Angry, bald, soft atheist, John is back | Apologetics Live 0019

Apologetics Live

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:05

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the

00:17

Christian Thought Task Community. This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the

00:27

Christian Thought Task Community. All right, somewhere I have this on echo, so I've got to find out where that is and shut that off.

00:36

All right, well, welcome to Apologetics Live. We are live, and so we are here to answer your

00:45

Apologetics questions, challenges, whatever it is that you want to ask. Almost nothing is off the table.

00:52

Matt will talk about almost anything, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, oops, sorry, we can't call them that anymore,

01:00

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, Wiccan, pretty much anything Matt knows, well, he'll at least try to answer.

01:11

Someone in the chat says, happy hearth day. I think they meant heart day,

01:17

Kat, but I think she was really wishing your wife a happy birthday. Now she's 25, but Matt, let me show you.

01:29

See, my wife loves me, and this is what I got for Valentine's Day. Nice, healthy,

01:35

I'm sure you appreciate that. Wait a minute, I'm looking, I was doing something, there we go.

01:41

What'd you get? I'm going to end this chronology while you are talking to our audience.

01:47

Yeah. All right. Yeah, look what I got, my wife's birthday cake from yesterday.

01:54

She turned 60 yesterday. No, she turned 25, Matt, 25.

02:01

Don't you know better? She looks like she's 25. All right.

02:07

All right, so what I want to do, I talked to you about this, if you still want to do this,

02:14

I want to play a longer clip from your radio show, and that'll give you time to wolf down some cake.

02:24

It's 11 minutes long, and then what I'd like to do is talk about it afterwards, because this was a very, shall we say, colorful exchange that you had with this atheist on your show.

02:36

Okay. The one about the Taipei Rebellion. Yeah, if you want,

02:43

I mean, whatever, only people want to come in and ask questions, but yeah. Yeah, until... I hung up on him again today, and he's just...

02:52

Oh, he was... Oh, well, maybe if he could come in here and we could explain to him, did you explain the one thing that, well, we'll get that, but you'll have to see if you explain the one thing that I told you.

03:07

No, we talked about something else. It's just like, dude, you know, I think sometimes they just want to hear themselves talk on a radio show or something.

03:16

I don't know what it is. That's what this one's going to sound like. So let's play this clip, and afterwards

03:23

I want to talk to you about it, because this is, I think this will be very educational for folks. So here we go.

03:29

Let's get right to Dave from Fort Worth, Texas. Hey, Dave, welcome to the show. Hey, Matt. I had a question.

03:37

Excuse me, I'm sorry. I had a question on trying to judge who is a true

03:43

Christian and who is not. I know most of the times it would be like two people's actions,

03:48

I guess. Mm -hmm. Okay. Well, there's two ways by their actions and their profession.

03:57

You know, doctrinally, if someone, like I talked to two Mormon missionaries today, you know, they're not true

04:02

Christians because they teach God came on our planet and, you know, they teach a false gospel of works and things like that.

04:09

So you can say, hey, you're not a true Christian, and that's not a problem. What do you do with someone who professes those things, but doesn't really seem to act like it?

04:17

Well, then you have a disparity between confession and practice. And then it takes a little bit more finesse to say, well, maybe you're not a

04:22

Christian. I don't know. But, you know, so it just kind of depends on the situation, the person, the discussion, things like that.

04:29

Okay. I understand. I study history a lot.

04:36

Yeah. And I find that there's something that I found that I've never met a Christian that knows this.

04:44

The largest civil war in the history of humankind was done in China.

04:52

And up to 20 to 30 million people died in this war in 1850 to 1864.

05:00

What was it called? It was called the Taiping Rebellion, T -A -I -P -I -N -G.

05:06

Okay. And it was caused by Christians. Christians started the war.

05:11

The guy thought he was Jesus' brother. Okay. So a false

05:17

Christian, you mean? Well, that's what I'm saying. How do we know that he was a false

05:22

Christian? Well, he claims to be Jesus' brother. That's one good clue that he doesn't have all his paws in the litter box.

05:31

Yeah, but how do you know he wasn't Jesus' brother? Because there's no such thing as reincarnation.

05:42

Okay. And also, I find it fascinating that Christians don't know that this may have been the largest war in the history of mankind.

05:51

Okay. And it was caused by Christians. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.

05:56

Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You say it was caused by Christians.

06:02

Now let me ask you, are you a Christian? No, I'm not. Okay. So you don't know what a true

06:08

Christian really is. And when you bring up the idea that it's caused by a guy who said he's the brother of Jesus, let me tell you right away, and I gave you an answer and you just dismissed it.

06:18

Reincarnation is not a biblical concept, but the Bible rejects such a thing. And this guy was saying he's the brother of Jesus.

06:25

Well, he's whacked. And then for you to say, well, he's a Christian, as you a non -Christian, as a non -Christian, you see there's a major problem here in your assessment.

06:35

Did you know about this war? No, I didn't. Do you understand what I'm telling you? This is the second time I tell you something, you dismiss it and go to something else.

06:44

I'm not dismissing it. I'm not dismissing it. Well, don't you know what a true Christian is? What are you?

06:50

Are you an atheist or what? Yeah, I'm an atheist. Okay, so you don't know what a true Christian is. Do you have any idea what a true

06:56

Christian is? I used to be a Christian. No, you didn't. Okay, now you're telling me what

07:03

I used to be. Yes, I am. Because the Bible says in 1 John 2, 19, they went out from us because they never were of us.

07:11

If they had been of us, they would have remained. If you left, you were never a Christian, a true

07:17

Christian. You may have been one in your mind and mental and gone to church and who knows what you believe.

07:23

I haven't even cross -examined you about your history. But I've talked to a lot of people. Oh, I used to be a Christian.

07:28

Well, what do you believe about Jesus? Oh, he's a good guy. They weren't really Christians. So you don't know what true

07:34

Christianity is and you violate Scripture in the sense that, you know, you left.

07:40

It's not a violation of Scripture. It's a declaration of Scripture. You left according to the Word of God. Aside from that, do you find it at all odd that you and every

07:57

Christian I've ever met have no idea that the largest, probably the largest war ever in the history of mankind was caused by so -called, so -called

08:08

Christians? No, I don't find that to be unusual. I don't find that to be unusual at all.

08:14

Who killed more people in World War II? Was it Stalin or was it Hitler?

08:22

It was Hitler. Stalin. So you see. Wait, wait, no.

08:29

Hitler did. Do you know what was written on every German book? Okay. See, I'm surprised you don't know these kind of things because in Stalinist Russia, they killed 40 to 60 million people and Nazi Germany about 20 million.

08:43

Don't you find it strange an atheist like you wouldn't understand these kind of facts about human death?

08:50

What's the percentage, by any chance? Do you know the percentage of the wars that have been caused by religious people, religious wars?

08:59

I don't know the actual percentage. Seven percent. And I had the documentation on my website.

09:05

I'm surprised that you wouldn't know about that. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You're telling me that the

09:11

Japanese during World War II, they were fighting for their God.

09:17

Were they not? Sure, Hitler was a god. You could say that. But in the name of religion, you can go to.

09:25

You probably think that religion causes war more than secularism. Correct? The Nazis had on their belt bubble,

09:34

Gott mit uns, which means God is with us. That was on every

09:39

German belt buckle. Oh, that means they were all doing it in the name of God, right? It doesn't mean that maybe there was a political movement to use

09:46

God in order to justify Hitler's occultic stuff, which he was involved in the occult.

09:53

And he said Christianity needs to be wiped out. Are you aware of that? No. No, you're not aware of that.

10:00

You're so ignorant of so many things. Joseph Stalin, the estimate is 42 million people killed by him.

10:07

He was an atheist. Mao Zedong, another atheist, 37 million. Hitler was definitely not a

10:14

Christian. Chiang Kai -shek, 10 million. Vladimir Lenin, 4 million.

10:21

What about the 30 million that were killed by Christians in the Taiping War? Okay, I'll tell you what,

10:27

I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what. Why don't you do something? If you want to give numbers. Would you let me finish, please?

10:33

You really need to do some homework, because you haven't done it. You don't know what it is to be a true Christian.

10:39

And if you have somebody who says he's a brother of Jesus, and he's the guy who claimed to be a

10:44

Christian, that's not true Christianity. You don't even know what true Christianity is. And here you're telling me 30 million people were killed by Christians.

10:53

Yeah, Christians are out there murdering and pillaging people. When the Bible says don't do that, when the

10:59

Christians say don't do that. What is wrong with you? Why do you hate

11:05

Christianity so much? Wait a minute. Wait, you told me that I'm ignorant? Yes, you are.

11:12

You didn't know about the largest civil war? No, I did not. No, I did not. And you did not know who killed more people.

11:19

You did not know who killed more people, Stalin or Hitler. Stalin's purge before the war.

11:25

You don't know. Yes, I do. We'll just move along.

11:30

So, boy, here we go. Dave from Fort Worth. Dave, round two, huh? Round two,

11:37

I'm sorry. I don't know. No, I hung up on you because you were being obstructive.

11:44

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't know what your point is.

11:53

You didn't know what I was talking about. I didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't know what I was talking about. Yes, I did know what you were talking about.

11:59

You told me. You did know about the Taiping Rebellion. Are you familiar?

12:07

Wait, did you know about that? No, I didn't. I already went over that. Did you know about the Three Kingdoms War in China?

12:14

No, no, no. Okay, just because 38 million people are estimated killed.

12:21

Hey, I just wanted to know if you knew. Is it significant if I know that or not?

12:28

If it has to do with religion, it should be something that's important. So you're telling me that I should know everything about every religious war all over the planet throughout history?

12:40

No, I think that you should know about the most deadliest Christian war. It's not a

12:46

Christian war. It's not a Christian war. There aren't any such things as Christian wars.

12:54

There aren't any such things. Show me in the New Testament what tells the Christians to go to war and kill people for different beliefs, whatever.

13:02

Show me in the New Testament, and then you can say something's a Christian war. Show it to me. Okay. Didn't Jesus say,

13:11

I didn't come to bring peace, I came to bring a sword? Did you hear that ripping? Did you hear that ripping? I don't know if you heard that.

13:18

Did that ripping sound like a verse being ripped out of context? I don't know if you heard that or not. Okay, maybe

13:25

I got it out of context. Yeah, you did. Because what he's talking about there is his superiority and loyalty to him over mom and dad and family.

13:33

And that's what he's talking about in the context. He came to bring a sword because people are going to fight over him. Not that he wants them to kill each other, but he's a sovereign king and a sovereign lord.

13:43

There's nothing in the Scripture that tells Christians in the name of Christ to go out and kill anybody. Nothing.

13:49

When you had the Crusades, it was the Catholic Church, the apostate Catholic Church, doing all kinds of things. When you have various people who are wackos and they use the name of Christ and they go out and do something, they're not behaving as true

14:01

Christians. Don't you understand that? Okay. I mean, there's no reason to insult me again.

14:08

There's no reason to ad hominem. An ad hominem deal means that I attack the individual in order to invalidate the argument.

14:15

I'm not doing that. Well, you called me ignorant. Ignorance is not an insult.

14:22

Ignorance just means you don't know something. You called me ignorant about a subject that you didn't know nothing about.

14:29

About the Taiping Rebellion. You knew nothing about it, but you called me ignorant. We're going to move along.

14:35

All right. I got to admit, Matt, my two favorite lines in there is, No, we didn't get disconnected.

14:41

I hung up on you. Did you hear that ripping sound?

14:48

I'm glad you liked that. That was great. All right. I wanted to bring it up because there's a couple of things that are helpful for folks in this.

14:55

One, for folks that were listening, did you hear how patient Matt was? I mean, here's a guy who clearly has an ax to grind.

15:04

Clearly, Matt three times called him out on the fact that he's just dismissing whatever

15:10

Matt says, ignoring it. Matt, you did something that I do want to talk about.

15:16

He brought up a war you didn't know anything about beforehand. We could discuss that in a bit.

