MSL: April 12, 2024

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

It's Matt Slick Live!

Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at karm .org.

When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live for answers.

Taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick.

Hey everybody, welcome to the show.

It's me, Matt Slick.

You're listening to Matt Slick Live.

And today's wonderful date is, let's see, April 12th, 2024.

So if you want to give me a call, all you have to do is

dial 877 -207 -2276.

You can also email me, info at karm .org, info at karm .org.

And the subject line, just put in radio question, radio comment, and we can get to them.

We do it a lot on Fridays, because Fridays are usually slow.

So let's get to Ryan from Pennsylvania.

Ryan, welcome.

You're on the air.

Thank you, Matt.

I appreciate you taking my call.

I have a question about 1 Corinthians 2, verses 10

-16.

Would you mind if I read them?

I'll read them.

It's right here at NESB.

For to us God revealed them through the Spirit.

For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the Spirit of the man which is in

him, even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

Now we have received not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely

given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human

wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual

words.

But a natural man does not accept the things or the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.

He cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct him?

But we have the mind of Christ.

In this passage, Paul is asserting that there is a kind of knowledge that

believers have that non -believers do not have.

And what I was curious about is how is this claim different than the

Gnostics who claim that there is a kind of knowledge that only Gnostics can have?

Well, the subject is what the knowledge is, and the means of obtaining that knowledge.

That's how it would be different.

But it's still the same.

How is it different than the Gnostic claim?

Gnosticism taught that there was a single kind of an ethereal God presence with demiurges,

lower -level gods, because God was too pure to be able to be involved with the world, so they created lower

-level gods.

The lower -level gods then worked in the world and work in the world, and that in order

to obtain knowledge about them, you have to have special esoteric knowledge given by whoever, whatever, in

the Gnostic realm and theological perspective.

Right.

But in this passage, Paul makes the very same claim, only rather than saying some Gnostic

ethereal claim, he's saying that it comes from the Lord.

Yeah.

Okay.

There you go.

So what?

So how is that not a Gnostic claim?

It's not a Gnostic claim.

It's a Christian claim.

The Gnostic claim is on Gnostic theology, Gnostic theology.

Right?

Gnostic theology.

This is not Gnostic theology.

Okay, so you're begging the question by saying that since it's based upon

Christian theology rather than Gnostic theology, therefore it's true?

Of course.

Okay.

All right.

That's what I needed to know.

What's wrong with saying that if the truth comes from God, truth is what corresponds to the mind of God.

He reveals it in the apostles and the prophets and in the scriptures.

It's not from Gnostics.

This is indeed, when you have a specialized knowledge that is available to

the people who are within the group and not available to the people outside of the group, that is

very much in line with Priscus Sapientia, as well as in

line with Gnostic claims.

It's exactly the same claim, it seems to me.

Well, no, it's not.

You see, there's a difference between people understanding spiritual things and receiving and accepting them.

It's 1 Corinthians 2 .14 says, natural man does not accept these things.

That's what's going on.

He cannot understand them.

They're spiritually appraised.

He doesn't accept them.

So an atheist can understand the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostatic union, justification by faith, etc.

He can repeat those.

He could pass them on a test.

He could get a good exam, right?

It doesn't mean he's accepting them.

So just because Gnostics have similar issues, if you want to draw a conclusion

between Christianity, okay.

But there's lots of similarities between different theological systems around the world.

Lots of them.

But Christianity is the one that's based in Christian thought.

Okay, but is there a qualitative difference between the claim here of a special knowledge and

the Gnostic claim of special knowledge?

This is why you need to go presuppositional.

When you presuppose the truth of the Trinity as the necessary preconditions for

all intelligibility, which is the Christian claim, as a proper Christian claim, when you

presuppose that, then you can justify knowledge.

The Gnostics could not.

Well, as you well know, I've already destroyed presuppositional apologetics.

No, you haven't.

