Matt Slick Q&A - 8/2/2017

All right, we're live. Hey, settle down back there. Man, you guys, simmer down.

You guys are, you know, being obstreperous. I can do that for you if you want.

Be obstreperous? All right, so, if you guys have any comments or questions, you can do it online, you can do it here, all right?

Okay, make it good. What is the

Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is that, like, their inspired teaching? No. The only thing that's inspired is the

Bible, and they will say that. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC, Catechism of the

Catholic Church, the CCC, it is an official document produced by the

Roman Catholic Church, based out of Rome, in which its theology is codified and done by paragraph numbers.

And it has the neologstat and the imprimatur, which means it is official, nothing in it contradicts

Roman Catholic theology, and it is the, it's worth being disseminated and taught from it.

And they, you can go online, and you can find a CCC, and you can just search it.

I have one on my browser toolbar, and whenever I do Roman Catholicism research in the

Catechism, I click it, type in some words, and it's awesome, boom, there it is, and I just use it all the time when

I do Catholicism work. So that's what that is. Also, the Baltimore Catechism is worth getting as well.

The Baltimore Catechism, the one that I have, has in it how many years you get off from purgatory, based on various indulgences that you go through, which

I think is useful because I want to know, how many years am I going to be in purgatory, like 500 ,000? I want some reduced time.

It's a long time, purgatory. 20 minutes is too long.

So, I'm sorry, I have a follow -up question. Do Catholics that we see day -in and day -out, will they understand the

Catechism of the Catholic Church? Well, there's some things they could understand, and some things they can't understand.

Just like a regular systematic theology, some Christians can understand certain things, and some cannot. So it's a wide variety of topics, but it's pretty well done in that it's not highfalutin.

Some areas, you know, you go, okay, what's he saying? But it's well done. There are no dummies.

They're lost, but there are no dummies. It's pretty well organized, too. It's well organized, yeah.

It's very valuable for research against Catholicism, seriously. All right, next.

Class. Nobody else? Anyone? She's in Chong. All right.

What do you got? So, if someone says they have the gift of prophecy, how do we, let me rephrase that, how do we know if someone has the gift of prophecy in today's day and age?

All right, that's going to, what's going to happen tomorrow? A gift of prophecy, the

Bible sense has different interpretations of what it means. One is to expound on scripture.

One is also to prophesy the future. So the gift of prophecy, does it mean it's a permanent gift?

Or does it mean that God uses that person occasionally to do prophetic things? And so the way we would test is if it comes to pass or not.

And that's just, it's just that simple. So I've exercised the gift once very, very strongly.

But just once, does it mean I have the gift? I wouldn't say so. So if someone misses one prophecy once, does that mean they don't actually have the gift?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that because I do believe that Christians can have giftings in certain areas and then mess up in them.

It doesn't mean they're not gifted in that area. So I'm gifted, I would say, in teaching. But I can certainly mess up teaching.

And it doesn't mean I don't have that gift. So logically speaking, you know, I would say that just because they mess up doesn't mean they don't have it.

But with prophecy, it's a little bit different because you got to be careful about it. Because you start saying something that doesn't come to pass, get the stones out, you know, or don't listen to them, kind of a thing.

All right. Hey, finally.

So I've noticed more and more that there are quite a few Calvinists who still hold to an

Armenian ordo salutis. So I was wondering if you could run through the order of salvation and logical priority.

You're generally talking about what comes down to which comes first, faith or generation.

Now the order of salutis is longer in decrees, ordination, predestination. But it comes down ultimately, you see in the

Armenian sense, we can talk about the issue of what proceeds comes first, regeneration or faith.

And so there's temporal priority and logical priority. So let's all explain those.

So temporal and logical priority.

So temporal priority is I take this chalk, I let go, I catch it with my left hand.

It took a quarter of a second to fall or half a second, whatever it is. And so we have in temporal priority, we have an event.

Then we have time and then we have the result. So this right here, this time can vary.

That's called temporal priority. Logical priority is something different.

And what I use to illustrate logical priority is a light bulb. I'm a bad light bulb drawer.

So don't mock me about my light bulb. It's a mutant alien light bulb. They use them on spaceships.

I've been there. What's that? Orchid. So here's this light bulb.

All right. And we have a little filament. Okay. So when electricity enters the light bulb, light is instantaneously there.

Now, technically, that's not correct. Takes a few milliseconds or whatever it is, you know, super whatever.

But okay. Technically, no, really, it takes like 2 .85 milliseconds divided by the angel.

But shut up. We're talking about here is that the illustration that whenever electricity is present, light is also present.

Okay. So when electricity is present, light is present. However, electricity is the cause of light.

Light is not the cause of electricity. They happen at the same time. So we would say electricity is logically prior to the light because it must be in place in order for the light to occur.

It's not the case that light must be in place in order for the electricity to occur. So we would say in logical priority that electricity is first and then light is second.

But they happen simultaneously. So this is what we say by logical priority. In the case of salvation, we have regeneration and faith.

We would say it's logical priority effect is like this. Whenever regeneration is present, faith is also present.