15:22

But you asked him a question of which person was more involved with more death,

15:29

Hitler or Stalin. Why do you ask that? Just to see what he knew, because his issue was about how many people died and stuff like that.

15:37

He said no about that. Well, he's bringing up wars. What about this war? He doesn't know about that. He's just picking and choosing some issue.

15:46

Listening to that just tells me I need to be less patient with people on the radio, get rid of them, and move on to the next caller.

15:54

Yeah, well, and that's why we have this show. We could go a little bit longer with folks that come in.

15:59

But here's the thing that was interesting. I didn't pick up until I heard it again. He comes in and states he studies history, and then you asked him a historical question.

16:09

A basic one, yeah. And then you gave a whole bunch of statistics that he didn't know.

16:19

Yeah. You have hung up on him like nine times. Now he's keeping count. Hung up on him again today.

16:26

I'm just not going to have him on. It's just ridiculous, because he's just wasting time.

16:32

That's all it is. Yeah, and one of the things I do appreciate, and folks, pick up on what

16:37

Matt did. This guy used a fallacious argument, an appeal to authority, said, I used to be a

16:43

Christian. Matt, what did you do when he did that? I just told him he wasn't. I went biblical on him.

16:50

But yeah, you heard it. And the reason, because you quoted scripture.

16:56

It says he isn't. So I just want to let folks know, when we look at the Taiping Rebellion, it was a civil war.

17:03

It was a political war. But here is the interesting thing that I told you, Matt. I did something when this came up, and I listened.

17:09

I went and asked my bride if she was familiar with a civil war in China.

17:17

Why would you ask your wife if she's familiar with a civil war in China? Because she's

17:22

Chinese, and she grew up in Hong Kong. And she was like, nope, we never studied that.

17:34

And it's supposedly a Christian war, but even the Chinese don't study it all that much. So why should the

17:40

Americans know it? Yeah, it's just sometimes these guys, you know, they don't understand logic.

17:47

They don't understand inference. And they just, you know, it's just a waste of time. And it's frustrating for me to hear.

17:53

I never like to listen to myself on recording radio. But it's telling me is, yeah,

17:59

I need to get rid of people sooner. Focus. Well, actually, it was quite entertaining.

18:04

I think the folks that were listening here were appreciating it. Just looking at some of the chat, people were appreciating the logic.

18:18

Yeah, it wasn't very good. Yeah. How many people we got in here now? We got Josh Smith.

18:25

Yeah, he's here. Don? Yeah, he is. Don Joseph. Cat B. Atomic.

18:32

Just the same old. Hey, Josh, how you doing, buddy? Well, we could add him in so that he can answer that question.

18:40

You can unmute yourself, Josh. Hey, Matt, how's it going? It's going, man.

18:47

Hanging in here. Glad to see you in here. Oh, it's good to see you. It's good to see you. I didn't get to chime in last week.

18:53

I was just about to make a joke on the side chat about the

18:58

BHI guy from last week. Really? Yeah. I know you and Andrew loved that.

19:05

That was so funny. Oh, man, I was cracking up. You white devil. I love being called a white devil.

19:12

I don't know why, but I get a kick out of it. After you dropped out, I think it was after you dropped out, he kept going to me.

19:19

He's like, white devil, white devil, white devil, white devil. If you keep saying it, does it make it true?

19:27

But what happens if you get a tan? Tanned -o. Well, hey, it's all about the family.

19:34

I knew a guy in college, and I thought he might have half Mexican, half white kind of combo.

19:42

And whatever, we hung around. We were friends. Went over to see his dorm one day, and he's got a picture, and he's all these black people, and he's the only guy in there.

19:50

I'm like, what the heck is this, man? What's up? And he goes, oh, it's my family. I go, oh, you're adopted.

19:56

He goes, no, it's my family. I said, no, you're adopted. He goes, yeah, well, no, I was born this way. I said, you're a black guy?

20:04

And he said, yeah. And I said, I wish he was. I said to him, you should have told me

20:10

I can't be your friend now. And so he called me some stupid name and whatever. But I got a kick out of it.

20:17

But I still remember that, being shocked. He goes, yeah, it just happens sometimes. All right. So anyway, what a

20:22

BHI guy do. You're face laughing at that,

20:30

Matt's face. Like, oh, my goodness. His eyes go open. That was so funny.

20:36

I was laughing at what the BHI guy said, and then Matt laughed, and I laughed at Matt's face laughing.

20:43

I know. It's like, are you serious? I mean, it's one thing.

20:50

It's pretty sad. I mean, these guys are serious. And this is what's really terrifying, is because he actually said that white people or whatever are going to be dirt under his shoe, serving them.

21:04

I mean, what? There are people who actually believe this stuff. Yeah. Yeah. I thought it might have been vocab

21:12

Malone. It wasn't. To give John credit, that was his idea.

21:20

I knew it had to be a troll, though. I thought it had to be a troll.

21:25

He was even laughing himself. Yeah, he was. Every now and then. He was giggling. Yeah. Yeah. You'd be giggling.

21:31

You'd hear it. Oh, yeah. I'd hear that. But the thing is that he was giggling, but he would mute himself, because sometimes he forgot to mute himself.

21:41

And he was talking to others. And he's like, yeah, I'm talking to you. These guys don't know anything about the Bible. And the irony is he told me

21:49

I was using words of Satan or whatever. And I told you,

21:55

I was like, dude, I just quoted scripture. He doesn't know the Bible. Yeah.

22:02

Yeah, pretty bad. Pretty embarrassing. Yeah. So, Josh, do you have any questions? Actually, I did.

22:10

And I can start just with one. I don't know if you have a question on marriage, maybe, because, you know.

22:17

Hey, I'll be doing a marriage thing in a couple of weeks at a church, first Friday.

22:23

Oh. Well, Josh knows a lot about it, Matt, because, you know. Yeah, it's been challenging, but it's good.

22:31

I feel like it's already been forever. It's only been 16 days, so. 16 days?

22:39

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, you've been married 16 days? No, that was from right after he got married.

22:46

Two weeks after he got married, he came on the show and said that. And I grabbed that. Wait a minute.

22:52

Okay. So, that was a recording that you just played? I just played it.

22:58

Here. Okay. Here. It's been challenging, but it's good. I feel like it's already been forever.

23:04

It's only been 16 days, so. All right. You know what?

23:10

When you guys do the recording things, I don't know if you're telling me the truth. I don't know what's going on. So, you got to play a recording and say,

23:16

I'm going to play a recording, because it screws me up. You thought I was talking. Yeah, I thought you were talking.

23:25

I'm playing cribbage while I'm waiting for something to happen. Well, that's why you shouldn't do that.

23:31

Okay. So, go ahead, Josh. Ask your question. Well, so, I have multiple ones.

23:37

The first one that's in my mind, just to give some background. So, I have a friend who just, he just graduated with his

23:47

Master of Arts, Master of Theology. I can't remember which one it is. Okay. From Westminster.

23:53

So, your alma mater. Which one? California. Yeah. Okay. And so, he was talking about, we were talking today, and we're just going through Meredith Klein's.

24:05

It was Treaty of the Great King. Okay. And so, Klein talks about the ancient

24:15

Near Eastern pattern of Deuteronomy and the

24:21

Pentateuch. Yeah, Caesar and Basil Treaty pattern. Right, right. And so, I was just going to ask you about, because you've,

24:29

I was like, oh, you know, Matt's talked about this for years, you know, and now I'm reading about it.

24:36

And Klein, what I wanted to ask you is your, I guess your favorite resources, where to get started, like reading more about that.

24:44

I know Klein's really heavy. Reading more about what? About the ancient

24:50

Near Eastern. Read Klein. Klein. Okay. Is that who, I was wondering if that's who you, if that's who you had read too, because I was like, man, this.

24:59

No, he was in the class teaching. Oh, you, okay. Okay. He was, okay. He was there, and we had his books, and we went, and he was the one who inadvertently convinced me of infant baptism.

25:15

And the reason is because he was not talking about it. What this guy did, it was brilliant.

25:22

He had his Hebrew Bible. I didn't know it was his Hebrew text. And he's going back and forth like this in the pages, and he would just read something in English.

25:30

No, I go, okay, he's got a Bible. And then one day I, he kept doing that, the same book, obviously. And I realized one day is he's reading the

25:37

Hebrew and translating that fast. And I mean, like this, you know, where it was,

25:42

I'm like, okay. You know, that, it just blew me away. He was impressive. And what he did was he's one of the guys who helped develop the understanding of the, what's called the

25:53

Suzerain Basel Treaty pattern of the ancient Near East, third millennium BC stuff. And what that means is that the pattern is basically, there's a big king and a little king or suzerain and a vassal.

26:06

And the big king and the little king make a treaty. And usually the big king initiates and says, this is who

26:12

I am. This is what I've done. Here are the stipulations of what we're to do. You know, you feed me, I'll feed you.

26:17

You'll come to my aid, I'll come to your aid, you know, those kinds of things. And if you don't do this, or if I don't do that, here are the consequences, things like that.

26:25

And so he was the one who basically, by reading the original languages, you know, Ugaritic or whatever it was, and did all this research, found these things out.

26:34

And a lot of people started quoting him and blah, blah, blah. Okay. So he, you know, he would just, he was teaching and he would teach each day and he would go through the

26:43

Old Testament. And he just did covenant analysis because that's what God does. He works covenantally. That's how he does.

26:49

And he was expanding on the nature and the covenant of stuff. Let me tell you, in all the covenant theology that I've learned over the years is,

26:59

I'm not trying to be humble, not trying to be funny, is a smattering next to nothing compared to what this guy understood.

27:07

He would go into the Hebrew and show word patterns and then explain.

27:13

He'd go, his Bible over to here and say, no, look, it's the same thing. That's what's going on. You understand something about the covenant.

27:18

And he started expanding how covenant was and how God works covenantally. And he talked about the eternal covenant and stuff like that and the covenant of the family and how families are included in the covenant.

27:29

And it's just, that is normal. And to not believe that was to actually be a non -Jew.

27:36

In order to be Jewish, you had to believe in and understand the covenant relationship that God had with his people and on a national level and also in a family relationship.

27:47

And so he says, and blah, blah, blah. He goes, and this is why covenant signs. And he talked about covenant signs for a day or two or three.

27:54

And then he'd go to the covenant sign of circumcision and covenant like that. And he goes, the infants. And I'm sitting going, oh, that's why we baptize.

28:02

That's why we baptize infants. Because the same covenant stuff is in New Testament too. The same patterns, the same things and the same stuff.

28:11

I just went, oh, crap. I remember where he was standing when I converted. And he wasn't even talking about it.

28:18

And I went, oh, man. Remember that. So he's absolutely brilliant. I've got some of his work back here.

28:24

I need to unearth it and see if I can read some of it. Brilliant guy. But anyway, I was reminiscing a little bit.

28:30

Thanks for letting me do that. No, and that was helpful to us too. I think, like, why is it important?

28:38

As we were talking about it, because he's kind of, like, my friend's kind of, like, tutoring me in doctrine of God.

28:47

Like, we just started that just today. And he started with covenant and said, this is why it's important.

28:55

I wanted to ask you, like, your take on why that is a critical thing to know.

29:01

Like, I have my ideas, but. Well, covenant and. We can't be saved without it.

29:09

Right. Seriously. Right. No, that's true. You know why? I would say, yeah.

29:17

Well, and I wanted to add to the question as well to make it one. But, like, why specifically do we have to know.

29:26

Why is it important to know the structure of a suzerain vassal treaty pattern?

29:37

Well, what it means is we understanding things in a cultural context and cultural context really determines a lot or can help shed light on a lot of things.

29:47

So, remember, the suzerain vassal treaty pattern. All right. Is the big king would say to the little king, this is who

29:55

I am. This is what I've done. And here are the stipulations, rewards and punishments.

30:00

Right. Now, listen to this. And the Lord God spoke to all these words saying,

30:07

I'm the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol for any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water or under the earth.