And it's been destroyed many times.

No, I reject that.

I reject that as foolishness.

Flat -out foolishness.

Let me ask you a question.

Is the Trinitarian God the first cause of all physical events in the universe?

This is not about the Trinitarian God being the cause of all things.

It's not about the autos.

It's about the nature of logic.

And it's about the nature of how logic comes about.

It is about it.

It is about it.

Because the Bible says that the invisible attributes of God are made known in Creation, Romans 1 .20.

Now, I ask you a specific question.

Is the Trinitarian God, is He the one who began the universe?

Of course.

Good.

Then, in order to understand the universe and justify its existence, you have to presuppose a Trinitarian

God, don't you?

No.

Then you just said He was the condition and the thing that brought...

But you can't prove it.

You presuppose it.

No.

That is not the case at all.

How do you justify the claim that the Trinity is the cause of the universe?

Well, I've already shown you that not only do I not have a grounding for logic and knowledge,

neither do you.

Because the nature of logic is, in logical inquiry, is that we always have another

step of logical inquiry that transcends the previous one.

God will prove this.

No, no, no.

No, no, no.

Look, look, look.

You're avoiding my question, okay?

I asked you, how do you justify the belief, the knowledge that you have, that the Trinity is the cause of the

universe?

How do you justify that?

How do I justify it?

I justify it by belief.

It's by faith that I believe it.

So, and where did you get the justification for that belief?

From my experience with God as Jesus Christ, the Savior.

Oh, so your ultimate judge now is your experience?

That's what everybody's ultimate judge is.

Oh, you can't speak for everybody.

You don't know that.

So you have to be careful not to make a grand claim that you can't justify.

You're going precept now.

Now what you're doing is you're making assumptions, saying that everybody does it the same way as you do.

Okay, well, here's the thing.

Show me one thing that we know, one thing that we have knowledge of, that does not

begin with sense perceptions.

God grants that we have faith, Lepidus 129.

Faith is an intellectual as well as experiential thing that occurs in our heart that God

has to grant to it.

We don't get that by looking through our five senses.

Well, how do we come to a knowledge of God's revelation?

You asked me for it.

I just gave it to you so quickly.

And you don't address it.

You have something else.

We either learn our knowledge of God by hearing the word, which is sense perception,

by feeling a sensation of God's presence, which is also sense perception.

We read it, which is also sense perception.

You equivocated.

You equivocated.

Sense perception in the five, or if you want to go six, with balance included, is not the same sense as

a spiritual awareness.

You just equivocated on the word sense.

We have a spiritual awareness that begins with sense perceptions.

I contend that everything that we know, even our knowledge of God, begins with sense perceptions.

And I don't think you can point to anything that we come to a knowledge of that does not begin with sense perceptions, including our

knowledge of God.

We encounter the world.

We see God's presence.

That's sense perceptions.

Which senses?

Which senses are you talking about?

The five senses.

Smell, touch, sight.

Okay.

So when God grants we have faith, is that via those five senses?

Sure.

That's how we come to a knowledge of it.

Okay.

So when he grants us faith, how is faith granted to us through seeing or touching or hearing?

How does that work?

We use our eyes to read the scriptures.

We use our ears to hear the word preached.

We use our sense of touch to encounter the world around us.

And we see God's attributes that are clearly given in creation.

That's where it begins.

No, it's not.

You know, it's really interesting because you're smart, but yet you make basic mistakes.

You've equivocated.

You've not been able to justify your knowledge.

You equivocate on the word senses and how it works.

You say the five senses.

Yet God grants us faith, and he even opens the mind for us to understand scripture.

Luke 24, 45, Jesus talks about that.

These are not gained through our senses.

These are supernatural acts.

You're reducing all things to the phenomenalistic world.

You're a phenomenalist.

You know, when Jesus was on this earth, he said, Behold the birds of the air.

Behold the lilies of the field.