But regeneration is logically prior to faith. It is the cause of faith. But faith is not the cause of regeneration.

This is why regeneration is the work of God. First Peter 1 .3. Faith is what we do.

But Philippians 1 .29 has been granted that you believe.

And our believing is the work of God. John 6 .28 .29. But regeneration absolutely is only

God. It's God alone. But here, let's just say

God and man for now. Because we believe.

We do the believing. But we don't do the regenerating. So faith is the result of God's regenerative work in us.

And he grants that we believe. But it's work with us as well. So anyway, regeneration precedes faith.

If regeneration precedes faith, temporally, as Arminians teach, that's a problem.

Because let's just say, just for the point of illustration, that there's a difference of five seconds between here and here in the sense of temporal priority.

That would mean we'd have a regenerate person for five seconds who wasn't a believer. That doesn't work.

But they'll say, no, you've got to believe before you become regenerate. Okay, then you're a believer for five seconds before you become regenerate.

So you have a believer who's not regenerate for a period of time. That doesn't make sense either. So the

Arminian position, in my opinion, is not one that's very well thought out.

And so that's what regeneration and faith or to salute is basically in that area.

We can talk about, I could teach some more depth if you want. Would you place repentance, if you have regeneration of faith there, would you put repentance between or after faith?

Because, you know, you believe, oh, wow, Jesus. Oh, wow, well, that's right.

And oh, oh, wait a minute. I'm not supposed to go out and lie anymore. Oh, so now repentance comes in place.

Yeah, in my mind, I was thinking, well, why would you have, why would you repent if you didn't have faith?

Because why would I ask for forgiveness and turn for my sin if I don't believe? Cool, but they don't believe they're not

God. I'm talking about the one true God. There's not a lot of causation in the facts.

And some other stuff, but yeah. But yeah, this is the Christian perspective. This is the reform perspective.

And the temporal one is the Arminian perspective. The Arminian one doesn't work. Because how do you,

I'm not going to do that. That's right. And you're right about him. What you were saying about him, it was pretty obvious.

I know, right? It was. This is my wife has the same thing. She's got a whole list of stuff like that.

Okay, got more? Some discussion we just talked about.

If in Mormonism, they teach that Elohim used to be a sinner who became a

God. They don't know if he actually was a sinner. But I mean,

I say, were you a sinner? Yes. Okay.

So I guess by that logic, then if he were a sinner who then became a God, then what sin did he commit?

Could have been a rapist. Could have been a child molester. Could have been an extortionist. Generic sinner.

You give it a nice guy. Which makes him an alien.

Earned his salvation by being good enough. Would you mean that you would have to have some kind of sin around him?

Man, can you imagine? I mean, seriously, you know, what gets me is sometimes we talk with our minions a little bit.

Let me just remind you that I'll talk to some people, almost like debate

Jesse Morello is pretty soon. Well, none of this specifically, but the idea of a

Pelagianism and Semi -Pelagianism in the church. Pelagianism is the teaching that when

Adam and Eve fell, the descendants did not inherit a sinful nature. Semi -Pelagianism is that when

Adam and Eve sinned, that their descendants did inherit a sinful nature. But not that bad.

Calvinism says the sinful nature is totally depraved. You can't do anything. Now, technically, Arminianism says the same thing.

Official Arminianism teaches the same thing as reformed view of total depravity. The difference in the upper levels of Arminianism basically comes with the issue of prevenient grace, which is kindergarten theology, in my opinion.

I've said that to people who got mad at me, but that's what I believe. But nevertheless, so with Arminianism, you have the issue of believing as the necessary causation of your salvation, that they just need the right information.

And because we have Bob and we have Frank, and so Bob believes and Frank does not believe.

Why? With Arminianism, because free will. Bob just chose to believe.

But why did he choose to believe when Frank did not? Because that's a free will. Why is this guy's free will different than that guy's free will?

That the same information, the same thought, one choice. Because that's how it works, man. That's free will. It can't answer.

Calvinism would say he believed because God granted it. He believed. Philippians 1 .29. Works faith in him. John 6 .28 .29.

Was appointed to a life. That's why he believed. Acts 13 .48. Was constantly born again. 1

Peter 1 .3. Born again not of his own will. John 1 .13. We have the answer. What they have to do is then say, no, it is of their free will.

They have this thing called prevenient grace. Okay. Prevenient grace.

Grace that comes before. So Bob and Frank and prevenient grace gets bestowed upon both of them.

Bob believes. Frank does not. Why? Because that's what happens with prevenient grace. Then a circle. We come right back in the same circle.

Why does one believe with prevenient grace and the other one does not? Because it's a free will, man. Prevenient grace doesn't answer the question.

But basically what they're saying is the same thing as Mormonism and the same thing as Catholicism. That the inherent ability of belief resides in a person in his sin.

He's perfectly capable of simply believing on his own. All he needs is the right information. Then we get into Mormonism and compatibilism and libertarianism.

And my view, libertarianism is the rejection of compatibilism.

That's how I'm going to start referring to it. Libertarianism is non -compatibilism.