30:18

So he says, this is who he is. This is what he did. I'm the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. So this is the suzerain vassal treaty pattern.

30:26

You shall not worship them or serve them for I'm the Lord. I'm a jealous God. Stipulation and a punishment, visiting the iniquity of the fathers and the children of the third and fourth generation, but showing kindness to thousands of those who love me.

30:37

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. There are stipulations for the Lord will not leave him punished who takes his name in vain.

30:43

It goes on. And so this kind of thing is there. And you go, oh, wow. Furthermore, what really was insightful,

30:51

I'd always seen Ten Commandments depicted as six and four or four and six or five and five.

30:58

But he said, no. He said, it's ten and ten. And I can find this.

31:06

It's been a long time. And there's a verse that says this.

31:16

OK. OK. So if a suzerain and a vassal, they had a covenant, they would either be written out on clay or whatever it was or papyrus.

31:27

And both parties would send their signature to it. And each party got a copy of the entire covenant.

31:33

And so one copy went back to one person. Another copy went back to another person so that they knew exactly what their agreement was over, was about.

31:43

So Moses had the two tablets. Which signifies ten and ten.

31:51

Because God's making a covenant. And the Ten Commandments in a sense are a covenant with Israel.

31:57

There's more. They represent more. But he's making a covenant with Israel. So Israel needs to have a copy.

32:03

And God needs to have a copy. All right. Now, First Chronicles 28 .2.

32:08

Then the King David rose to his feet and said, listen to me, my brethren and my people. I had intended to build a permanent home for the ark of the covenant of the

32:14

Lord and for the footstool of our God. So I made preparations to build it.

32:21

Now notice what it says there. I had intended to build a permanent home for the ark of the covenant of the

32:27

Lord and a footstool for our God. Now, the Ark of the Covenant contained what?

32:35

Yeah. The Book of the Law. Well, the Book of the Law was set beside the Ark. Ten Commandments. Ten Commandments were put inside.

32:41

Yeah. Yeah. Both were put inside. Who owned, so to speak.

32:47

Well, let me put it that way. The Jews had possession of the Ark of the Covenant. That's their copy.

32:54

And the other copy is right there, which is the footstool of God and the Holy of Holies under his presence.

33:00

It's a double symbol of the covenant aspect of God's working with Israel.

33:08

Where both possess the covenant document. One, the footstool of God, which we call that ark, and which his presence is there in the throne and the

33:19

Shekinah presence and the Holy of Holies. And yet, it's in the possession of Israel. Each has this. This is what

33:24

I learned from Meredith Klein. This is not my deduction. I was just in class.

33:30

I'm just sitting there going, wow, wow, wow. I would love to take a class from her again because now that I know so much more,

33:38

I'd be like, oh, wow, oh, wow. I mean, seriously. And just to round out this set of questions, reading

33:49

Klein and then talking with my buddy about this, it just came to mind.

33:56

I was thinking, it's so funny when, like, I'll be reading a textbook for classes, like for seminary.

34:04

And they're talking about, the author of Old Testament in the textbook is talking about the similarities.

34:12

And I'm like, wow, well, people on the street will say, you know, the Bible pulls from here and it's copying off this and it's copying off that.

34:20

And you think about, well, is there any room for historical context? Don't you think that, you know what

34:27

I'm saying? It's consistent with it. Right, right. Of course, they're going to pull out of other resources.

34:33

What's wrong with that? Right. The Bible is full of other references to other books that they drew information from.

34:41

Yeah. And it's just, it's amazing how a little bit of learning just on that can really clarify those issues.

34:50

And you're like, wow, what that person was saying on the street or, you know, anywhere you're talking to them, you know, that's not a problem as they're presenting it.

35:00

Right. That goes the other way. Yeah. They'll say, see, they borrow from other sources.

35:06

I'd say, yeah. Because is it true that some of those other sources might actually have accurate information because they were in the area too?

35:17

And so maybe Moses, who studied under Egypt, had all kinds of education and training and all kinds of stuff.

35:25

Now, where'd he get the information of Genesis? That's not Egyptian theology. He got that from a different place.

35:31

And it's either from direct revelation or some other source. And even if it was from another source, you've got to understand something.

35:37

That let's just say, hypothetically, I'm not saying this is the case, but let's just say

35:42

Moses had access to special writings that were ancient, even compared to him at that time, that depicted

35:49

Genesis 1 and 2. And let's just say that he had it in his hands, these ancient documents, clay tablet, whatever.

35:57

Who knows? Because he was trained in Egyptian stuff. And it goes back a long time. Well, could the spirit of God illumine his mind to say, this is the true part.

36:11

Record it. And he would know by revelation, this is true. And we just record it.

36:17

Why not? I mean, Enoch is quoted by Jude.

36:23

It doesn't mean Enoch's inspired. But the quote and information extracted is accurate. So a lot of times people get this idea that the

36:31

Bible is this monolithic piece of literature that developed on its own, independent of culture, independent of history, independent of everything.

36:42

That's not the case. And it can absolutely draw on other references.

36:48

And that's not a problem. We don't know how much it has done, because we do know that to some degree it has.

36:56

But that's okay. I have on CARM, I have an article dealing with other books quoted in the

37:02

Bible. The books of the wars of Jasher, for example. I remember that one. Well, we don't have that now.

37:08

But where is it? I don't know, but it's quoted. And so they got reference and information. Okay, well, there you go. So what's the big deal?

37:15

It doesn't mean it's not inspired. Just as Paul the Apostle quoted Epimenides, Menander, and Erastus in Acts.

37:23

Or I think it was actually only in Acts. But anyway, he quoted pagan philosophers. Well, what's wrong with quoting pagans? It doesn't mean they're inspired.

37:32

So the Holy Spirit can work through people to bring this stuff about. Now, I think that it was by revelation that Moses had this information.

37:38

Strictly revelation. He was up on the mount there with some time with the Lord. I think God gave a lot of information.

37:46

But nevertheless, I think he came down with more information. He had the blueprint, so to speak, for the

37:51

Tabernacle of Wilderness. And where did he get this information? So it was revelatory.

37:57

But anyway, I'm rambling a little bit. Thank you.

38:05

Helpful at all? Yeah. Next up is

38:10

John has a question. By the way, Matt, Josh, he's not being mentored.

38:17

He's being converted to Presbyterianism over there. Is that happening, Josh? Are you moving that way?

38:24

No. Right now, I'm reevaluating the covenant. Well, what you're going to find about the covenant stuff is that it becomes very enlightening.

38:39

It's very interesting. And even if you don't go full on, full Presby, that's all right.

38:46

But you will have been enlightened. And then you can even teach me some stuff because I've forgotten so much.

38:52

You can say, hey, we learned this now. Yeah, that's cool. So it'll be a real blessing for you.

39:00

All right, John, you are up next from the I don't know what kind of cave that is. That's an atomic cave there with your bedspring behind you.

39:08

But go for it. Yeah, it's a mess back here. So we can hear you. Hello.

39:13

Can you hear me? Yeah, we hear you. Okay. So my question is this.

39:19

Lately, I've been coming across some people who have been really offended about the notion of dispensationalism.

39:26

Could you tell me what exactly? Because from what I've understood, dispensationalism is basically saying that the church replaced

39:32

Israel. Is that pretty much that sums it up? Or is it just other things?

39:38

And why is it so offensive to some people? Well, I could answer it. But we have a full blown, this dispy dude here.

39:46

You could answer it. Well, see, Matt, do you believe that there is this age and an age to come?

39:56

Yeah, because it's in the Bible directly stated. Okay, dispensationalism. Thank you. Do you guys hear the ripping sound?

40:07

Anybody hear that ripping sound? I don't know if you guys heard that. Because that was one of the louder ones I've ever heard. And it kept echoing in the ignorance chamber.

40:17

It would just. Actually, this is good. Someone in the chat was saying that you and I agree on everything.

40:24

Or I agree with you on everything. No, we don't. No. So this would be the thing.

40:30

I think that the issue why so many people have an issue with dispensationalism is because a lot of people don't understand what it is.

40:38

And they think of dispensationalism as premillennial, pre -tribulational. So an end times view.

40:44

That's a byproduct of dispensationalism. It's not what dispensationalism is. So dispensationalism is the idea that God works with his people differently through his covenants at different times.

40:58

So God would give new revelation. That would be by his covenant. Each covenant would have new revelation.

41:04

It would have new things to be obedient to. And there would be new warnings of disobedience with each one.

41:14

And so God ends up giving new revelation, new requirements, and works differently with each group as he gives more revelation.

41:22

And that's really what it is. Where it comes into play, and this plays off well with what Matt was just saying with Josh, where we're going to see it is really in the harmonious, the science of interpretation.

41:32

So I would end up taking things a lot more literal and less looking at either a figurative way or looking at as Matt was just talking with the covenants.

41:43

I'm not going to look at things at a covenant view where Matt would. And that's going to be really where the difference is.

41:49

On the grand scheme of things, is it a big deal? No. I think a lot of people make it a big deal.

41:55

And Matt, you could tell me if you think that this is what you've seen, that a lot of people attack dispensationalism either out of ignorance or just because it becomes something that if there's a lot of agreement, they can get everyone to agree with them and going after someone else.

42:11

I don't know what you think. Different motives for disagreeing with it. But just so you know, the reason

42:17

I'm covenantal is because I take the Bible as literally as possible, not figuratively. But there's, you know, a lot of people have different reasons for it and for their attacks or their beliefs.

42:30

And, okay, you know, I just go covenantal because that's how God operates. I came across a guy who's really offended by it.

42:40

And he said something too defective. And I wish I can quote him exactly. Wait a minute. He's offended by dispensationalism?

42:47

Yeah. Or he just thinks it's wrong? No, he literally was saying that it affects somehow the efficacious work of Christ on the cross.

43:03

I don't know how, I can't remember how he worded it, but he said something that was just really out there saying that dispensationalism kind of makes

43:13

Christ's work on the cross not effective, I guess.

43:18

If you hear that one, that'd be interesting. I know, I know. I can't remember what he said, but it was really intense.

43:25

I mean, the guy was like going, and he even booted me out of this one group because this one, what was it?

43:32

I think it was a Facebook group or something I joined. And I posted something from, I think it was from Paul Washer or something like that.

43:39

And he's like, Paul Washer's a dispensationalist. I don't allow that, you know? Yeah. He's just trying to get me out of the bathwater at that point, going too far, but whatever.

43:50

Yeah. Yeah. But was I correct with my summary as far as, is it the church replacing

43:58

Israel? That's one of the main dispensation views. Okay. Okay.

44:03

But there's even degrees to which they say he replaces. Some say complete and total replacement without any hope for Israel.

44:12

They won't be restored in any way and come back to their work. And some disputes say we've replaced them, but God's not done with them and stuff.

44:21

That's more of a covenantal position. So let me correct that. That's the way we make covenantal people think that dispensationalism.

44:33

Dispensationalism believes that God works through his people differently at different dispensations with different covenants.

44:40

So it's not that there's no replacement. It's not a replacement. And so it is that God is working with a new group of people called the church versus a group of people he used to work with called

44:54

Israel. But don't we read though in Revelations that there's going to be a time where the

45:01

Jewish people will basically wake up and turn? I think both

45:08

Matt and I believe that God will do something with Israel in the future. In other words, he's not done with the

45:13

Jewish people yet. Correct. He's not done with them. Yeah. Some of us are even becoming

45:18

Christians. So, I mean, but does that affect the theology of dispensationalism because of that or no?

45:29

Each of you look at it as covenantally or versus the other word.

45:40

Dispensational. Yeah. A lot of dispensationalists are pretty covenantal in a lot of things. Some just like the nomenclature of dispensationalism because history is divided into seven periods.

45:53

That's kind of an arbitrary thing in my opinion. But, you know, there's strength and weaknesses in it.

46:00

I'm not convinced of it. And Meredith Klein had a lot to do with it because sitting in his classes and just listening to the covenant, it was just enlightening.