He talked about the camel through the eye of the needle.

And all of these things that he pointed to around the world, he used these things

as examples of God's greatness, of salvation, of redemption.

All of these things, the kingdom of God and so forth, he used the world around us.

We use scriptures when we read the scriptures.

We learn things about God when we respond to the call of

salvation.

We do that either because we read the scriptures, or we heard the word preached, or we heard it taught, and we

respond to these things.

It begins with sense perceptions.

It begins with our feelings.

Yeah, you're not getting it right.

So, God grants that we have faith.

It's not done by seeing.

Okay?

It's not done that way.

It's a supernatural act where God grants.

When he regenerates us, that's not done because we see or feel or touch.

He causes us to be born again, 1 Peter 1 .3.

He changes, makes a new creation, 2 Corinthians 5 .17.

This is a supernatural act.

It's not based on our sensory...

It's not because of our senses.

We don't gain that knowledge because of our senses.

Our five senses, which is what you said, it's a supernatural thing.

You're simply wrong.

You're simply wrong.

I didn't say...

I did not say it was because of those things.

I said it begins with those things.

And that, like you say, we read the scriptures with our eyes.

That's sense perceptions.

We hear the word preached.

That's with our ears.

We hear it.

We feel the presence of God in creation.

This is where it all begins.

And we don't know anything of God or anything

at all that does not begin with sense perceptions.

That's not true.

It does not end there.

That's not true.

Such as?

I'm surprised by your rationalizations.

You know, the Bible tells us in Romans 1 .18 and following that the invisible things of God are made known in creation.

That the law of God is written on our hearts.

The law is written on our hearts.

We have an internal sense of right and wrong.

That's not done by sensory input.

You're just flat out wrong.

We are sensory human beings.

We are sensory human beings.

We are made in the image of God.

And we are physical human beings.

Are you a property dualist?

I don't know what you mean by that.

Okay.

That the mind is a product of the human brain.

Okay. Hold on.

We've got a break.

Hold on.

We'll get back after this.

That the mind is a product of the human brain?

That's called property dualism.

Okay.

Hold on.

Hold on.

We've got a break.

Hold on.

Hey, folks.

We'll be right back after these messages.

And we'll go at it with a little bit more.

Be right back.

Please stay tuned.

It's Matt Slick live.

Taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick.

All right.

Here we are.

Ding, ding, ding.

Round two with Ryan.

Are you there?

Yes, I am. Thank you.

So you're an empiricist, right?

I'm saying that it begins empirically and existentially.

That our knowledge begins empirically and existentially.

Now, you asked about property dualism.

I was not familiar with that phrase.

And over the last 15, 20 years, I've done quite a bit of research about neurology and

neurobiology.

And the question of whether or not the brain houses the mind is

very, very much of an open question.

And there's, you know, it's not answered at this point.

So I'm not going to try.

Yes, it is.

It is answered using logic.

If property dualism is true, then it means that the mind, the soul, the spirit is a physical

property of, it's a property of the physical realm of the chemical reactions in the brain, which necessitates that the soul,

mind, spirit is operating and restricted to the chemical reactions of the brain.

The problem with this is that it's self -refuting.

Property dualism then says that the mind is restricted to those chemical reactions.

So one chemical state that necessarily leads to another chemical state is how things operate, because it has to

operate under the laws of physics, chemistry, et cetera.

But one chemical state that leads to another chemical state, there's no way to justify, produces proper logical inference.

Therefore, the property dualism casts doubt on its own validity because it reduces to a necessary

set of chemical reactions, which you can't know if property dualism is true.

So therefore, it's self -refuting.

So you can dismiss it.

Matt, Matt, you know very well that if you keep repeating the same fallacy, you know

very well just repeating the same fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy.

It's not self -refuting.

Where was I wrong?

It's self -refuting.

Where was I wrong?

Because when you're doing an inquiry outside of the circle, which

makes it not self -refuting.