Better topic, better time. Next. Okay. Now I'm looking on the

YouTube. So if I can see some questions, I can do some of those. Man, look at that guy. He's... Boy, it's... I want to see this guy you're talking about now.

Me? I'm seeing myself on the camera. Which is good for them.

There's an example of total gravity. I like that.

Total gravity moment of the week. Okay, what do you got? So Wayne Grudem has come under attack in the last few months.

Because of his views on economic versus ontological trinity. Well, I don't really necessarily care what your take is on the controversy.

But could you walk us through ontological trinity versus economic trinity? So here we have ontological and economic.

Okay, so ontological comes in the Greek ontos meaning nature or essence. And this is economia.

No, economia? Econ... Oeconomia. Oeconomia, I think it is. And we get economy.

So what this is, is the nature or essence.

And this is relationship. So we have an economy, which is a relationship of people economically.

People sell, people buy, people transport, people whatever. So the ontological trinity is that in the trinity, the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all divine. In the economic trinity, the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have different functions. They're different.

Different functions. So the Father sent the Son, but the Son did not send the Father. The Holy Spirit is sent by both the

Father and the Son. Only the Son became incarnate, not the Father or not the Son. So they have a difference in being sent.

So he's the eternal Son, because he's in relationship with the Father, because of the eternal covenant spoken of in Hebrews 1320, where the inter -trinitarian communion covenanted to redeem us.

And then John 6, the one's given to him, the all. And this is just simply saying that the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same in essence and nature. But they're different in function, in relationship to each other.

That's all that's going on. So I don't know what the controversy is going on with Grudem. He pretty much agrees with everything you said.

He should? Yeah. His is one of the source books

I went to learn this stuff. There's other books that I don't go to one. I go to several to see what the consensus is.

Check it with Scripture. In advanced theology like this, I'll do that. Can you give us like an Apple version?

Kind of. But actually, this is actually biblical theology. This is true. This is good stuff.

It seems like one is about the nature of the Trinity. This is called the Economic Trinity, the Ontological Trinity.

The Ontological Trinity is true. The Economic Trinity is true. It's just how we view God in different ways.

Ontological is the essence of being. Right. All the members of the Godhead are divine, but they have different functions.

We call this ontological. We call it economic. That's all. Some controversies. In the divine essence, all attributes of the divine essence are in the person of Christ.

All of them. Because his divine nature cannot be destroyed or disrupted.

So all ontological attributes by divine quality are possessed by the person of Christ.

So the Hypostatic Union is a teaching that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures. Right. You've heard me talk about this before.

And the Communicatio Indiumatum is that the communication of the properties of both natures in the person of Christ.

So Jesus is both divine and human. Divine has attributes. The human has attributes.

And the one person claimed both of those sets of attributes. I am hungry. I'm thirsty.

I'll be with you always, even the end of the earth. So the communication of the properties goes to the one person.

Since God is divine and Jesus, the word is divine, fully God. All of the divine attributes are possessed by the

Son. Otherwise you have heresy. Now, follow up question.

Omnipresence with Christ. Now, was he omnipresent on earth?

Because he's within flesh. And then when he's in his resurrected body, is he omnipresent?

The firm, I don't know. Because the Bible doesn't say us.

Say us? Say so. However, Luke just said all of the divine attributes have to be included with the human.

But if Luke 2 .5 -8, have this attitude in yourselves, which also was in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God, he came to be robbed of grasp.

But he emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant, being made the likeness of man. He humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a cross.

That's more of a paraphrase. But he emptied himself. The empty is what we call the kenosis.

Did you read kenosis? Empty. I don't know the exact word. So there's a heresy called the kenotic theory, that he lessened himself.

So we have God minus something, and that became the kenosis theory.

But kenosis just means empty. What the true doctrine is, is the hypostatic union, where it's

God plus something. So God minus, God plus.

So minus some of the attributes to become a man, plus some attributes to become what he was in the person, plus the human attributes.

So the divine attributes are consistent and identical. But here, the kenosis, somehow there's a lessening.

But in the hypostatic union, there's an addition. The correct view is the hypostatic union, in this context.

So was Jesus omnipresent? Well, if we would say that omnipresence is a necessary attribute of his divinity, then yes, we have to say he was omnipresent.

Because the attributes of divinity are ascribed to the person, and his person would then have omnipresence.

Now we can see some of that attributed to him when he says, and he knew their thoughts. Wait a minute, how does he know his thoughts, which is divine to some extent, are being manifested?

Well, that would be omniscience one day. Omniscience, yeah. Well, omniscience kind of implies omnipresence, because of the ubiquity of his existence in all places to know all things.

So this gets complicated, and people just talk about this. What do you do? So I would say that, yes, he had that ability.

But what I like to say is this phrase, which I really can't define too well, but I like to say he cooperated with the limitations of being a man.

If someone were saying, what does that mean? I'm not exactly sure. Well, he did his miracles by the

Holy Spirit, wouldn't he also be getting his knowledge at least in the state that he was in by the

Holy Spirit? That would be logical, because he was baptized and entered into the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek to fulfill

Old Testament law. He did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is why he said in Matthew 12, 22 -32, blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, saying that he was doing his miracles by the power of the evil one. That's the case. That would make sense for that.