46:11

It was just, oh, my goodness. I had no idea the covenant theological perspective was that pervasive in the

46:18

Old Testament and that deep. And this would be something both

46:26

Matt and I would feel very strongly about. And that is Matt and I obviously disagree on it, but we're still thinking each other as a brother in Christ.

46:34

Yeah. And this is the thing. You get people that are like, oh, no, I don't care if they're a dispensational or a covenant.

46:41

If either side is saying the other one's not saved because of this. It's a problem.

46:47

Then that's a problem. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's non -essential. So basically what

46:52

Matt has always taught in the past was, yeah, it's a non -essential matter. If you come across it, it's as easy as eating away.

47:01

So, but Andrew, I was going to ask you, wouldn't you see the point, though, of God working through covenantally?

47:11

I mean, you see it all throughout the Old Testament as far as Him and Abraham making that covenant with the carcass, with the sacrifice.

47:22

I mean, you see all throughout the Old Testament, you see Him covenantally making promises to His people.

47:33

Why all of a sudden would He just end it after Christ came into this world?

47:43

When would a dispensational say that He's done with covenants? Oh, OK. I thought that.

47:49

So and this is a fallacy if you're talking to a guy that's saying that line. And this

47:55

Matt and I have talked about every single when you look at the dispensationalism and dispensations, every dispensation is based on a covenant.

48:04

So the covenant is what ushers in the new dispensation. And it's the covenant that changes

48:11

God's relationship with His people. So He deals with Adam and Eve different than He did with Abraham, different than He did with the nation of Israel, with Moses, different than He did with David.

48:21

Each one of those would have a covenant relationship. And so we talk about this economy.

48:27

That's what dispensationalism means. So it's this economy, this way God works with folks. And He does it through the covenant.

48:35

So, yeah, it's a misnomer when people say that dispensationalism doesn't believe in covenants because.

48:41

Gotcha. OK, that was probably my confusion. I was under I was assuming that, you know, your position was you don't believe in the covenants.

48:49

But that was my bad. OK, OK. That makes it much more clear. Good. There you go.

48:59

Hey, Matt, just for fun, you know, until some folks come in with questions.

49:05

We got the Catholic traditionalist is trying to ask whether I agree with you that there could be square circles.

49:12

And I keep telling him this is a category error. It's kind of funny because he's telling me that,

49:18

I guess, you know, things with God don't have to be logical, which makes sense. If he's Catholic, he doesn't believe that.

49:29

So I'm going to ask this of you, assuming what I think your answer is going to be.

49:35

But I gave him an answer that he just doesn't like. Why is it that that isn't a logical question?

49:42

It's impossible for one thing that is defined and actually something that by its very existence and definition in nature cannot be something else.

49:54

So, for example, a square necessarily by definition has four equal angles, four at 90 degrees and also has four equidistant or equal length sides.

50:13

That's what a square is. A circle is by definition not that.

50:20

And so a circle has a radius and the radius is constant from the central point all the way out.

50:28

There are no inclusions of 90 degree angles. In fact, there are no angles. There are no sides.

50:35

So by definition, one excludes the other as being what it itself is.

50:41

Therefore, a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. And for him to say a circle can be a square is just simply nothing more than flat out absurdity.

50:55

And the fact that I tried to correct him and he then retains the absurdity demonstrates he is the noetic effect of sin on the mind.

51:06

I mean, the noetic effect, that's sin on the mind. Plus his lack of proper understanding of basic logic and the fact that he is so rudimentally committed to Catholicism.

51:19

And this is part of a premise that he needs to build an argument. He's so committed that he is adopting absurdity, an impossibility.

51:29

And he can't grasp it. And because of that, you can't trust him to have a rational conversation.

51:37

That's not an insult. It just means you can't trust and have a rational conversation because he's being completely irrational and asserting something that's logically impossible.

51:45

How do you have a rational conversation with someone who offers the absurd as a basis for building a case for something?

51:53

You know, it's ridiculous. It might change with him. He's saying like, well, God's different than us.

52:00

So I guess God doesn't have to be logical. Now he's trying to appeal to quantum mechanics to say, well, in quantum mechanics, can there be a round circle?

52:11

Seriously, the guy is stunningly ignorant and stunningly incapable of having a logical discussion in this area.

52:24

And he doesn't even understand that logic itself is a reflection or an emanation out of the very mind of God.

52:33

And since we can define logically, let me back up. The laws of logic and the laws of inference and various things are reflections of the mind of God.

52:44

And this is why, because we are in the image of God, Genesis 1, 26, 27, 28, we can then think things like God and recognize things.

52:53

And the Logos, which was the word that became flesh from which we get the word logic, the

53:00

Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. And since we know from logic that it's impossible for a square to be a circle, it's just impossible.

53:11

Then we know that since this is a logical impossibility, and we also know as Christians that the logic itself, true logic, and the laws of logic are emanations or reflections of the mind of God, we know that God cannot violate his own mind and that he cannot make a round square.

53:31

If this guy wants to assert that that's the case, then he is basically asserting a different God without knowing it.

53:38

He's also asserting that God can then thereby be self -refuting and contradictory. And by doing that, you can't trust him.

53:45

So he's really undermining his foundation for knowledge, for rationality, and the true nature and essence of God.

53:54

And then appealing to ignorance as a defense, which is a further demonstration of his complete logical incompetence in this area.

54:05

And so I'm going to ask you which logical fallacy this is, because he tried to argue that...

54:12

Well, he asked me the question in quantum mechanics, can there be a round square, yes or no?

54:17

I said, no. He said, all quantum physicists disagree with you. Do you know what logical fallacy that is?

54:25

That's appeal to authority. And also argumenta med populum, the majority says it.

54:31

So, okay. Give us a list of quantum mechanics that say there could be round squares.

54:39

That's exactly what I asked him. I said, can you name one? And what do you do? Well, he's been silent so far.

54:48

He said, all? Really? He says, all quantum physicists disagree with you.

54:55

So he should be able to name one then, right? I want to see the quote that says that quantum physics shows that we can have a round square.

55:06

Okay. So let me ask you this, Matt, because this is something, we saw this in that clip that we played in the beginning, where people, they get a conclusion, right?

55:16

They don't want to give up their conclusion, but they want to try to show you that your belief system is somehow wrong.

55:23

And they don't want to talk about their belief system, right? I mean, you talked about it in the intro clip that we played with that guy who you called him out for dismissing three times something you said.

55:38

We see this all the time. Why is it you think so many people do this where they dismiss what you say and they just want to attack what you believe?

55:48

Because they have an agenda and the agenda is not coincident with truth. The agenda is a personal, what's the word, personal, not a vendetta, but a personal thing, not an idol, but a certain personal something that they want to accomplish and push.

56:08

It's just a personal agenda, I guess. And that's what it is. And we see this all the time with people who are unregenerate.

56:16

We'll find the effect of sin upon the mind. And we find it within Christians as well.

56:22

But when you find people who refuse to see facts, then you have a problem.

56:29

This is interesting because someone has been saying to me in private, and I want to go public with me and talk about it even here right now if they would, that I've been saying on the radio that divorce is permissible, along with remarriage is permissible, if one person commits adultery and or abandons the other person.

56:56

So adultery and abandonment are justifications for divorce, and then you're free and you can remarry. And they say, no, you can't remarry and it's not going to work.

57:05

Matt, you're teaching them to commit adultery. So I said, OK. So someone gave me an argument, talked about different words, and moikete, which is adultery, and pornea, which is immorality, sexual immorality, not porno, but pornea.

57:21

At any rate. And so what I decided to do was consider this person's argument.

57:28

And maybe this person is right. Maybe I've misunderstood the text. Because this person started citing the

57:33

Greek and made a couple of points. OK, I'm going to look into it. So what I found myself doing automatically was saying he can't be right.

57:41

And I remember thinking, dismiss that because it's certainly possible he could be right. I don't want to have a loyalty or an agenda to anything that I already hold.

57:51

I need to be open to being corrected. So what I did was I went in and I studied. And lo and behold,

57:59

I discovered that he was wrong and that my original position was correct.

58:06

And I'm writing an article that I'll release. I went to the Greek and I did an analysis of this and that and found out, read some commentaries by some

58:12

Greek experts. I really researched it and it was a good challenge. But I found out that no, the whole point of this is

58:20

I tried to remain open to maybe I'm wrong about something. And that's an issue of pride in me.

58:27

I don't want to be wrong because Matzlick knows everything. And so I got to make sure that Matzlick's right. So go to the

58:33

Bible and find out whatever you can to make Matzlick look right, because he's got to be right. And I had to dismiss that and say no, because if it's what the

58:41

Bible says, I need to subject myself to it. This point, when I teach people others,

58:46

I'm saying, yes, I submit myself to that philosophy as well. It's not easy to do, but I don't have any loyalty to any philosophy.

58:56

I have a loyalty to Jesus Christ. I have a loyalty to the truth of the word of God as revealed in it.

59:02

And so I'm obligated to do that to the best of my ability. And I'm responsible to represent it truthfully.

59:09

Now, it's certainly possible I could be wrong in some of my conclusions, but I'm not wrong knowingly, which would then be deception.

59:18

So, you know, people can believe something that's not correct and not be deceiving people because there's no malice or intent of dissent, of deceit, excuse me.

59:28

So nevertheless, this is the thing I advocate that people do. Drop your pride, best you can, and go into the word and let it guide you and teach you.

59:36

Forget your agendas, forget your history, forget your church, forget your this, forget your that, forget me, forget

59:41

Andy. Andrew, just go in and study the word. Let it let it speak to you. And that's what I want to want to say.

59:50

All right. I think we're going to have a little bit more fun in the next segment of the show before we get to John from last week.

59:59

He was the guy who didn't know how to read a dictionary. Actually, he's saying that if you go check the comments in the inside chat.

01:00:10

Yes, this will be fun because, well, I have some questions

01:00:17

I had from him from last week. We could get to maybe two. All right. So, you know, but but before we go to him, you know, we're talking about this

01:00:25

Roman Catholic guy and that could actually put you to sleep. But if you're going to go to sleep, if before you listen to the

01:00:33

Roman Catholic guy and he puts you to sleep, make sure that you like Matt and I get a my pillow because it's one of the best pillows.

01:00:41

And at least if you have to listen to that Catholic guy, you will sleep soundly with your own. My pillow, very comfortable pillow stays nice and firm all night long.

01:00:50

And they are a sponsor of the Matt Slick live radio show, and we promote them here.

01:00:57

We also just love their pillows. So if you want to check it out and know why Matt and I sleep so well, you can call 1 -800 -944 -5396.

01:01:08

That's 1 -800 -944 -5396. You let them know you heard it on Apologetics Live and get yourself a my pillow.

01:01:17

I also want to play an ad for a conference that's coming up next month.

01:01:23

So many Christians struggle with suffering, and yet they do it alone because most of us are too ashamed to let others know that we're struggling.

01:01:33

We struggle alone because we think that there's something wrong. As Christians, we shouldn't be struggling at all.

01:01:40

We should just have the answers. And yet that's not the case. There's many of us who struggles, whether it be within our marriage, whether it be with our children, whether it be with physical ailments.

01:01:50

I want to let you know of a conference coming to Freehold, New Jersey to help with this.

01:01:56

It is called the Sanctification Through Suffering Conference. It is going to be held at Chinese American Bible Church in Freehold, New Jersey.

01:02:04

You can get all the information and the speakers. The speakers will be Justin Peters, who if you know him, you know he struggles physically.

01:02:12

Frank Mullis, Colleen Sharp, and Joe Suazo. And we will have this conference.

01:02:18

You can get all the details and register at strivingforeternity .org slash conference dash on dash suffering.

01:02:28

Get all the details, and I hope to see you there. All right. Yes, that's because a lot of people do struggle.

01:02:35

Folks who know Matt know that he has struggled with Asperger's for a long time.

01:02:41

But even more so now, folks that have been know that he has been struggling more with his wife who's struggling.