Just like when you make an inquiry of logic, it is not self -refuting to use logic to make an inquiry about logic.

It is not self -refuting to use logic to show that logic is illogical.

It is not self -refuting.

And you know it.

I've shown you that.

No, you haven't.

And look, it's a mistake.

It's an internal critique.

If you use the idea of property dualism, which means that the mind is a necessary property,

the result of chemical reactions in the brain, it necessitates that the chemical reactions of the brain produce the

mind.

Chemical reactions necessarily operate under the laws of chemistry.

It means one chemical state in the brain that leaves another chemical state are chemically necessary.

How then do you justify logical proper inferences or truth values from necessary chemical reactions?

How do you justify that?

Because no matter what you say now, all you're going to do is say your brain made you say that.

It's just chemical reactions now.

Well, when you are making that inquiry and you're trying to go through that, are you doing that within the laws of

physics and chemistry or outside of it?

Ryan, I'm really truly surprised.

I told you it's an internal critique.

It's using those parameters that it requires.

Yes, it is.

If you use the parameters...

Okay, if I say proof X is invalid, is that an

inquiry from within proof X or outside of proof X?

No, it's...

Do you know the difference between an internal and external critique?

Do you know what the differences are?

Of course I do.

Okay, what are they?

And you're using an external critique and then saying it's self -refuting.

No, I didn't.

I said if you assume property dualism...

I do this with atheists all the time.

They assume physicalism.

I don't assume property dualism, okay?

I don't assume property dualism.

Okay, so you've seen the problem with property dualism.

The only other option is a substance dualism, which says that the mind is separate from the causation

of the physical brain.

The reason I asked you this to begin with...

The reason I asked you this is because you're an empiricist.

And you're a very hard empiricist.

And there's problems with empiricism that are inherent in empiricism.

Of course there is.

I'm not denying that.

Sensory perception can be limited, fallible, and subject to biases.

Of course.

Or if the empiricist presupposes that their experience is reliable and accurate,

then they are undermining the empiricism by presupposing its validity and not using empiricism as a foundation.

That is not the case at all.

I said if...

That is not the case at all.

Because empiricists...

Well, that's why you go to somebody else.

If I see something on the road that looks like water, then I ask somebody else and say, Is that water?

And they go up and they say, No, it's a mirage.

So my...

Yes, it is fallible.

Yes, that's why you use many, many different observations to test whether or not your observation is accurate.

This is what impresses you all the time.

Yeah, and that's why the rationalists kick the empiricists' rears when they start using logic

as the means of interpreting their sensory data.

And then they say that truth is determined not through their senses, but through rational thought.

So now you're getting into what's called logical realism.

Okay, so...

I've done this so many times with atheists.

I'm surprised you're making these basic mistakes.

I'm serious.

Matt, you are the one who is presupposing something about the nature of logic.

And I've shown you that your presuppositions are based upon axioms, and there's no reason for us to accept your

axioms.

We can use axioms from a variety of different logical systems and come up with the absolute

opposite of what you're saying and prove it to be true with different axioms.

There's no reason for me to accept your axioms.

I disagree.

At all.

I disagree.

Because you have to have a cause or a foundation by which any axiomatic thing exists.

It doesn't exist eternally and independent of God.

If you claim to be a Christian, you know that all truths rely and are dependent upon the

revelation of God.

They don't exist independently of Him.

You know that, right?

Well, first of all, I've shown you very clearly that there's a difference between truth and

truth functions, and that logic only deals in truth functions.

I've shown you that very clearly.

And that truth functions are something that functions as true or functions as false,

but has no bearing on truth per se.

I've shown you that that's what logic does.

And I've shown you that the nature of logic is such that you have a given set of axioms, and you have a given

set of symbols, and you construct a logical system, and you can construct any number of

logical systems.

I've shown you that.

So it's arbitrary.