But as we're looking at the communicatio idiomato, then the issue of his attributes still must necessitate that he has those.

However, in Philippians 2, 5 -8, this kenosis idea, the generic term, we don't know to what extent that was when he's made under the law,

Galatians 4 .4, made Lord of the angels, Hebrews 2 .9. We don't know what that means, and we could actually write on a piece of paper, here's four options that that could mean.

Then here's how that option might relate to this question. That option might relate to that other question.

And it gets complicated because you can ask 16, 17 interrelated questions about it. And so the thing is,

I don't know. Your question is very valid. Your observation is very valid.

But we don't know exactly what went on, and he doesn't tell us. So I just say to people,

I don't know. He hasn't told us. Here's a theory. Here's a theory. We're going to make sure we don't go too far and become heretics, like the

Mormons, Roman Catholics, some Baptists, and maybe a couple later. That's a joke. No, they get it from the

Mormon Church. Matthew 28 is a Trinitarian baptism formula. Matthew 28, 18 -20, baptizing in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now, they baptize that way, but their understanding is not true, because they think it's baptismal regeneration and an ordinance part of the gospel that you have to go through and all this stuff.

So they get it wrong, but they use that verse among other verses. Because he was in Acts, or was that?

No, Galatians 2. 1048? I know who this guy is.

Ask him. Is he trying to say that water baptism is no longer necessary? Okay, is this the guy baptized in Jesus?

Yeah. Bye -bye. I hung up on him today. Because, yeah, I hung up on him today at the office.

Acts 10, 44 -48, Peter orders people to be water baptized. This guy is saying that water baptism is heresy.

I worked with this guy. I gave him time, and he just refuses. He says, no, Peter was in sin.

Peter was wrong. Okay, you know, he's dumb. He only knows so much. I said, bye -bye.

Oh, and he said, he accused me of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. He goes, you're about to commit blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit because of your view. I went, we're done. He's two users. What? On your radio show, he goes by Patrick.

And on your Bible study, he goes by baptized by Jesus. So he's two separate users. Yeah, he needs to be banned.

Okay. Because he's just, I've worked with the guy. He's going to get in, and he's going to continue to do this.

He has an agenda. It's not about Jesus. It's about this doctrine thing of water baptism not being for today.

But I showed him today. I said the didache. Not that the didache is scripture because it's not.

But the didache was written by the people at the time of the apostles. Some say maybe an apostle was involved with it or people with the apostles.

It was written before the year 80, a lot of people say. It was right there. And in it, it describes church practices and says water baptism is practiced.

Not that that proves it, but it's pretty good evidence. This is what was done in the early church.

This is how they did it with instructions. So he's obsessed with being baptized by the

Holy Spirit. I've heard him on the radio show many times before, just going on about baptism of the

Holy Spirit. So he doesn't have all his paws in the litter box. All right, last one from Facebook asks, what would you say to a

Catholic that says sola scriptura is a church tradition? Oh, that's not bad.

I like that. That's a good twist. Sola scriptura is a church tradition. Yeah, I like that.

That's good. That's pretty clever. Yeah, because the Catholics say that tradition is gone.

We say, no, you don't have to go with tradition. But that's not what we say. We say we go with tradition as long as it agrees with Scripture.

So if sola scriptura is traditional, the question is, does it agree with Scripture? Does sola scriptura agree with Scripture?

1 Corinthians 4, 6 says, you're not to extinguish written. That seems to suggest sola scriptura.

I like that, though. That's pretty clever. Sola scriptura is church tradition. I kind of like that.

And I can say, if you like tradition, what are you complaining about? Previous stuff on Mormonism and the priesthood.

Do Mormons say that the way that they have their priesthood and the ceremonies in the temple, do they say that it's the same as the

Jews did then? Even though we know, based on what the Jews say, it's completely different.

It's the same temple ceremony that was in the true temple. That's what they say.

I had an argument with my cousin about that. Just last weekend, I just argued with my cousin about that. I said, there's no marrying happening.

It was ridiculous. Let alone there's only one. Now, in Matthew 27, 51,

I'm going to show you guys. Let me explain something. If you're a Mormon, you need to pay attention to this.

Let me show you guys something. All right. Now, so what we have is this thing called a tabernacle.

In the wilderness, for example, the tabernacle in the wilderness, it had a cube roughly here.

I'm not very good at drawing. Drawer. I used to be an orthographic projector. Drawer. What we have here. Drawer.

I have my tools. I've been an iotumo drawer. So we look down in the...

You drop your drawer. That's right. And so here was the entrance. And here, looking straight down, we had the holy place and the holy of holies.

Actually, let's move over here a little bit more. And it had to pass by several things to get to this place. So what

I'm talking about here, this is the veil. And the high priest would walk in.

He'd go in. Do a ceremony and stuff and walk around the edge and come in. And right in there, in this holy of holies, was the

Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was the container with the

Ten Commandments, with the jar of manna and Aaron's rod.

