism and Greek metaphysics of dichotomy and trichotomy trying to understand the holy scriptures. With those views that that we would get from our church fathers trying to understand that Kind of miss the point that the Bible's making that you're falling One party view.

I don't want to say I agreed at that part is part of what God did in man. Adam and Eve Died Into in the garden and we just don't have it unless we accept Christ as Savior.

You see when you say something died in the garden then you what do you mean by something. And what do you mean by died? So.

This spiritual side of man his ability. Is there is spirit is dead. Okay. He was born man was born. Spiritually, okay, if he had two parts, that's a physical body and a living soul, but. Something else happens when a believer accepts Christ he gets in dwell with the Holy Spirit and that's a third part a.

Part that may be lost. But do you see when you say a third part a part of the person now, it's part of his nature. We can't say that so I don't say that. I just say now the Spirit is indwelling us as is the Father and the Son.

They indwell us because it's a nature of God gets an inseparable operations. So that's all okay when we're born again. God lives in us. And then and we're regenerated. Okay.

Okay Okay, I just Was running now. I I don't know if you had a chance to look see how the email sent you with that logical diagram.

Let me say I can find that kind of what now. So can you hold on mark? We're gonna break and we're after the break. Okay, and I'll look for that during the break. Okay. All right. Hey folks, we right back after these messages, please.

Stay tuned. We'll be right back.

It's Matt slick live taking your calls at eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six. Here's Matt slick.

The Age of the Apostles

All right, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call the number is eight seven seven two zero seven two. Two seven six, let's get back to mark from California market there. Yes. All right, so I found the chart.

Oh, I found it. And I'm not sure what question you have about it. He talks about the end hypostatic human nature and something that I'm not fond of is three modes of subsistence equals three persons that is too close to modalism, so I don't know what he means by modes of subsistence.

So that's not I don't like the phraseology there, but nevertheless.

So go ahead. It's not modalism. They're against modalism. This professor would not agree with the model. Is some view. Good. I. I didn't have a lesson professor the one who made the chart, but yes. Modalism is considered a heresy.

Yes, it is. It's just that when someone Uses terms like three modes. That is exactly the terminology that would be used in modalism.

So, yeah, I think they talked about that. Did they talk about that in there?

Let's see because there's only one here subsistence in the Trinitarian being. Because the issue of divine simplicity where God is one thing not in three Subsistences or three modes, but depends on how they want to define the terms again.

And that's what really is is important, you know. Yes, I agree.

The reason I I was trying to figure why I was I using parts and it was loose. Louis Burkhoff. Burkhoff yes uses. Yeah, he uses that when he's describing it not the dichotomy, but the trichotomy Definition of the Trinity.

He uses parts of human nature in addition to the lower element namely the soul when they added the third element Of soul for the trichotomous view and it may use the word part in their definition.

No, they should. Parts of human nature. Oh parts. Well, if they tell in that context, that's what they're saying. But. Yeah, I'm still looking. Yeah, that's where I was.

That's where I was getting it from his. That's his. His commentary was the first commentary That I read that I became aware of the issue of tried-versus-die. So anyways, right my idea was just This idea that You know, there's.

When you when you look at when God created Adam Eve and The garden it was more than just a physical death now because of the sin. It was the spiritual death also. Yes, so some people have the view that when they go into When man dies if you die an unbeliever, it's just the two natures that's going into eternity.

Eternal punishment. And if you die a believer you wait the three natures.

You got to seek you got to be careful. You can't. Look if they're saying each one has its own nature this opens up other problems and issues and discussions. So just say the person body soul and spirit if you say each one has a nature.

I Understand what you're saying. Oh, we can call them as.

Brokaw calls them elements. Yeah, the elements is fine.

Yes. Elements or aspects or yeah, that's why he does that with the dichotomy view.

He does that with the dichotomy, but he doesn't. He never even mentions nature. He doesn't mention nature who he gets to explain that our crop that trichotomous view, but he does explain that. He uses the word element in both, but you don't hit that.

So that's where I'm getting so I just like to leave the parts part and let's talk element.

Okay. So what's your question then? What's your well? Did Christ take on?

When he took on humanity did he take did he take on. If you look at man with one of those few which which Fits better with what Christ is doing when he takes on the human nature. That's my question. Which which one of the views would fit better with what Christ is doing when he takes on a human nature?

What is right?