You can have any number of...

So the constructions are arbitrary and they're subjective.

Are there any universal absolutes that anyone has to adhere to in order to construct these?

Like the law of identity?

No.

No?

They don't assume the validity of the law of identity?

That makes no sense.

They have to assume the law of identity in order...

The law of identity changes from logical system to logical system.

I've shown you that.

So, no, you think you've shown me that.

No, no, no.

Your empiricism's not working for you.

You think you've shown me that.

Look, let me ask you.

Is God the necessary precondition for all intelligibility?

Is the triune God the necessary precondition for all intelligibility?

I have no idea.

It doesn't matter.

Okay.

It doesn't matter at all.

It doesn't matter?

It doesn't matter if the Christian Trinitarian God, who has existed eternally and created the

universe, is not important whether or not He is the foundation for truth?

That's not important?

We're going to have some notion of truth.

We're going to have some knowledge of truth.

Regardless of what the foundation is.

We're going to come to a knowledge of truth.

We're going to come to a knowledge of saving truth, even.

We're going to come to a knowledge of God, regardless of what the source is.

We're going to do things that are intelligent, regardless of what the source is.

Well, Ryan, perfect timing.

It does not matter.

Perfect timing for the break, okay, because you're just preaching heresy at this point.

You need to repent.

Okay, buddy, we're out of time.

May the Lord drop.

May the Lord bless you.

Oh, my goodness.

Bad stuff.

Hey, we'll be right back, Lord willing, after these messages we'll get with Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina.

We'll be right back.

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

Here's Matt Slick.

Hey, everybody, welcome back to the show.

Let's get on with Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina.

Welcome.

You're on the air.

Hi, Matt.

Thanks for taking this call.

My question is about John the Baptist.

Okay.

In Matthew 11 and 11, Jesus said, anyone born of a

woman, there's no one greater than John the Baptist.

Now, Jesus was born of a woman.

Would John the Baptist be greater than Jesus?

No, the Jews often spoke in exaggeration.

It's just Jewish culture, okay, truly, truly, truly I say to you.

I have an article on that kind of thing.

So it's just saying, truly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist, yet the one who is least in

the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

But John the Baptist himself actually said in Matthew 3 .11, for as for me, I baptize you with water for

repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I.

I'm not fit to remove his sandals.

So it's like saying all men have sinned.

It came in Romans 3 .23, but we know Jesus hasn't sinned.

So it's a general principle is what he's talking about there, that he's a great prophet of all the born of

women.

Of course, not himself, because Jesus knows he's God in flesh.

Okay.

Then why did Jesus baptize, or why did John baptize Jesus?

Jesus was baptized by John because John was, according to Isaiah 40,

verse 3, the messenger that was sent to make the paths ready for Yahweh.

And then he did that for the person of Jesus.

And then Jesus was required that he had to fulfill the law in Matthew 3 .15.

So that's why he was baptized.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill the law.

And the places in the Old Testament that refer to what he did was in Leviticus

8, Numbers 4, Exodus 29.

And in those chapters, you find out what a man needed to do and be in order to

enter into the priesthood.

Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 6 .20 and 7 .25.

So the man, according to those Old Testament chapters, had to be 30 years of age, and Jesus was 30.

He had to be anointed with oil, and that represents the anointing of the Holy Spirit out of 1 John 2 .27.

He had a verbal blessing given by the Father.

This is my beloved Son, whom I'm well pleased.

And he had to be sprinkled with water.

This is the Old Testament law.

The priest had to be sprinkled with water.

That's Numbers 8, verse 7.

And that's why I personally believe Jesus was sprinkled and not immersed.

A lot of people just spit their coffee out.

But that's what I believe according to the Scriptures.

And so that's why he was baptized.

No, it's

in the Old Testament, Numbers

8, verse 7.

The priest, in order to enter into that priesthood, one of the requirements was this.

Thus you shall do to them for their cleansing.