And so on top of this Ark of the Covenant was the mercy seat, which is where the angels came together and touched the wings.

So this veil right here, this veil, that's what we're going to look at.

He'd go in and he'd go... I messed up my drawing. He'd go in and he would do his thing.

That veil right there, this veil that separated the holy of plays from the holy of holies, that veil in Matthew 27, 51.

Look what it says. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

Why did that happen? Because Jesus said in verse 46, My God, my

God, why have you forsaken me? And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, this man is calling for Elijah.

Immediately, one of them ran and took a sponge. He filled it with sour wine and put it on the reed and gave him the drink.

But the rest of them said, let us see whether Elijah will come down to save him. And Jesus cried out with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two. So at the death of Christ, this veil was torn in two.

Who did it? God did it from top to bottom. Why? Because, because in the holy of holies, this place here, the

Ark of the Covenant was here. And this is the veil right here. And this is the holy place.

Okay, the holy place. And this is the holy of holies. The priests only go here once a year.

This veil symbolizes separation from God's presence to man.

He had to go through with blood to sprinkle on the top of that mercy seat.

He would take blood and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and then leave.

Because that mercy seat was the place of the offering of the blood sacrifice.

This is the temple. When the blood sacrifice was offered by Jesus, this is no longer necessary.

So it was destroyed by God. What did the Mormons do? They put it back.

They put the veil back into the temple. Why? Because they still have a separation between God and them.

Why? Because they're still under the law. When you're under the law, that's the requirement.

You need a priesthood. You need atonement. You need a veil. They have a veil.

They say, can't do the veil. It's a mockery and a corruption of the true issue of what happened in the tabernacle of the wilderness.

So I asked Mormons, why do you put back what God destroyed? Now, they'll do that because they're still under the law.

Now, federal headship is a teaching that the male represents the descendants and we who are in Christ, 1

Corinthians 15, 22, in Adam, all die in Christ. All shall be made alive. Now, in Galatians 1, excuse me,

Romans 7, 1 through 4, it talks about those who have died are freed from the law.

Now, Romans 6, 8, we died with Christ. Colossians 3, 3 or 4, we died with Christ.

So if we died with Christ and Romans 7, 4 says the one who's died is free from the law, we died with Christ, then we're free from the law.

We don't need a veil. We don't need a temple. We're, it's done. What there's, what the

Mormons are actually saying is they are still dead in their sins. They've not died with Christ.

They're still under the law. They've not crucified, been crucified with Christ, Romans 6, 6. They're still under that law.

That's why they got to do this stuff. And the Bible says, cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the law to perform them.

And I believe that's Galatians 3, 10, which Paul is quoting from Deuteronomy 27, 26. That's a standard of perfection.

And in James 2, 10, you're obligated to keep all that law. And he who stumbles on one point is guilty of all.

And even in D &C 82, 7, Doctrine and Covenants 82, 7. If you sin again, those former sins that you've been forgiven have all returned upon you.

They are still under the law. And the Bible says, by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified,

Romans 3, 28. So the Roman Catholic church,

I mean, excuse me, see, they're so similar. The Mormon church is still under the law.

They don't have a true God. They don't have a true Christ. They don't have a true gospel. They don't have true salvation. They're still under the law, which is why they are under the bondage of the

Old Testament covenant system with their priesthood, with their authority. And even though they don't have a blood sacrifice going on in the atonement, in the temple, which is what it was for, they still have the veil put back that God got rid of.

And what do they appeal to for the truth of all of this? But I have a testimony. And you know what?

I feel it. And God knows my heart. He knows my sincerity. He knows how good

I am. I asked with honesty and integrity. And James 1, 5 says, and if you lack wisdom, wear the mask of God.

I was sincere, so God gave it to me. That's why I know that I'm okay because of how good

I am to begin with, because I was sincere. That's the foolishness of Mormonism.

And they believe they're the Pharisees and the rest of us are the Gentiles. And they agree with the Pharisees in that they don't believe

Jesus is the I am. I might have unpacked that one. They believe he is and is not in some area.

I think you know what you mean. But I'm trying to reach out to the Mormons. I want them to understand. You're back under the law.

Mormons need to read Romans 3, 4, and 5 and know the Bible has not been corrupted. That's just the work of the devil trying to get you to not believe the word of God.

So you believe that liar, Joseph Smith, who said he saw God the Father. When the

Bible says no man can see God the Father, 1 Timothy 6, 16, John 6, 46. You can't see

God the Father. No, but he did. He's such a liar. And he boasted in all his affidavits and all his affidavits is all the devil, all corruption, all hell boil over.

You're burning the mountains roll down in lava for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast than ever any man had.

I've done more to keep a church together since the days of Adam. Neither John, Paul, Peter, nor Jesus has ever done such a work as I.

Give me a break. Gosh, gosh.

How can people believe this stuff? I get the answer from you.

Was there only one high priest at a time? Was there? Okay. There was only one high priest at a time, but an axe.

No, John, there were two high priests. One political, one ceremonial. See ya! And that wasn't supposed to be the case.

But it did historically get to be a place of two high priests at the same time. Okay. One high priest because of the one high priest of Christ.