01:02:50

And with that, Matt, I want to I do. I meant to send this to you before we started the show, but let me read something.

01:02:55

And this is an email. I'm going to send it to you right now, actually, because there's part of this I won't read. And I want you to check your email so you can get this.

01:03:05

Dawn sent this to us. She said, I listened to you and Matt religiously on podcast.

01:03:14

I've learned and grown so much from both of you. Thank you.

01:03:21

When I can, I donate to you both. Parentally single mom, crazy,

01:03:27

Bill's crazy. But God provides on parentheses. So she says, anyway, my spiritual gift is encouragement.

01:03:36

Listening about the struggles with Matt's wife has gone through the past year breaks my heart.

01:03:44

She sounds very lovely and I would like to do something for her. You can have to read the email,

01:03:49

Matt, to see what she's going to do, because maybe it'll end up being a surprise for your wife. Where's the email sent to?

01:03:57

I send it to your Matt. Just check your email. Okay.

01:04:04

So she says, thank you so much,

01:04:14

Andrew. I appreciate all that you guys have done for the church by equipping us for the battle and love.

01:04:22

God bless you. So that was from someone named Dawn, who just wants to bless you.

01:04:28

Your wife has gone through quite a bit of struggling. And that's why we're doing this conference, because there's a lot of people that just don't talk in the church about the issue of suffering and physical struggle.

01:04:40

As if it's not there, as if we pretend it's not there, maybe it'll go away. You know,

01:04:46

Justin Peters, you know that he struggles physically. You know, I mean, what amazes me,

01:04:52

Justin travels literally all over the world, like third world countries with cerebral palsy and with crutches to get around in places where they don't really have roads.

01:05:04

So I think he knows a thing or two about dealing with physical suffering. And, you know,

01:05:09

I'm looking forward to hearing what he's going to present to us. So that's going to be March 15th, 16th.

01:05:16

That's next month. You know what Shakespeare said, Beware the Ides of March. March 15th.

01:05:23

I'm sorry. Go ahead. It was just horrible. It was like one of the worst transitions.

01:05:32

It is so true. One of the worst ever. You got that right. Okay. Now that I've totally messed you up.

01:05:40

Okay, go ahead. Beware the Ides of March, so go register. What have I got to do with you?

01:05:46

Man, just shut up. Okay. I put the link in the chat there and I'll put it in the show notes for the podcast.

01:05:55

So, all right. I brought John back in for some more fun,

01:06:00

Matt. Now, I think last time to bring people up to speed, he was arguing that morality is subjective.

01:06:09

And you gave a definition for objectivity from a dictionary.

01:06:14

And he kept saying that things are defined by an accepted standard. So, my question for you,

01:06:22

Matt, as we wait for him to unmute himself, is what would be the standard? Because he was saying we have to have an accepted standard, one that the populace would agree to.

01:06:36

Wouldn't that be what's called a dictionary? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And he was giving you one that he made up that purposely put it in a way where he could say he won the argument.

01:06:49

Okay. He can try all he wants, whatever. You know, he can try. It's like, man.

01:06:56

I don't know. I think he's trying to save face. I don't know. Have him get on. We'll see. We'll talk.

01:07:02

Well, he unmuted himself, so go ahead, John. Well, first of all, I want to ask, are you going to mute

01:07:08

Matt if he tries to talk over me or interrupt me? Yeah.

01:07:16

So, what I typically do when Matt's doing that is I mention that to him privately because I have a private chat with him.

01:07:23

So, you don't see that. I don't have a private chat with you, so I do it here. Okay.

01:07:28

It's just it happened a lot the last time, so I'm just wasn't sure if that was happening. So, first of all,

01:07:37

I'd like to clarify a few things from the last time that I clearly got a misunderstanding from or deliberately misrepresented.

01:07:46

First of all, I do not believe that you understand correctly what

01:07:51

I mean about the consensus being the definition that is shared between two people when you're talking about words.

01:07:58

Now, yes, the dictionary tends to be considered an authoritative source, and I can give you plenty of dictionaries which give that definition, which provide the definition

01:08:08

I was using, and probably in a way that makes it a little bit more understandable than the

01:08:14

Merriam -Webster's did. I agree that the Merriam -Webster's definition that was given there was not exactly clear.

01:08:21

Okay, but hold on. If you look at the Cambridge dictionary, if you look at the Oxford English dictionary.

01:08:28

Hold on. John, hold on a second. Let's be fair. Matt asked you for the standard.

01:08:34

He asked you whether Webster's dictionary would be okay. You said yes. Now you want to try to criticize that.

01:08:41

Actually, your memory is a little bit wrong. I actually volunteered the Webster's just because it was the first one that came to my mind.

01:08:48

I didn't even see it before I offered it. Had I looked at the dictionary definition there, I probably would have gone to a different definition, which

01:08:57

I provided to Matt in the chat yesterday, incidentally. Okay, so give us the link in the inside chat so we can look up this definition that you want to use from the dictionary.

01:09:06

Actually, I don't have the link handy, but I do have the definition. If you want to look at the Cambridge English dictionary, you'll find there it talks about not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings, being fair or real.

01:09:22

If you want to just take a look at a thesaurus, you'll find that a synonym for objective is unbiased. If you want to look at the

01:09:29

Google .com, just look on Google .com, their dictionary service. You'll see that it says of a person or their judgment not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

01:09:45

A synonym being impartial, unbiased. Dictionary .com

01:09:51

itself provides several definitions. Number five, being not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice based on facts, unbiased.

01:10:03

If you go to Wikipedia and look up the term objectivity as it relates to philosophical concepts, it states it's a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination.

01:10:21

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

01:10:29

Now I would imagine you would agree that God is a sentient subject. Let me ask you a question before Matt gets in.

01:10:36

The contrast of this is the question between objectivity and subjectivity, correct? That is correct.

01:10:42

And if you go to any philosophical page, you'll find it contrasts subjectivity and objectivity.

01:10:49

We just mute you, John, when you try to talk over me. When I ask you a question, you give an answer,

01:10:54

I'm going to ask another question. So this, if you want to do that, I'll just mute you. So now the question

01:11:02

I'm going to ask you, since it's the difference between those two objectivity and subjectivity, the question that was an issue last time that Matt was trying to get to is what's the difference between objective and subjective?

01:11:17

What makes the difference there? Yes. And when Matt was asking the question, the way that Matt interprets subjectivity is that it is something which is free from one's own personal bias rather than free from any bias.

01:11:34

As that philosophy definition I provided indicates, it's from the bias of any sentient individual.

01:11:43

Matt, was that your definition? Because I don't remember that being what you said. I don't remember what

01:11:48

I said. So the issue that Matt brought up was the issue of being outside of oneself versus from within oneself.

01:11:58

In other words, subjective is from within yourself, something you, subjectively, something that you come to versus something that's outside of yourself.

01:12:09

That was the distinction. Okay. And here's the problem with that definition.

01:12:16

It's not complete. The reason why it's not complete is because anything I say to you, you would have to consider to be objective because it comes from outside of you.

01:12:31

So you ignore the context to go to what you want. No, I'm not ignoring the context at all.

01:12:39

The context is the contrast between those two words. You keep jumping to something that's outside of the context.

01:12:47

I know you'd like to be that way, but that's not the case in philosophy. If you go to philosophy, you study philosophy, you'll learn that's not the case.

01:12:53

We're talking about words first. We're talking about words that have meanings. You're giving different meanings.

01:13:04

Go ahead with your question to Matt. It looks like Matt's trying to ask a question, so go ahead.

01:13:13

What's your question? I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to ask a question. You were asking for a timeout.

01:13:19

I just did. What's your question? Basically, what

01:13:24

I wanted to do is actually provide a more succinct reason why

01:13:29

I believe morality is not objective than what

01:13:34

I provided last time. I would like to do that without you interrupting me as I'm trying to give the argument so I can actually get it out.

01:13:46

Then, if you'd like to go ahead and criticize that, that'd be fine. As long as you're not going to take a long time, because it's not your show.

01:13:54

Be concise. I understand. I'll do my best. Morality is imperative in that it is a set of prescriptions and proscriptions.

01:14:07

Basically, saying that you can do this or you can't do that, thou shalt do this, thou shalt not do that, rather than being descriptive.

01:14:16

Because it is something where it's a commandment, it's actually coming from somebody or it's coming from oneself.

01:14:25

If it's coming from somebody else, if it's coming from outside you, that's what is generally considered to be morality.

01:14:32

If it's coming from within oneself, that's what's generally considered to be ethics. We see this all the time in organizations like the ethics of medicine, the ethics of business, and so on, the ethics of law, versus the morality which is imposed externally, say, by a society upon its members, by a church upon its congregants, by the head of a family upon the members of the family, for example.

01:14:58

Morality is dictated, and because it is dictated, it actually comes from a person.

01:15:04

Even the commandments of God that the Christians believe in, they come from God.

01:15:09

They're dictated by God. Now, they may have a standard of some sort that is the basis for the morality, for the moral system, but that standard is not selected objectively.

01:15:23

It is decided upon by the person who is dictating the morality or who is accepting the morality.

01:15:34

Basically, it's the nature of morality which indicates that morality is subjective.

01:15:41

It has nothing to do with whether or not there is some kind of objective basis that one might use, but one, that person that is using that as the basis is basically making that decision.

01:15:56

That's what makes morality subjective. Go ahead.

01:16:11

What's the purpose of this? I just wanted to point out because so many people who are moral realists argue that there's an objective morality that everybody is beholden to, that everyone has to obey, and I believe that's an error that many people are making.

01:16:30

Now, this doesn't mean that if there is a God and God is going to hold his creation, all of mankind, to that standard, that that wouldn't be something that we shouldn't be concerned about.

01:16:43

Now, I don't personally believe in the God of the Bible, but one can certainly argue that if such a being exists and such a being has ultimate power, certainly overall in mankind, then obeying the moral standards that such a

01:16:59

God sets forth would probably be a good idea and in people's best interest to do so. So basically, you just kind of wasted our time?

01:17:12

If you think so. You didn't say anything. I'm just tired of people claiming that objective morality exists when it doesn't.

01:17:21

Oh, it doesn't. Okay. So objective morality, what you mean is that any moral, by any sentient being, is automatically subjective.

01:17:35

That is correct. Okay. And so what you're saying then, that the objective moral is not something that's universal to everybody.

01:17:43

If it was objective to everybody, it would not be universal, right? I mean, it would be if it was objective to everybody.

01:17:50

You're saying there is no universal, absolute moral truth, right? Okay, so that's another thing.

01:17:55

Is that right? This is something I think that there was also a little bit of confusion on when we were talking last time.

01:18:02

Now, when you mean universal, it seems like sometimes you mean universally applicable and at other times it seems you mean everyone is believing it.

01:18:13

And the problem with that is that those are two different usages and they often get ambiguously mixed together.

01:18:20

Now, a person such as God, for example, could say everyone must always do this.

01:18:27

That's subjective coming from God, but it still applies to everyone at all times.

01:18:34

So it's universal, it's absolute, but it's not objective. So, you're saying

01:18:49

God's morals are subjective to himself? Yes, and to anybody who adheres to them.

01:18:57

They're also subjective, but... Hold on, hold on. It doesn't mean something they shouldn't do necessarily.

01:19:05

You complained that you want me to interrupt you. I ask a simple question and you pontificate for long periods of time.

01:19:12

I miss asking simple questions. So you're saying

01:19:17

God's morals are subjective to himself. That's all I asked. Is that what you're saying? Yes, I am saying that they are subjective to himself.

01:19:25

Okay. And according to the scriptures, is God's nature absolute and unchanging?

01:19:33

It is my understanding that the scriptures claim that. However... According to the scriptures. And yes, the answer is yes.

01:19:40

Do you affirm that? What I would say is that it seems to state that.

01:19:45

However, there are other scriptures which seem to contraindicate that. You're wrong.

01:19:54

You don't know what you're talking about in that respect. The Bible clearly says that God is unchanging in his nature and his essence.