Sprinkle purifying water on them.

Let them use a razor over their whole body.

Wash your clothes, and they'll be clean.

So this is typological of what Christ had to go through.

And furthermore, the baptism.

I talk about baptism every now and then.

I go through the mathematics of baptism.

People don't ever think about that.

For example, in Acts 2, when 3 ,000 were added into the church, when the gospel is given, 3

,000 are added.

Incidentally, when Moses threw the Ten Commandments down in Mount Sinai,

3 ,000 died.

But nevertheless, to baptize 3 ,000 people, you couldn't do it in an upper room where

they were meeting.

They had to go down to a body of water.

They wouldn't go down to a fountain.

Because you wouldn't want to have 3 ,000 people in their dirt and their filth getting baptized by immersion in the fountain where the

town drank out of.

So they had to go down to the river.

But the river is cold.

So the river, and I've been to the Jordan, and I've touched the waters, and I'll tell you, they're

definitely on the cold side.

So if you're out there, if one person is baptizing 3 ,000 individuals out there

in the cold water, he'll get hypothermia.

It'll take him days.

3 ,000 is a lot.

I've done all kinds of analysis on this.

And so sprinkling and pouring are generally understood.

In my view, I believe that more and more, this is heresy for a lot of people, I believe that more and more

baptism is not so much immersion as it is pouring and sprinkling.

How about that?

What?

Yeah, call me up and we'll talk.

Well, in John 133, if you could read that, John 133, this is

God telling John the Baptist why he baptized.

Yeah, he baptized with water.

In John 1?

Yeah.

Read John 133.

Yeah.

Yeah, I do not recognize him, but he who sent me to baptize in water said to him, upon whom you see the Spirit descending.

Yeah, uh -huh.

And he says, he's the one who baptizes in the Spirit.

According to New Testament Scripture, the

baptism of Jesus was so John the Baptist could fulfill his testimony.

That's why Jesus said to John, when John said, You must baptize me, Jesus said, No, we must do

this now to fulfill all righteousness.

Right.

Because John had to testify Jesus was the Son of God by seeing the dove.

No, no, he was baptized.

No, no, no.

Yes.

No, no, no, no, no.

He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

That's exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 315, to fulfill the Old Testament requirements of him entering into the priesthood.

John's testimony was righteous because my first question,

there's nobody greater than John the Baptist that's been born of a woman.

Okay, we're moving on.

And the reason we're moving on, folks, is you don't know who he is.

I know who he is.

And he teaches that the real baptism is crying and tears of water and coming down.

And he has been corrected a thousand times in different chat rooms.

We were very familiar with him.

And he doesn't learn.

He gets to this point where he starts talking.

And I've had conversations many, many, many times with him.

He gets to a point where he just rolls and starts going and then doesn't hear anything.

He just he's on a roll.

And then we just move on.

Let's get to Amy from Wyoming.

Amy, welcome.

Ooh, then Jim.

I like that question.

Go ahead, Amy.

Hi, Matt.

Thanks for taking my call.

Sure.

All right.

So I'm going to ask you a question.

I need you to do like a little bit of role playing for me.

I don't generally do that.

But, yeah, for some reason.

But I just like to answer.

What do you got?

I would like to just see you step out of your very intelligent pants for a minute.

You mean become a Democrat?

Hear what you would have.

Please don't do that.

No, don't do that.

I would like to hear how you would address the issue of sex

with a young teenager.

And I do want to hear the biblical perspective.

But, like, it's somebody who's not real familiar with God.

So I'd also like to hear maybe a little bit more, like, practical as well.

Because of the nature of the topic, I don't really feel that comfortable getting very detailed into something like that over radio.

However, generally speaking, that topic is spoken of in an

adult context in the scriptures.

The Song of Solomon, for example, and other things, good and bad, in that kind of a context between adults but not with

children.

So what we can conclude is that that topic is for the parents and the children.