Who decided who was the high priest? I don't know. Who decided who the high priest was?

That's a good question. I do not know that one. They had some way of deciding. But I mean, I don't know who'd want to be like, yeah,

I'll go. Hey, sign me up. I'll do the high priest thing. I mean, I'm like, uh, Who's the jerk and they didn't die?

Yeah, you know, I don't know. But it had to come out of the priesthood family and stuff like that.

I mean, hey man, who'd be the high priest? Uh, well, uh, what about Bob over here? You know, you better look him.

I fear God. I love him. I trust him. I don't want to mess with him.

Okay. Anything else? Let me see. One last, one last. And this may be an inane question. What the double do mean when they say reformed gospel?

Well, what do you mean by that? It's a reformed or restored gospel. What they mean is, uh, we got it from the devil and we are telling you his lies so that we can help you go to hell with us.

That's what the reformed gospel really is. What they want to say that it is, is they basically the laws and the ordinances of the

Mormon church, basically. So the Mormon church itself, uh, the right.

So we gotta be careful. I'll teach you a little something. Something called, uh, let's say we have

X and we have Y. All right. So there's a principle. So if all of the attributes of X are identical to all of the attributes of Y, then

X is Y, right? So if we were to say, for example, if we were to say this,

I forgot your thing, but I'll just shift into what I've been studying. Annihilationism says eternal punishment is equal to non -existence because they're non -existent goes on forever.

So what they're saying is they're equal. They're saying the attributes of both are identical, but aren't they?

The answer is no, they can't be equal. So they say that, and it's something

I'm working on. I have an article I'll release soon. The philosophical objections to conditionalism.

So, but if you put the line through the equal sign, because if you're not existent, you cannot experience punishment.

Right. You're non -existent. And so that's part of the issue because here we have nothing. And here they're saying eternal punishment is also nothing.

And it's not it. Punishment is an action. It does not compute, does not compute. Right. This is an action and this is not an action.

So what they'll do is they'll say that it's the, that they redefined as a result. So they did.

Anyway, it was reminding me something of what you said. They were equating something with something.

And so this is, this is a part of the issue. But when you think in terms like this, it helps you.

Oh, wait a minute. You can't be identical. And so when you give an analogy, like what they'll do is they'll say, for example, they will say that capital punishment is analogous to God's eternal punishment.

Why? Because when someone is executed, their condition of non -life can exist forever.

It continues. The effect continues. So capital punishment is non -existence, the deprivation of life.

Just as God's eternal punishment is also non -existence of life. So they relate them. But there's problems.

There's problems with those because there's problems. I got some other issues so I can show logical problems.

If you no longer exist, then you don't, you don't go to hell, you evaporate to nothingness.

Yeah, you're nothingness. And they say that, they call that eternal punishment, the condition of non -existence.

But here, I'll show you something. Watch this. I'll do it now. Well, how can you be gnashing your teeth for eternity?

Oh, no, no, no, no. It's only for an eon. But let me show you something else. They'll say, here's condition.

This is my thing. Condition one. Okay. Condition two.

Condition three. You'll see what I'm going to do, hold on. Condition four and condition five.

All right. Now, so this is non -existence.

Now, this is when you're born. So you exist. Because you're born. All right.

You with me? Then you die. And now there's something they call soul sleep.

Which I don't know what they mean by it. When they say soul sleep, they don't define it. Well, it's kind of like when you're asleep.

Okay. I got 15 questions I want to ask in specificity to really understand this. But I can't find out what they got.

Okay. So then you're resurrected. And you exist.

Then you're judged. And then non -existence. Okay. This is the annihilation position.

This is how it works. Now, condition of non -existence doesn't exist. Because you can't have a condition of something that doesn't exist.

We're going to play with words. So non -existence. Then you're born. You're a bad guy.

You're wicked. So you die. You go to soul sleep. They use soul sleep to avoid the philosophical problem of continuity.

Better topic. Then you're resurrected and judged. And your eternal punishment is non -existence.

Okay. That's what they say. Now, here's a question. Is this exactly identical to this?

If it is, arguably. Sorry. So this is identical to this, right?

Identical. Identical, right? Yeah. So if this...

Now, they say this, though, is eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is non -existence.

If this is identical to this, then this also must be eternal punishment.

Right? Because it's identical. It's exactly identical. But they're going to say, no, this is the result of condition four.

And the result of condition four, their judgment, is why they don't exist. That's what that is, Matt. I'll say, let's go over this again.

Is this non -existence? Yes. Is this non -existence? Yes. Then if non -existence here is punishment, why is non -existence here not punishment?

Since they're exactly identical. It's a philosophical problem with their view.

Not to mention linguistic ones, it's modern ones. I've uncovered a lot of stuff in my very deep research.

Annihilationism. I am absolutely convinced they are wrong. How do you not exist and then exist and not exist again?

No, I mean, if you don't exist for eternity and then you become born, well, then what did the not...

How did you become born if you didn't exist in the being? Okay.

So he made you. No, Jeremiah 1 .5. No. So we got taken from non -existence.