01:20:00

You go to Malachi 3 .6. You go to Hebrews 9 .22. His nature and essence does not change.

01:20:07

That's just what it is. He's from everlasting to everlasting. He is God. Psalm 90 verse 2. If you want to make the mistake of going into how

01:20:13

God operates through history at different times, and then equate that with his nature, then that would be a category mistake.

01:20:20

So the Bible clearly teaches that God's nature is absolute. Sorry about that.

01:20:26

That God's nature is absolute and unchanging. Now, that's the biblical position.

01:20:31

That's the Christian perspective. Now, so God's morals come from his absolute, unchanging nature, right?

01:20:41

So I understand that's your position, and that's the position of most Christians. Okay. You want to complain about the

01:20:49

Christian God. We're talking about the Christian God. You're not talking about a bunch of Christians. You're talking to me. So I'm trying to get you to be specific.

01:20:57

You want to be clear? I'm asking you to be clear. You want to talk about the Christian God? Let's talk about the Christian God.

01:21:03

I happen to be very well qualified to tell you about the qualities, attributes, etc., of the

01:21:08

Christian God. I've been doing this for 39 years. I'm qualified. Of course, I would not say that everything

01:21:14

I say is automatically true because of it. But nevertheless, the nature of God is immutable, unchanging.

01:21:21

It's also eternal. So he's unchanging, and he's eternal.

01:21:28

Now, Jesus says in Matthew 12, 34, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. God speaks out of the abundance of his heart.

01:21:35

He said, Don't lie, don't steal. This is out of his nature, out of his essence. So therefore, is it not consistent within that worldview?

01:21:43

Because you're complaining about the Christian worldview. So is it not consistent in the Christian worldview to say that the morals of God are reflections of his absolute, unchanging nature?

01:21:56

I would say it is mostly consistent, but I would disagree with you as far as the total consistency.

01:22:01

And I know that I disagree with you, and you would have explanations for that, as you alluded to.

01:22:07

I think that's something we're just going to disagree on. That was a different topic ago. I need you to focus.

01:22:14

I'm sorry. I'm being distracted by my wife calling. Perhaps we can deal with this at a different time.

01:22:21

No, no, no, no, no. Don't do this again. I'm not lying to you. It's rather disingenuous to say that I am.

01:22:28

But she is calling me. You've dominated the time. I'm asking you questions. Okay.

01:22:34

I'll give them as quick as I can. But if you're going to ask a leading question that I can't give a straight yes or no answer to,

01:22:40

I'm not going to answer yes or no. Then I have to teach you how to give a simple answer. Again, if you're asking me a leading question that I can't give a simple yes or no answer to,

01:22:50

I'm not going to answer it that way. Yes, you can. Is 2 plus 2 4? According to the standard of mathematics, which commonly we agree to, yes.

01:23:01

Wow. Is there any case where 2 plus 2 is not equal to 4? If we disagree down the standards of mathematics or we have a change in the base, maybe a base 6 or something else, or a base 2.

01:23:15

I have a suggestion. Why don't you go be with your wife? I will.

01:23:20

And I'll try to get back another time when she's not calling me. Yeah. You have a happy Valentine's Day, you and Andrew both.

01:23:29

Perhaps we can discuss this another time. All right. He's gone.

01:23:35

Whatever. The problem should be pretty obvious. He wants to take all the time that there is.

01:23:44

This happened last week, too. It's kind of interesting, is that when I started pinning him on the transcendental issues, he had to go.

01:23:52

It was very gracious. Now when I start to do the same thing, now he's got to go again. Okay.

01:23:58

Now I'm starting to get a little bit suspicious about this. If his morals are subjective, then what's to prevent him from just lying about, so to speak, his wife is calling, when maybe not?

01:24:11

He's had the time at his demand to be able to lay his case out. When it's time to cross -examine it, now it's time to leave.

01:24:20

So that's a problem. Since he's admitted that his morals are subjective to himself, then we don't know if he has any complete standard of morality by which we can trust that he's being honest with us.

01:24:33

So his position undermines his own credibility with us. That's one of the points I need to bring out, and it's a problem with him.

01:24:41

Nevertheless, from the Christian perspective, if God is immutable and he is absolute and eternal, then that which emanates out of him in his moral sense, because that's referring to his character also, his immutability and eternality, and the morals will reflect that as well.

01:24:59

There are certain questions that are necessary to ask in light of that. That would mean, then, that since God's nature is absolute and unchanging, and the morals come from God's nature, therefore, doesn't it mean that the morals that come from God are also absolute and unchanging?

01:25:16

And since he is the final arbiter, and since he is the final judge, then the issue of morality is something that is objective to us, and we need to be concerned about the day of judgment when

01:25:25

God will cast us into hell or heaven, based upon, of course, the work of Christ and our trust in Christ.

01:25:31

This is ultimately what it comes to. But it comes time to cross -examine him and put all this down the pedal to the metal.

01:25:38

Gotta go. We'll see how he does. Now, notice what he did, though, Matt. When you said, no, don't do this, he said, don't accuse me of lying.

01:25:49

No, don't do this is an accusation of lying? Or was that a guilty conscience?

01:25:55

I don't know. I don't know if it was in his heart, but I just think he was inconsistent. So I was extremely patient.

01:26:01

He wanted to just say things without being interrupted. Okay. And I took notes. Morality is a set of prescriptions.

01:26:08

A commandment is coming from someone, self or not self. He said, quote, morality is dictated and comes from God.

01:26:13

He said, it is not objective. It's based on God's subjective nature. But that's the problem area.

01:26:20

Therefore, there's no objective morality that someone might use. That's another problem area, because what could be objective to us is subjective to God's absolute nature.

01:26:29

And so, therefore, the absolute true moral reality that we must bow to is objective to us.

01:26:37

And that's the ultimate issue. That's what it comes down to. But what he's going to say is, we don't care about that. It just means it's subjective.

01:26:43

I'll say, let's just say it does mean it's subjective to God. So now what? He's the king. He's the judge.

01:26:49

You got to answer to him. And these morals that he gives, don't lie, don't steal, et cetera, are absolute.

01:26:54

They are eternal by nature, because he is eternal by nature, because they reflect his character and his essence.

01:27:00

So, therefore, since they are eternal by nature and have preceded the universe, they're objective to us, obviously.

01:27:06

Now, what's he going to do with this? And he's going to just go, what he'll probably do, I predict, is that he'll want to go back into semantic word games.

01:27:15

And I won't let him do it at that point. Well, I think we could solve this easily. I've added everybody that's in here.

01:27:21

I've added them. I'm going to unmute people one at a time. I'm going to ask a question. He had said last week that things are defined by the consensus.

01:27:31

So, Matt, I'm going to start with you, and then I'm going to ask this question of everybody who's in here. It's a simple yes or no.

01:27:36

I want everyone to answer. Matt, I'll go first, actually. The question is, is he wrong in his view?

01:27:46

I say yes. Matt, what do you say? Which view? Okay, so it'll be more specific.

01:27:52

When he says that morals are only subjective, I say he's wrong. Do you say he's wrong?

01:28:02

In the definition he gave, I can't say yes or no until we get more clarification. I'm trying to argue from what his definition is, which was not as clear.

01:28:10

So I can't say yes or no right now. Sorry. You've got to be careful. We're clear then for you.

01:28:17

Is his definition wrong? Well, he said that if his definition is that any moral comes out of a person's own being, and therefore it's subjective, then by that definition, everything is subjective because it comes out of the being of God.

01:28:34

Do you believe his definition is wrong? Okay, it's not an answer of right and wrong.

01:28:41

It's because if that definition is what he wants, then it's correct. Okay, so I'll word it differently for Matt.

01:28:55

Is there an absolute, objective, universal morality that comes from the nature of God?

01:29:03

Yes, that's absolutely true. Okay, I agree with that. John, do you agree with that?

01:29:10

Well, it depends on what you define God as. What standard have you got by which you can define what

01:29:17

God is? He's doing this. It's just ridiculous. Yes or no, do you agree? I agree.

01:29:23

Yes, that is. Hold on. I'm going to mute you. I'm going to go to Joseph. Joseph, yes or no, do you agree with that?

01:29:31

He's absolutely wrong. I mean, it's the creator of the universe. Okay, hold on. Hold on.

01:29:36

I'm going to go to, I don't know what your name is, but do you agree with that? Yes, I do agree.

01:29:44

You agree with us. Okay. So real quick, by the consensus here in this room, we're all unanimous that we're right, he's wrong, that there is an absolute universal standard of morality that comes from God.

01:29:59

So by his own definition, he has to submit to that. There's the consensus. We all agree.

01:30:09

Yeah, I mean, that shows the problem he's got. It's in this room.

01:30:14

It's in whatever room anyone's in. If you're going to go to the consensus, it's like when people say, well,

01:30:19

I got a study that shows this. Well, you can always make a study that says whatever you want it to say, as long as you fit it to make sure it fits what you want the conclusion to be.

01:30:29

Well, another little sub point of problem with him is, as I was starting to focus on until he had to conveniently leave, is that he wants to criticize the

01:30:41

Christian worldview. Well, then let's discuss it from the Christian worldview. He doesn't want to do that.

01:30:47

He wants to take a secularized, philosophically based idea of a certain definition and then say that God, therefore, is subjective.

01:30:57

We could work with that and say, okay, let's just say that God is subjective and his morals are subjective, subjective to himself.

01:31:04

Okay. And he's eternal. And he's absolute. So therefore those subjective morals are also eternal and absolute, which means you've got to face him.

01:31:15

So now what are you going to do with that? So even that definition does not negate the truth of Christianity, the truth of God's character, the necessity, the obligation to follow those moral laws, the consequence of it will occur by breaking those laws.

01:31:31

If he wants to try and dismiss that by saying it's all subjective and then therefore, and the ultimate question is, therefore not valid?

01:31:39

Because if it's subjective and not valid, then he's saying that God himself, the Christian God, does not have the right to declare what is and is not moral out of his own eternal, immutable, universal existence.

01:31:52

And then I would just say, well, what gives you the right to lay your basis and your logic upon God?

01:31:59

And as soon as he tries, then I've got him by the throat because then what he's doing is trying to use the transcendent nature of logic in order to argue against God.

01:32:09

And he cannot, from his perspective, demonstrate that the logic itself is something that must be subjective as well.

01:32:18

Because if he's going to say that logic is subjective to individuals, then we cannot trust its universal truth value.

01:32:24

We can't argue. So if he's going to start arguing that logic has an objective value because you would have to, then how is he going to defend that position without saying that morality itself is also not absolute?

01:32:38

Because both of them can only be explained as competently by presupposing the

01:32:45

Christian God's existence. So he, you know, I was willing to work with the guy, but bring him down the road to the logical conclusion and then ax him.

01:32:55

But he had to go again.

01:33:02

Conveniently. We've got someone new in here, so I don't know if he's got any questions, but I will, and I don't know how to pronounce his handle here.

01:33:12

I guess it's La Appaluzie.

01:33:20

So I've unmuted him. So if you have any questions or challenges for Matt, go ahead.

01:33:27

No, I don't have anything. I'm just enjoying my moment, listening to you guys and it has been a blessing.

01:33:34

By the way, it's Appolojet, it's in French. It means apologist. Are you from France?

01:33:42

No, I'm from Quebec in Canada. Fake French, my wife would say. My wife speaks

01:33:54

French, so her mom was born and raised in France. Anyway, whatever. I was up in,

01:34:01

I guess, Toronto. And one thing I noticed that was interesting with some

01:34:08

French speaking, they would not speak French with him because his French wasn't good enough.

01:34:15

And even though they both spoke French, this guy would not speak to him in French because he had an accent.

01:34:24

And so they would talk in Spanish through a translator. Oh, no. Yeah. French people can be condescending towards us

01:34:33

Quebeckers. Oh, yeah. The Quebecker, and yeah, he actually has it with his in -laws too.

01:34:40

They'll speak to him in English rather than speak to him in French. You're from Quebec?