And that they would have to judge when and what to say the way they think is the right way to do

that.

And it varies because parents vary, situations vary, and the children are varied.

So I've written a great deal on sexuality.

I have a whole section on it on Karm.

And deal with stuff.

And that one, I don't think I've ever written on something like that, how to introduce this to children.

For that, I would, if I were you, I would do research to see if some experts out there got some really good advice for that.

So I remember this, my wife and I talking about it when our kids were, you know, developing and starting to get

older and stuff.

And when you talk about it, and my wife is the one who talked about it because I was working and they were all daughters.

And so she's the one who brought that topic in the conversations.

And so there you go.

Absolutely, absolutely.

I think that's appropriate.

Excuse me.

One of my sisters has asked me to speak to my niece who just turned 16.

And I was raised in a home where sex before marriage was

not okay.

It was sinful.

But looking back, I realized like my parents never discussed like the lies or in the house,

but everything with me.

And so I'm just kind of like, you know, she's got peer pressure coming from all sides because

that's just what kids do these days.

But I need to tell her not to follow the crowd.

Just because just because a bunch of people do something doesn't mean it's right.

She used to stand on her own principles, not the principles of others.

And at 16 years old, I would start saying, you're going to become an adult here pretty soon.

Adults don't follow the crowd.

Adults do their own thinking.

The children will do whatever the group says.

Set them apart.

Set her apart from the idea of following the crowd.

Well, everybody's doing it.

Well, everybody's jumping off a cliff.

Does that mean it's okay?

Of course not.

Everybody's stealing from a store.

Is that okay?

No, of course not.

So it's not a good argument.

You have to honor yourself.

I mean, excuse me, honor God with your body and put yourself separate from those people.

Okay?

Yes. All right.

There's a break.

We've got to go.

Okay?

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

All right.

He'll be right back with Jim from Greensboro right after these messages.

Please give me a call.

877 -207 -2276.

Be right back.

It's Matt Slick Live!

Taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276.

Here's Matt Slick.

All right, everyone.

Welcome back to the show.

If you want to give me a call, 877 -207 -2276.

Let's get to Jim from Greensboro, North Carolina.

Welcome.

You're on the air.

Thank you very kindly, Matt.

Sure.

I hope you're doing well.

By God's grace, I am.

So what do you got, man?

A question for you.

What is your view on members of the clergy bowing before the processional church?

Before entering the chancel.

Don't do it.

Don't bow before a cross?

Yes.

Now, what the Catholics will do and the East Orthodox will do is to say, well, wait a minute.

Didn't God tell people to bow before the gaze upon the serpent raised up

in the wilderness and to show reverence and bow before the Ark of the Covenant?

So what's wrong with them bowing before the cross?

Well what you do is you go to Exodus 20 and it says in verse 4 you shall not

make for yourself an idol or any likeness of it.

So when they make it for themselves and bow down before it then they're violating what God has said because you don't do it for yourself.

If God tells you to do something there's a spiritual reason for it which is usually typologically prophetic showing the person in

work of Christ in code or in typology in the Old Testament and the New Testament no such thing occurred.

We don't doubt.

Bow down before objects at all.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Anything else.

Are you a Catholic.

Are you Catholic.

No I'm not.

I'm a Protestant.

Good for you.

Yeah.

Catholicism is bankrupt and it's full of idolatry.

Yes it is

okay.

Okay.

Okay.

God bless.

That's right.

You know I do say some things that are a bit controversial sometime like baptism is something that I believe more and more is

really the proper method is pouring or sprinkling.

And I know a lot of people right now is saying Matt love you.

But you're just wrong about this.

And so people tell me that I say okay.

Okay maybe I am show me a scripture.

Just just let's just look at a scripture.

Let's see what it says.

And they'll say well baptism automatically means immersion.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

I say no it doesn't does not automatically mean that.

And they go yes it does.