Non -existence. This is when you begin. So you begin here. Okay. But then you end here.

Right here. So this is your duration. See, in existence, soft sleep. Then in non -existence.

But this is the result of this. So this is effective punishment upon you.

But how can it be since it's exactly identical to this? But if they're exactly identical, they're the same thing.

But it doesn't work in annihilationism. There's something wrong. Their view is wrong.

You see what I'm saying? It's not even logical. It's not logical. Their position is philosophically untenable.

Oh, they're going to have... I want to hear what they're going to say about this when I release my stuff. Well, Matt, you don't understand. Okay. I don't see how they can get out of this one.

And there's something else. What's the point of soul sleeping? Okay. Point of soul sleep is this.

Let's try a different color. All right. So you exist. Then you die.

And you, let's just say, don't exist. We'll go with this version first. Don't exist.

Then you exist again. Okay. Now, is this person here the same person here?

Because if you don't exist, the continuity is broken.

This is a serious philosophical issue. If your continuity is broken, how do you defend that you're the same person?

There are some interesting issues here. But that's why they have to say soul sleep.

Because they recognize this problem, among other things. And so they'll say soul sleep fixes that.

They're continuous. They're just unconscious. But some annihilationists will say that their continuity and their unconsciousness is equivalent to death of soul sleep.

Which, what does that mean? What is soul sleep? I ask a lot more detailed questions than they provide in their books.

I go through their books. I read. I read. What about this? What about that? They don't give me any answers.

A lot of things. And then they, and I'm serious, I was reading on some of it today.

I'm going to have over 50 articles ready, believe it or not, to release. But I was reading today through some of their material, and they were insulting.

Their condescending attitude about how cultural traditionalists view these things, about certain things, because they don't understand.

Really condescending. They remind me of universalists. Not as bad, but they remind me of universalists.

It's the ideology that's important, not the person of Christ. Now, I'm not saying they're all like that.

Several that I've met are not. What are they avoiding? Well, they're just like teetering horses.

Well, part of the problem is, we've been on this topic for a while. Part of the problem is they don't like the idea of God eternally tormenting somebody because they think that's immoral.

Well, I'm going to write an article refuting that. It's just your opinion. It's your subjective opinion. Like, it's immoral.

How do you know? He wouldn't do that. How do you know? Because it's wrong. How do you know? Because I say so. How do you know? Because it's my opinion. Because they don't think they're that bad.

People don't think they're that bad. But in the presence of God, they'll figure out that that's the case. So, in other words, what they're trying to avoid.

Well, no, they do believe in accountability. And they say that the result of your sin is eternal non -existence.

And that's a terrifying prospect. Really? Which is a more terrifying prospect?

Conscious torment or nothing? Well, they've admitted it because they don't like the conscious torment.

They don't like it. And they mock. I have more respect for an annihilationist who says, look, you know, forget these arguments about it makes

God immoral or a big bully. You know, that emotionally -based subjectivism has no place in this discussion.

I won't be writing articles to attack those things. I want them to say, linguistically speaking, and the way the words are used, this is what we find.

That's what I'm interested in. What about, and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest day or night.

These worshippers of the beast as image. That's Revelation 2010? Revelation 14, 10, or yeah, 10, or 11, sorry, 11.

Um, I'm not exactly sure how they're going to respond to that because I haven't gotten to that particular verse with Revelation 2010.

I'm saving those. Right. That with Isaiah 66, 24, that Jesus quotes in Mark 9, 48,

I believe. And so I've kind of been saving this for later because, because I've done a great deal of research on words.

I've got probably 40 articles, maybe 35 articles, just researching

Greek words. Like the word torment, because torment has to be experienced. No, what

I did was like, for example, punishment. I went to, or destroy. I went in and found at least,

I think it was 20 words translated into the English destroy. 20 different words.

So I did 20 different studies. I think it was 22 or 23, just on that range where I took every single verse in the new

Testament where the Greek word occurs. And he was cognates, put it into a three column, uh, table.

So I have the address. I'm John 3, 16. Okay. I had the verse with the scripture written out.

Then I have the meaning of this is where I get a little bit subjective because I have to read the verse.

What is the word mean? I admit that, but at least I'm going through and looking at every single instance.

And so that guy, that guy's a heretic. That guy is bad news.

He's actually the pastor of this church. Words out.

Yeah. I can't trust them. Anybody with a goatee like that. But, um, so, so what

I've done is I've done, I've done studies on words. For example, let me tell you about this.

Matthew 10, 28. This is one of our famous verses.

Don't fear man, but fear God who can destroy both soul, body and soul in him. They'll say, see the word destroy.

I believe this is the right word. Apollumi.

And it means here in this context, it means non -existence. I'm going to ask them.

How do you know that? It's called begging the questions. Another philosophical objection I've got against them.

They beg the question. It means non -existence. Nice talking to you, man. Hey, you guys don't want to take so much

Harrison, but there's a level. That is so true.

And so the word Apollumi occurs well over a hundred times going through every single verse.

And I found the meanings and stuff like that. And sometimes it means to destroy, but the thing destroyed is still there.