01:34:48

Yes. You go to a church up there? Yes, I'm going to a Baptist church there.

01:34:53

Oh, that's good. I'm right now completing a Bachelor of Theology with the

01:34:59

NBBI, New Brunswick Bible Institute, which is the province at the right of Quebec.

01:35:04

And I will be graduating in May. And after, I want to be perhaps a missionary or a pastor.

01:35:13

So I'm just getting equipped. And I use a lot of Matt Slick material. I go off into CARM .org.

01:35:20

Good for you, man. Love to hear that. Do you know that CARM .org has trained more seminary professors and pastors than any seminary out there?

01:35:34

No. Because it's accessible. It's accessible. Yeah. See, students of all the seminaries go to CARM .org.

01:35:43

I'm surprised. A lot of them do, actually. I was surprised. Yeah. But there should be more things in French.

01:35:52

Yes, there should be. Perhaps in the future, I would like to translate some of your articles.

01:35:58

I was just going to say, are you interested in doing some translation? Yeah, I would like to.

01:36:05

I would like to. What's your first name? My first name is

01:36:11

Manuel. So you speak French and you got a Spanish name?

01:36:18

I think it's Hebrew. Well, yeah, it's Hebrew. Yeah, come on. Aren't you

01:36:26

Jewish? Sure, sure. Manuel is Spanish. Manuel would be...

01:36:33

Yeah, it depends how you pronounce it. In Spanish, it would be Manuelito. You speak Spanish?

01:36:40

No, I'm learning Spanish right now. I'm doing my fourth year, my Bachelor in Theology in Uruguay. So right now,

01:36:45

I'm speaking to you from near Montevideo. Wow. Well, if you'd like to practice with me,

01:36:51

I'd like to do that. Ah, yes. I need to practice more.

01:36:57

Yes, me too. But immersion is the best option. Immersion, when it's mandatory for me to speak in Spanish.

01:37:06

I like it, I like it. Spanish is easy to understand. It's easier than French.

01:37:14

Yes, my French is a great help. It's a great help because there are many similar words between French and Spanish.

01:37:24

I like it, I like it. We're all speaking in tongues here, come on!

01:37:31

I'm not Pentecostal, I'm not Pentecostal. No, this is the real speaking in tongues.

01:37:41

But, well, good, good. It's good that you're going to CARM again and stuff. And yeah, if you're interested in doing some translation stuff, maybe we can get that on CARM.

01:37:52

Sure, I would love to. I mean, you probably need some education or a bachelor in translation, but...

01:37:59

No, not really. It just has to be good. We have ways of checking things out. But Canada French is different than France French.

01:38:07

Yes, yes. It has to be standardized. Right, it has to be standardized. And so the

01:38:12

French wouldn't, they might reject it. Yeah, they are a little...

01:38:19

You're saying your wife, Nic, might reject it. She might be like, this isn't real

01:38:27

French. All right. So, well, so Manuel, you're welcome to come back in.

01:38:37

If you have questions, just pop on in. I'm gonna, we'll go to Joseph and we got about, what, 20 minutes left.

01:38:44

So, I don't know if Joseph has any questions here. I'm gonna unmute.

01:38:50

Oh boy, wow. It's an interesting show today. I guess

01:38:58

I've been looking a lot in the scriptures in terms of trying to,

01:39:04

I guess, we've had a few discussions back and forth. And, you know, and they've been good.

01:39:11

But my central thing is, you know, I keep thinking, I kept thinking to myself about Acts 17.

01:39:18

And, I guess, basically, like, when they begin talking to the Athenians. And basically, the

01:39:25

Athenians, of course, as we already know, they just love disputation. And, you know, disputation for the sake of disputation is not a good thing.

01:39:33

I think we all agree on that. I guess what I'm getting at, and perhaps, actually, this was providential, because we tend to have long discussions back and forth.

01:39:46

And those discussions, unfortunately, can be less than productive. And so, realizing

01:39:52

I have a time limit of, I would assume, less than 18 minutes, that leads me to ask a few direct questions.

01:39:59

So, that might be helpful, because, again, my goal remains the same.

01:40:05

But, eventually, I can't, you know, go on forever. I don't know if that makes sense. So, one of the things you had mentioned earlier, and I know that you guys have a bit of a disagreement on this.

01:40:17

But it's not a real, I don't think it's a real disagreement. I think you guys agree in principle on these, on the concepts of covenants.

01:40:22

And the things reflected in the old covenant being in the new covenant, correct? Basically, yeah.

01:40:29

Okay. And, now, where does the Levitical priesthood fit in that? To the left -ish of the middle dividing area.

01:40:42

That would be me. I would be the Levite here. Okay, well,

01:40:48

I didn't mean of the actual tribe of Levi. I was referring to, I'm referring to, in other words, the sacrificial priesthood.

01:40:56

Because, of course, we can look at, you know, the priesthood of all believers. And that, of course, is a reflection of Exodus 19 .6.

01:41:02

But what I'm saying is that there was still a Levitical priesthood, a practicing, sacrificial priesthood.

01:41:08

And so, where does that fit in this system, for lack of a better term, of this new covenant?

01:41:18

I'm not sure I understand your question. Well, do you have sacrificing priests in your church?

01:41:25

No. Okay. So, what would be the parallel in the new covenant to the old covenant sacrificing priesthood?

01:41:32

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Okay, so you're saying in the new covenant, post -sacrifice, there is no priesthood.

01:41:40

No. No Levitical priesthood. I didn't say that. Okay. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You just said two different things.

01:41:46

No priesthood, then you said, no Levitical priesthood. I didn't... Yeah, I was being specific about the Levitical priesthood, and I wanted to find the parallel.

01:41:53

The Levitical priesthood is done away with, because it represented, it was typologically prophetic of Christ, and so since he fulfilled it, there's no more

01:41:59

Levitical priesthood or sacrificial system needed. Okay, now, the reason why that interests me is because this got back to, remember, that whole week, the question of the, the thorny question of the

01:42:10

Eucharist, we continue asking each other, going back and forth, as to whether it's the body and blood of Christ, that's my opinion or not.

01:42:16

So I went to CARM's website, and I looked at the Church Fathers speaking about communion.

01:42:22

And in some of those, in fact, they make references to the fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and there are priests sacrificing it.

01:42:30

So I'm just curious as to how that jives. So you go to where I quote where some of the priests said, or some people said this and that?

01:42:41

Well, it's on your web... Okay, if I'm trying to define the Eucharist, and we're trying to...

01:42:47

Because we have to have a standard. I'm trying to use... What webpage? What webpage? Because without knowing,

01:42:52

I don't know what context you're referencing me from. Not a problem. It's Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist Communion Supper.

01:43:00

Okay. Let me get to it. No problem. We don't need

01:43:11

Charlie here tonight, because he would have already posted that link for you. Oh, I can post it.

01:43:16

Hold on. No, I got it. I got it. I'm looking. Eucharist Communion, yeah. Early Church Fathers, yeah. And where some said that it's one thing, and others said it's another.

01:43:27

Yeah, that's what that's about. Well, I actually went and looked at each one of these quotes.

01:43:33

I actually have each of them up. And the reason I have them up is because I don't see an inconsistency in any of the

01:43:39

Father's teachings here. More importantly, and this is where... You're just being subjective.

01:43:46

I don't see any inconsistency. So you're just saying you don't see them. It doesn't mean there isn't an inconsistency.

01:43:52

Okay, well, I'm not that John guy. I'm not going to argue the question of whether there's a possible inconsistency or not.

01:44:00

We're just going to assume that there is either... there's not an inconsistency or there is.

01:44:05

These Church Fathers are up on the website for a reason, aren't they? Yeah, to show their inconsistency. Augustine says the elements are a resemblance of the actual body and blood.

01:44:16

Arthenagoras says it's unlawful to partake of the flesh of men. Augustine said that Christ said not to eat the body of the blood which you see.

01:44:27

Clement of Alexandria says communion wine is called wine. He said that the bread and wine are symbols.

01:44:34

Eusebius says only the bread and wine. Origen, I don't trust

01:44:41

Origen too much. I left Origen alone. He's the one who said

01:44:46

I believe it's because it's absurd. Tertullian says it represents Christ's body. And communion supper is spiritual words, he said.

01:44:56

Theodoret says it remains as bread and wine. What do you say the

01:45:01

Eucharist is? Do you say it actually is the actual body and blood of Christ? Well, this is where we got into that debate earlier about DNA, so on and so forth.

01:45:09

I mean, if you're going to argue that, you know, the bread and wine has to have, I mean, the body and blood have to have DNA, then under that description

01:45:15

I would say no, that's incorrect. And I don't think that that's what these Fathers are saying, certainly not. To take

01:45:22

Theodora, for example, that's the only one I actually didn't even have to get a reference for, because quite frankly, if you read it, this is literally how we describe the

01:45:31

Eucharist in our church. But in terms of St. Augustine, I thought it was particularly interesting, because a paragraph later he begins talking about the mystery of faith, the sacrament of faith, and he's referring to baptism.

01:45:43

But he goes further, and he goes into infant baptism. And the reason why that's interesting is because he then explains that the sacrament itself physically protects the child until they are of age to believe on their own, meaning it has an external power.

01:45:58

It is not simply a simple sign. So that's what

01:46:03

Augustine may or may not have said, how you interpret it, but... I disagree with that. I want... well, it doesn't matter.

01:46:09

So, what does the Scripture say? It's not an issue what Augustine said or Tertullian. I mean, I want to know what the

01:46:14

Scripture says. But this goes right back to what we were saying, because when I said that the Scriptures say that this is, you know, that he's talking about it being his real flesh and body, you said that's your opinion.

01:46:22

So in order to make it falsifiable, we have to figure out, I'm using logic here, we have to figure out precisely whether or not that is a statement that can be historically interpreted.

01:46:33

I would say... No, no, no, no, no, no, no. See, you know, historically interpreted, that is open up to a wide variety of ambiguity.

01:46:42

Because you might find one guy who, you know, see, he agrees, it's historically interpreted consistently.

01:46:47

I could find somebody contrary. Now what do we do? You use the consensus doctrine. We've discussed this.

01:46:53

Oh, so now it's just argument in mid -populum. The majority says it, so therefore it's true? That is not something

01:46:58

I will ever accept. What I want to accept is the Word of God, it alone is inspired as the final authority.

01:47:05

For people to go outside the Word of God to make their doctrines reminds me of going to the

01:47:10

Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Book of Urantia, the

01:47:16

Quran, the Hadith. Okay, but now that brings me to another point.

01:47:21

Let's go back to the Scriptures themselves. As we know, the Apostles talk about how we should not accept interpretations that are private, those that are outside the

01:47:31

Church. That's not true. There's no prophecy of Scripture made by private interpretation?

01:47:37

You said no interpretation, period. What does the text say? That no prophecy of Scripture is to be made by private interpretation.

01:47:44

Okay, so what's the topic of no private interpretation? No prophecy of Scripture.

01:47:50

No teaching of Scripture. It doesn't say teaching. It says prophecy.

01:47:55

What does a prophet do? Okay, it says prophecy. It doesn't say teaching.

01:48:02

There's a word for teaching. Prophecy of Scripture. Okay, so I was going to see what it says.

01:48:09

When you make a prophecy, because it's not going to be a private interpretation, the Church is going to judge it. Okay, no, we agree 100%.

01:48:17

So if we go further and we take 2 Thessalonians, the traditions you have received by word or epistle, you would agree that those can be found in the

01:48:25

Scriptures, correct? What are the those you're referring to? The traditions that the

01:48:31

Apostles handed down. I wouldn't say that every tradition that they spoke or everything that they spoke by word of mouth is inscripturated.

01:48:39

No, I wouldn't say that either. We have the didache. We discussed that also. That's where we get into fasting rules.