Do you mean dichotomy dichotomy? I I don't get it that I don't say which one is better because then you have to Take a view of which one is the proper one. You have to make a stand there could be ramifications theorized out of each position.

So if Jesus is human and he has a human nature what constitutes the human nature because the human nature is not necessitated by Physicality there's something else of that because Jesus was separated from the body When hit during the three days of his death and he was still human in his nature.

So the hypostatic union is not violated. So right there we have the aspect of all we're left over with is it spirit or spirit and soul. Then we have to get into the issue of well if spirit and soul are interchangeable in person of Christ There's less potential problems for explanations and contradictions than soul and spirit.

But not that that doesn't mean they aren't it isn't true. So at this point what we're doing what we would do is just say if this means that then We could look at problems or issues related to it. This is the kind of thing I've found I have found over the years that people get uppity about and then cause division in the body of Christ over.

When they get into these kinds of things This has to be the right one, and I don't believe that that should be the case. I think we should be because the Bible doesn't tell us so we should not be too adamant about it.

That's my position on things like that.

Yes, I try not to do that. I try to just explain what I've learned from my My apologetic classes, and I saw I tried to just explain and not take. Especially when I know that both are orthodoxy. This explains a view and I don't and I try not to let people know know my view.

But people when you explain something they never heard before they do Get what you could uppity About it, and and I just don't know what to do with them, but um other than just Romans 14.

Romans 14 1 through 12, and you tell them that you are not to pass judgment on your brothers on debatable issues. And you ask them are you doing that? That's what you do. Hold their feet to the fire in the Word of God.

Okay. That's what you do. All right. Yes.

Anyway, I don't know if you remember me and my wife Norma. But we would met you at the strong tower there and the men receive the Muslims and um.

Did you enjoy that conference? I know last week I?

Was at that conference. I took a picture with you.

Yeah, I think my wife took a picture of us. Yes. Yes, so did you enjoy the conference though? It was pretty good. I thought oh, yes.

Yes, I did. Especially uh I like like all of them. I like Chase Smith's information. Mm-hmm I heard him about a year ago, so that was like real new information to me right there.

About the myth of.

The whole myth that surrounds Islam in their cities their key figures their. Yeah, that's pretty good information, and then just uh. The boldness of the people who came out of Islam and in their journey in their testimony.

I really enjoyed that. And it's how to be you know the ideas of Not keeping your mouth shut with your with your Islam friend. You know. Hey man. Hey, there's a little about gotta go gospel.

Yeah, it was great. Okay. It's I really like it. Okay. Well. God bless, but buddy God bless. Thank you. We appreciate it. How about bye-bye? Bye? Hey folks right after these messages. We'll return. It's going to give me a call.

Eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six.

It's Matt Slick live taking your calls at eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six. Here's Matt Slick.

The Ages of the Disciples

A lot of one welcome back to the show if you want to give me a call all you have to do is dial eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven. Sisters the gym from Minnesota. Jim welcome. You're on the air.

Yeah, hi. Thanks for having me. Quick question in regard to the ages of the disciples when they were following Jesus. You I guess what are your thoughts on there? How old they were when they were following him, and then what do we have to support that?

Your opinion.

Well Matthew was a tax collector, and so he would have to have some Something okay well first of all the Bible doesn't tell us how old they were so we have to just draw conclusions by inference. Matthew's a tax collector who probably knew multiple languages Mathematics and was able to write this generally is not Something a young man would be capable of doing and most people would not trust such important things as money distribution collecting Record-keeping to someone who was young and so he probably was a mature age.

It is Lisa's 30s or 40s possibly in his 50s. But John we know lived into his 90s from Tradition and he died in the 90s, so we would say that John was. It's one theory he died in the 90s so John was probably in his 20s at the time of Christ.

Now James is a brother of Jesus, and we have our end was Excuse me Jude. What's brother of Jesus? He was a disciple. But on the outside kind of disciple, and he would have been a little younger than Jesus because Jesus was the firstborn Peter.

You don't know much about Peter, but he was married so Generally speaking he would be at least 20. And probably into the range of 30 by time Jesus came around and it was kind of the the custom of young men.

To follow a rabbi to follow a teacher be discipled. It wasn't generally understood to be done of guys in their 30s and 40s usually they were in their late teens early 20s. So the implications we have from all of this is that they were probably in their 20s maybe a couple of them were in their 30s and Matthew might have been 30s or even in his 40s and those are the implications okay?