No, you can't do what's called illegitimate totality transfer, where you take the meaning of what's called a semantic domain has a wide variety of meanings.

You take the meaning of this context and transfer it over to this context. You don't want to do that. Words mean what they mean in context, but at least you can see that it has a semantic domain, a range of meaning.

Just like the word agape can mean is used at the Pharisees loving agape, their high seats.

It's not divine love. So the semantic domain is one of ungodliness and ungodly love.

So people don't know that. But anyway, that's Luke 1150, 1143 for those people who are going, what?

So I've discovered that not only Apollumi, but a whole bunch of other words are used for the word destruction, and they have different meanings and different things.

Why is it that are they saying that it means nonexistence? Why is it saying that? Because they say destruction means nonexistence.

But why is it that the same word is used for this? Things are destroyed that still exist. And in Luke 20, 36,

Jesus said that about marriage, he said that people in the resurrection are like angels. They do not die.

That means angels don't die, right? Not even able to die. That's what he said, not even able to.

They cannot even. It's ude dunatai. No way cannot. And it only occurs right there.

Ude dunatai. Doesn't even occur anywhere else in the New Testament. I found this out today doing research. Ude dunatai.

No way. Cannot happen. Angels don't even. They don't. They do not die. That means they live forever. Oh, I could show you guys something.

But it's late. I don't want to keep you. But if you want, I can show you some stuff I've been finding out about through my studies.

There's some really interesting stuff about the verses that they just say. It means this and it means that.

I'm looking at the... Wait a minute. One minute. One minute, two. So I can turn the camera off so they don't have it.

So something like the type of creative beings that humans and angels are, that because of how they're created and God made them, they can't die in the first place.

It's just, where is he going to put them? Exactly. Well, I haven't seen what they're going to say about Luke 20, 36, because they're going to have to say to be consistent with their theology.

They're going to have to say that angels can die. What they mean then, they're going to have to say spiritual death, non -existence.

They're going to have to say that because their view is that only the redeemed people are the ones given immortality or the ability not to die.

Wait a minute. The angels are said not to die. That means the view that only the redeemed have it is false.

Real simple. And when you take the word immortality, look at the context of 1

Timothy 6 .16, oh boy. I found all kinds of stuff.

There's so much information I've got. I have trouble keeping it all together to put things together. I'm finding now that I'm having to construct articles, not just write them.

Construct them with segments of information and then read through it and go back and read through it to make them smooth for people to understand the research that I've done.

I will. I can tell you. I've got some stuff I don't want released yet.

That's done. Let me show you some more stuff. Yeah, I'm keeping it close because one of the main proponents of this is coming to my house in three weeks.

And then I'm going to release these probably in two to three weeks, maybe four, depends on how many articles I get done and fast.

And then it's going to hit the fan. No, it's Chris Day. He's a real nice guy.

We're just going to talk and disagree. You know, he's a Calvinist. Is he the one Len Pettus debated? Oh, I don't know.

So, you know, I'm going to sit with him and say, Hey, what about this? What about that? Get some information. Because he's a good guy.

He's not a jerk, you know. I told him, hey, you want to stay at the house? Stay at the house. But he's got, his wife's got relatives in the same city

I live in. So the guy that's not a jerk is going to go to the jerk's house. Yeah, that's true. That is so true.

Okay, I'm going to quit this and I'll show you something I found. We have a couple of questions. We got a couple of questions. Okay. We have a guy who's struggling with submission.

He's a believer, but he's just struggling. Submission? Headlock. I don't, what's the question?

He's just struggling with submission to Jesus. Submission to Jesus? He's struggling? Welcome to the club.

Who isn't struggling? I'm struggling all the time. I should pray more. I should be more humble.

That's kind of hard to do. But I should be even more humble than I am. I mean, how do you submit to Jesus and everything?

It's tough. The fact that he is struggling with that is a demonstration of the work of God in him and the issue of sanctification.

To move him to be more like Christ and he's saying he has more and more trouble obeying Christ. Welcome to the club.

It's never going to end. Just because you're concerned about it is a very good sign.

So keep trying to submit and keep going to the cross when you fail. Because it's at the cross that God is glorified.

Not in your failure of submission, but in your approach to the cross where yet again you lay your issues and your sins before him and he has already cleansed you.

And so you're continually relying on the cross. That glorifies God. When you fail, go to the cross.

That's what you got to learn. They're booing you. They want you to release the information now.

Come to class. Come to class. Come to class. Tell them to come to class.

No, my thing on 1 Timothy 6 .16, which I'll show you guys after this off the air.

And you can tell me what you think of it because I think it blows a big hole in their view.

See you at the dip. Come to class. What's that? You get insider information. Insider information. I've already got the article on this finished.

I haven't put it on CARM yet. It's all I'm going to do. I'm going to sit one day, release all the articles.

It'll probably take me an hour to release all the articles. And then, you know, just get back out here.

Does your computer make that sound? Yeah. It's like a clock.

Yeah, a spiritual clock. That was not a 43 either.

All right. Another question or? No, we're done. All right, we're done then.