01:48:46

The reason I bring this up is because that got me looking at Acts 15. And I'm going to just quote 23, and it says,

01:48:53

And they wrote them letters by them after this manner. The Apostles and elders and brethren said greeting to the brethren which were of the

01:48:59

Gentiles in Antioch and Syria. And you know the rest. I don't have to quote it to you. The point I'm trying to make is that through this epistolary form, the

01:49:08

Apostles continue to teach the Church. And they established a succession. We've discussed this.

01:49:17

Show me their succession of authority in Scripture. Okay, well, if we go to the

01:49:24

Acts of the Apostles once again. And we go to, hold on one second, please.

01:49:30

This is what that time limit is killing me on. All right. Electronic scriptures.

01:49:36

I'm using a book again. That's why you got to come in early. I was here at a...

01:49:42

You have a question. Let him look. Angry bald guy took a lot of space.

01:49:51

Angry bald guy. John. Is there a

01:49:56

John? Okay, so... Angry bald guy. Well, the atheist guy about subjectivity, him.

01:50:04

Angry atheist guy, and that whole argument was garbage. Yeah, it's just ridiculous.

01:50:10

And so we see Acts 14 .23. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and a prayer was passed to them, they commended them unto the

01:50:19

Lord on whom they believed. So they ordained them. Where does it say there's successive traditional...

01:50:26

Because that's what you're getting, their tradition and all their authorities passed down. It just says ordination is simply a recognition of their position and calling of God.

01:50:35

It doesn't mean that they have authority to be able to transmit tradition. That's not what the text says.

01:50:43

Well, I wasn't saying that they have the authority to transmit tradition. I was simply saying they have the authority of the church.

01:50:49

I have the authority of the church. Okay, well, which apostle ordained you? I don't know which one

01:50:57

I did. I'm ordained, but I know this. Jesus came to me directly and called me.

01:51:05

Now what are you going to do? And he did. He came directly to me at my conversion.

01:51:13

His presence, he was there. He forgave me. Okay. Now, you talked about this earlier with doctrine and practice.

01:51:27

This was something that you talked about with the atheists. What's the point you want to get to? Because you're kind of going all over the place.

01:51:33

Why don't we just get down to it. What's the point? The point I'm trying to get to is I understand the goodness of your intent.

01:51:39

I understand your belief. And I think you guys are really good guys. But the problem is, again, when we start talking about things like the covenants, and we start talking about things like baptism, and we start talking about things like Eucharist, and I think you guys get what

01:51:55

I'm saying, but at the same time are just like, well, in theory, none of it's necessary, even though kind of in practice you'd see it is necessary.

01:52:03

I don't know. I can't explain it. I'm constrained by time, my friend. You're so generic that I can't understand what you're saying.

01:52:09

Okay, let's use baptism as an example. You would believe that after someone believes they should be baptized.

01:52:15

Is that correct? Yeah. But you wouldn't say, for example, that the person needs baptism after their belief, would you?

01:52:25

I'd say, yes, they do need baptism in order to fulfill the commandment of Christ. Oh, okay, good. So the point

01:52:31

I'm trying to make is, like, take, for example, the reason this is important, I bring this up, is because we would agree on that, but then at the same time

01:52:40

I would point out that that's the tradition of the church, and that would be considered a tradition of men.

01:52:48

It's what Jesus said. I don't need to do the tradition of anybody. I just read what Jesus said. Get baptized.

01:52:53

Okay, baptize. Okay, well, who baptizes? The people baptized.

01:52:59

You can go to Acts 10, 44 -48. Acts 10, 44 -48, correct?

01:53:05

The Gentiles were baptized after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and Peter said they've already received the gift of the

01:53:10

Holy Spirit just as we have. So they got water and they baptized them. Who baptized them? Peter and the apostles,

01:53:16

I guess, Peter. You're talking about Peter and the apostles. I guess, yeah. I would assume that their designated successors were baptizing people afterwards, correct?

01:53:25

Yeah, you don't have to be an apostle or an ordained minister in order to baptize somebody. Nothing in Scripture says that.

01:53:31

Well, yeah, but I'm talking about the regular form. Normally people would do that. Well, wait a minute. If it's an issue of authority, can

01:53:37

Bob, some guy who's a mechanic, and he's been a

01:53:42

Christian his whole life or just whatever, you know, most of his life. He's a good, dedicated person. And his good friend

01:53:48

Frank becomes a Christian, and they just love each other. You know, they're good friends. And Bob baptizes him.

01:53:55

Is that okay? He's not in an Anglican church. He's not a Calvinist. He's whatever. Could he be

01:54:01

Orthodox? He's not Orthodox. He's not everything. He's just a Christian. He believes in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, alone in Christ alone.

01:54:09

And he goes, let's get you. The guy goes, baptize you. Okay. Is his baptism valid? Well, what about a Jehovah's Witness?

01:54:15

Okay. Is his baptism valid? I would say from a purely logical standpoint, if he did three immersions and a baptism in the name of the

01:54:23

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if he was baptized by a Christian, he was baptized validly. Then you don't need authority transmitted down in order to do something.

01:54:31

In order to do baptism. Yeah, or baptism. Or administer communion. Is there any necessity of the communion being given by a duly ordained individual?

01:54:42

Anything in Scripture that says that? Well, I would assume that since they were the only ones who actually did the

01:54:47

Eucharist, that's just a safe assumption to make. No, it's not a safe assumption because it's just simply an assumption.

01:54:55

You don't want to make a doctrine in practice on assumption. You want to go with what the

01:55:00

Bible actually says. Nothing in the Bible says only ordained ministers who've had their hands laid on by successors of the apostles can properly give communion.

01:55:12

Okay, then why are there qualifications for elders and deacons in the Scripture? First of all,

01:55:19

I'll answer it. I'll answer it. I'll answer it. First of all, nothing in the

01:55:26

Scripture says that communion or baptism can only or must only be administered by official clergy.

01:55:33

I just admitted baptism. No, okay. And your question is, then if you admit that, then you shouldn't go to Titus chapter 1 and 1

01:55:40

Timothy chapter 3 to say, well, what about the elders who had to have qualifications? The only ones who normally did the baptizing.

01:55:47

In order to be an elder, there were certain qualifications they had to meet. Husband of one wife, orderly, not given to much wine.

01:55:55

You know, just basic things like that. I get it. To be in that position. Okay, but none of those says they have to be the ones who baptize or give communion.

01:56:02

None of them says that. Well, I'm sure you remember the whole thing with apostles disputing with each other, factions forming in the church, and where St.

01:56:09

Paul says, you know, I'm of Apollos, I'm of Cephas, and I'm glad I baptized none of you except for those.

01:56:15

The point I'm trying to make here is that one thing that the parties forming were all forming around elders.

01:56:23

They were all forming around presbyters, which means you can therefore deduce easily that not everyone was just baptizing people randomly.

01:56:32

That it was, they were brought to the church and they were baptized by the elders of the church. I didn't say they're baptizing randomly.

01:56:40

I said that there's nothing in scripture that necessitates that baptism or communion must be administered by duly ordained clergy.

01:56:50

That's my point. Right. But my argument is, and I would say that that's something that has been historically played around with in the church for ages.

01:56:58

I mean, the fourth century deacons weren't allowed to confect chrism anymore. The point I'm trying to make. So what?

01:57:03

I'm talking about what the scripture says, not what some aberrant historical point might be.

01:57:09

Yeah. Okay. So then how do you determine what the correct understanding of the scripture is? I mean, if you say the

01:57:16

Holy Spirit is kind of a fallback, because then, you know, technically Joseph Smith and all the other wackos are right too.

01:57:23

The point I'm trying to make is there has to be some sort of standard. I believe you used that word earlier.

01:57:28

What's the standard? The standard would be that which was handed down by the apostles. And what standard is it that you use to judge that that is the right way to do it?

01:57:42

By following those who were taught by them and the succession. So you have not mentioned the word of God.

01:57:49

So your standard is not the word of God. Your standard is church history. Well, their standard is the word of God.

01:57:54

But the point is they hadn't. No. Yours. I said your standard is not the word of God. This is why you're aberrant.

01:58:01

Hold on. How do you say that my standard is not the word of God when I'm sticking to a specific interpretation of the word of God you disagree with?

01:58:10

Because what you did when I asked you what's the standard, you said a tradition. Well, the scripture to an

01:58:17

Orthodox Christian is the word of God. It's like I hate using a modern description.

01:58:24

Well, then why didn't you say that? I asked you a question. The Bible says out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

01:58:29

I asked you a question. What's the standard? You didn't say scripture. After I pointed out to you, then you go back to the scriptures.

01:58:36

So what's in your heart is your tradition, not your scripture. Can I finish? What's in my heart,

01:58:41

I hope, is my Lord. But the point is. Wrap it up with this one. All right. The point

01:58:46

I was trying to make, and I don't want this to become an endless disputation, is that the church sees the scriptures as her own.

01:59:00

There's no other way for us to see it. So the question when you asked me, I took it as, how do you interpret scripture?

01:59:08

I was looking at it as the standard for scripture, not a standard by itself.

01:59:16

That would be tantamount to denying the word of God or Martianism, and we don't do that. But the point

01:59:23

I'm trying to make, how do we keep this from becoming an endless disputation?

01:59:29

Trust the word of God, not your tradition. Okay. Amen. All right.

01:59:35

Well, I think we'll just... Let's wrap it up there. Matt, I dropped the link in the...

01:59:42

Yeah, I'll go over there. I'll just jump right over there now. You guys want to continue the conversation? Let's go over there. All right.

01:59:48

I don't know actually, but it's been... The After Show is put on... I'm going.

01:59:53

I'll be over there. See you guys later. Okay. The After Show is put on by the guys over at the council. I'll put the link into the

02:00:01

YouTube as well for folks who might want to join the After Show. This is put on by Striving for Eternity.

02:00:08

That's who hosts this show. We hope that you enjoy this. We have a couple other things that we can let you know about.

02:00:15

We got several podcasts of which this is one of them. This becomes a podcast usually tomorrow. It drops usually the next day.

02:00:22

You can listen to this at Apologetics Live and get that as a podcast.

02:00:29

You can also listen to my podcast, The Wrap Report. I have two of them, a Monday through Friday daily two -minute podcast.

02:00:36

If you like short ones, giving biblical interpretations, applications to all things Bible, Christian, and secular or culture.

02:00:45

We also have a lengthier one, an hour -long one, weekly one called The Wrap Report, Andrew Rapport's Wrap Report.

02:00:51

You can subscribe to that. We had a talk with Virgil Walker dealing with abortion, racism, culture, a whole bunch of different topics.

02:01:01

Next week we'll have Todd Friel. We'll be talking about discernment and how to do discernment.

02:01:08

Great, great conversation that we had. We got one coming up with Amy Spearman on the

02:01:14

New Apostolic Reformation. That's been recorded and being edited now. Then we have one coming up on the topic of what is salvation with Alan Nielsen.

02:01:24

Those are some ones that we got coming up on The Wrap Report. These are all part of the

02:01:32

Christian podcast community. If you want to check out some good Christian podcasts, you can go to christianpodcastcommunity .org.

02:01:40

If you're a podcaster, and we got someone who doesn't mute himself, so we will mute him.

02:01:50

He unmutes himself to say sorry. If you're a podcaster and are interested in the

02:01:56

Christian podcast community, becoming part of it, you can go to christianpodcastcommunity .com.

02:02:03

That's the page for the podcasters. There is a link there. If you're interested in podcasting, we'll check that out and then send you an application and see if we would be able to have you join our community.

02:02:20

The community is about promoting one another and promoting others more than ourselves.

02:02:26

Crazy idea. We think Christians should do that. With that, before we go out, let's give a quick plug for a commercial.

02:02:33

Did you know that Striving for Eternity provides speakers and seminars that we would come to your church and disciple your people?

02:02:42

We have seminars on the Bible interpretation made easy, creation science, evangelism, presuppositional apologetics, even on sexual abuse.

02:02:54

These are just some of the many things that we could provide for your church. Consider inviting one of our speakers to your church.

02:03:02

can contact us at speaker at strivingforeternity .org.