Where do people go that are. How do people. Why do people say that they were like in their early teens? I've heard it said a few times now by Few different people that they think that they were you know 15 you know.

Is there anything with that would support that?

Well again, it's just implication. Generally, they were young when they follow someone and also 15 year old now compared to 15 year old then different because they were involved back then in Being responsible being out the fields working carrying on business of the father's house.

They Were exposed to a lot of things a lot quicker instead of having their heads bit buried in phones and watching a stupid Reruns of the Kardashians. These are people who had responsibility and they matured very quickly and were quite responsible.

So I could see. Some might say that they were in their teens late teens. I could see that but if they say that's what it was you can't see and you can't see this what it was. But you could say you it might be possible, and that's fair to this states fair, and that's about it.

So I lean towards they were in their 20s to 30s early 20s or 30s. But if someone says hey here's some evidence that shows it might have been their teens. I'd go okay. It's not too big a deal.

Do you have anything on karma. That talks about the ages of the disciples and kind of that stuff or no. No not yet.

But because you raise the raise the question I'm actually starting an article. And I'll try and get it out to there tomorrow.

Yeah, no perfect, I guess. I have one more question if you've got time. It's about. It's about abortion and the the story The law of concerning jealousy from numbers 5 11 to 31. Is that a story where it's talking about.

Where abortion would be permissible when you have an unfaithful wife or what?

No, abortion is not. No, no, it's not permissible to have an unfaithful wife. You can't kill the child because of her sin.

Okay, so that numbers 5 through 11 talks about an unfaithful wife and her drinking something to make her miscarry. So I'm just kind of wondering why God is telling Moses about that and I guess I don't know.

I Read it a couple times just because it got popped up. Oh, sorry.

If this is something what they did was or get a member that the Jews were under a theocratic system where God was the one ruling through the prophets at the time and God was very very involved with the work of the people and the righteousness of the people.

So in the Old Testament you find a phrase say to the sons of Israel. And so that means is as God is speaking to the people of Israel's very specifically not to others. So it would make sense to say that those people who were under that covenant obligation Would also be under the judgment of God should they break those covenant requirements?

And so one of the manifestations of that would be to give a test to see from God Whether or not the adultery had occurred and so God is the one who has the right to remove a life Not us unless it's under judicial Requirement of capital punishment things like that.

That's another topic. So he has the right to do that. So if this Thing is drunk and we know these don't cause abortions but if this stuff is drunk and then something happens then we know they would know it was from God and his doing and that was what was going on because they did not want to have God did not want to have a Let's just say a descendancy Arising within the nation of Israel that was so to speak illegitimate.

Because the nation had to be pure in its genealogy in its descendancy for the arrival of the Messiah and so it looks like one of the reasons this judgment was given by God was This adultery test was for that for keeping it keeping things safe and secure.

All right, man, well god bless. All right, next longest waiting is Bella from Utah. Bella welcome you're on the air.

The House of Israel and Christian Support for Israel

Thanks for their map. I have a question for you. My question is I and I guess it two questions, but why is it that Christians generally speaking? Really on the concept of Israel have really got behind The land of Israel rather than standing behind the fact that we're of the house of Israel and The house of Israel as part of God's children.

I just I just see a growing divide, you know. We've got and if someone does come forth as a Christian and saying Why are we standing behind the government of Israel? Oh, she's not Christian. Okay. She's a Catholic.

Okay, didn't know.

Yeah, she went to Catholicism and I wish I could talk to her because she's too smart to be a Catholic. So.

Right. I agree. I agree. I agree. Okay, so so somehow some people are coming forward and they're saying okay. Why are we giving this made of bitumen not you who bitumen not to Yahoo and trying to endorse the land of Israel?

And I and I myself was confused for years as a child. Like why are we and people say well, we're we're a Judeo-christian. What does that even mean this. Oh America's found a Judeo-christian. I'm like wait a second.

So I find a lot of confusion. I guess I you know, I read through it it says the house of Israel. I just don't hear Christians saying it. Maybe I'm confused. You know, where's that line? You know, there's it says assuming a new Jerusalem.

And we're we supposed to get behind that or I don't know. My question is. My question is I guess I don't understand what scriptures validate Christians gave behind the idea of Supporting Israel as in You brother than staying in a group.

So you could you repeat that because you you we've lost you for a couple three seconds. Go ahead. Try it again.

That's fine. I'm just saying I don't understand why. It's my own growing up as a Christian. Why was it that so many people were telling me I don't understand what scriptural References everybody says we've got to support is we've got to support Israel being the land of Israel.

We've got to support it and and it's we've got to get it ready for Christ coming and we've got. I just don't understand the Scriptural reference why that happened and why people I? Understand why. Where's the scriptures?

I'm sorry. I don't understand.

Because it's such a varied thing of so many things you're throwing in. I don't. I can't follow. Oh, yeah. So, oh, yeah, that's how many you had if. If you had to just say it in one simple sentence, what would you say?

What would you ask? Why?

Where's what scripture? is. That people are believing. To believe we have to endorse Israel the land. Oh, why are they saying that?

Well, it's not the land. It's the people. The people are all over and they are in the land now. So we don't have to support the land because of Israel people left and the and the Muslims went in there.

We don't support the land. We support the people they have.

Okay, hey hold on. Because we got a break all right, so why. Oh you're that's on me.

We're gonna break. So hold on. Okay, we've right back. All right. Hey folks. You read that capture these messages looking back to Bella from Utah and please stay tuned.

It's Matt slick live taking your calls at eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six. Here's Matt slick.

Welcome back to the show. Just want to give you a reminder that we stay on the air by your support. Please consider supporting us. All you have to do is go to Karm .org forward slash donate and everything you need is right there.

Let's get back to Bella from Utah. Oh, yeah.

Okay, so where were we. Well, I think I simplified my my question Is that all right, yeah, I guess I'm asking yeah, I guess I'm asking is so. So here's what I hear. I hear a lot of people say oh my gosh You're anti-semitic or anti-semitic, but a Christian doesn't isn't able to say well if you're Jewish, you're basically anti-christian.

You can't people get upset with that right? Well, you're right. So what is the role of a Christian with the Jews? Why are why are Christians taught to endorse Jews? Support Jews read Jewish history learn about the Jews.

Jews don't learn about Christian history or stuff like that so I just I'm so confused if he'll do the law hypocrisy there because You know, I mean, it's like oh you're you're anti-jewish. But well all Jews, you know.

We've got it. We've got a lot of people in Congress in America who are Jewish and they vote anti-christian beliefs a lot of Jewish people in New York they vote anti-christian beliefs. I'm not against Jewish people.

I have I know people who are Jewish, but it just seems like the collective body Has continued to say we've got to support the Jews we're Judeo-christian and I just I Don't know what your beliefs are on that or what's the truth on that or what the scriptures are on that like that doesn't make.

Any sense? We're not like we've got to be pro-muslim. We've got to be pro-indu and.

Want to simplify the question? Oh, no. Because. Which is. Yeah, the role of Christians or the Jews is to pray for them and to seek Benefit and to support them because the Bible says he who blesses Israel. God will bless.

If you curse Israel you're in trouble. Okay?

Right, but I thought that was the house of Israel not the Israeli Jews. Does that make sense? But that you're saying Israel is literally the Jewish people the Jewish religion.

The house of Israel means the biological set of the Israelis who are descended out of. Let's see. Who is that Rebecca? Let me see. It's been a while. I'm gonna go on this a while back and Where was it.

I can find it so I wrote it on yeah house of Israel, that's right and Let me get to my article. I wrote it back in August. So Rachel and Leah built the house of Israel Ruth 411. It's a biologically related group of people and they can be dispersed or they can be localized.

Okay, right.

There you go. So but Israel would be then all of the house of Israel like so if the Jews curse, you know Christians or whatever like that's still the house of Israel. Right, like Israel is more than just the Jesus.

Okay. Okay. I really pretend I just don't know why that's not mainstream that people understand that that is the house of Israel. Those who Chris Israel don't curse is all the house of Israel not just the Jews.

So I don't understand why no the Jews Judah one of the offspring. Okay, and so this is one of the house of Israel. Yeah. Yeah.

So the house of Israel is the biological of Jews. Okay out of Ruth and Genesis. House of Israel.

Okay, it's just a biological the house of Israel. Yes, it's biological.

Ruth 411. For all the people who are in the court and the elders said we are witnesses made the Lord. Make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah both of whom built the house of Israel So it comes out of these women.