Let me show you where why.

That's not the case.

And so you can go for example to X 1 5.

Okay for John baptized with water that means immersed.

Right.

But you'll be baptized.

That means immersed with the Holy Spirit.

Not many days from now right.

Well this makes sense.

See the Holy Spirit for example is poured.

That's how the Bible prophesies that the Holy Spirit will be poured will arrive.

He'll be poured.

And it's fulfilled.

It's X 2 to Joel 228 29 fulfilled in in X 117 and 18 and it says

there he says in 220 29 of Joel I will pour out my spirit.

And he says it verse 29 I will pour out my spirit in X 217 and 18 it shall be the last days.

God says I'll pour forth my spirit.

He said any quotes again to go pour forth my spirit.

So the spirit is poured.

So when we go to X 1 5 for John baptized with water that means immersion.

Right.

But you'll be baptized.

That must mean poured with the Holy Spirit.

Because that's what it means.

That's the way the Bible uses it.

I show this to people and they go wow never saw that before.

I know I know you never saw before.

And I say do you want more.

And some say no.

I don't want it.

I don't want any more.

I've had enough funny.

I laugh.

And so uh so they say you're baptized with water.

Okay.

So that's the thing it is about the word with okay.

Now let's play a game here.

You're baptized with water.

That means water is applied to you somehow either by immersion or sprinkling or pouring.

Right.

So X is 29 for then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the doorway of the tent

of the meeting and wash them with water.

This is at the door they're washed with water but the washing there can't be immersion.

It has to be a kind of sprinkling or pouring or the application of it in a ceremonial sense.

And X is 30 20 it says when they enter the T to the tent of the meeting they shall wash with water.

And mark 1 8 I baptized with water.

Whoa.

Whoa.

Whoa.

Since the Old Testament cleansing methodology of with with water meant

the application of the water to the person with their clothes on while they're standing now they were not not immersed.

That's the context right.

So you see let's see how about this

11.

I mean actually 1116 John baptized with water.

But you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

So so let's see I could do a lot of

stuff on this.

I just like doing it because nobody's calling and I want to mess people up.

So here's look at this anointed with oil.

Okay the anointing with oil in 2nd Chronicles 28 15 Psalm 23 4 through 5 Ezekiel 16

9 and go on and on.

There's a lot of verses where people are anointed with something which means the oil is put

upon them.

So you're baptized with water.

Mark 613 what they're anointing with anointing with oil.

Many sick people.

Mark 16 one brought spices so that he might come and anoint him.

That means to put spices upon.

That did morning with.

Okay let's see I got a lot of research on this kind of stuff.

So let's see let's see I'm going through.

I have a lot of notes on this.

People say well it means immersion.

It necessarily means that.

No it doesn't.

And I just proved it already.

So let's see it does not take a look at the.

I have these my notes with the root baptism.

In Greek bapt and it's cognates.

So baptism like baptized baptizing baptized these are cognates are

forms of the same word.

And in Mark 7 for the word for baptism is translated in the English as cleanse and

washing.

In Mark 10 38 Luke 1250 it's baptism of tribulation.

In Hebrew 6 2 is translated as washings.

In Hebrews 9 10 is translated as washings and in Hebrews 9 in the context of the

washings is talking about sprinklings in in the Old Testament I show it to people that I

I've never seen this.

I know.

And this had to be shown to me too like there's a book I read and it blew me away.

When I was reading this stuff like I read it years ago called William the Baptist and someone

recommended it to me.

I started reading it.

I was blown away by it by what was in it and it made so much good sense.

Right.

And then they say well wait a minute what about.

We got a caller coming in.

What about in Acts 8.

Right.

In Acts 8 they came up.

You know they came up out of the water.

That means they were in the water.

They're baptized.

They're immersed.

I say well let's take a look at that.

Let's always take a look.

Right.

He says and he ordered the chariot stop and they both went down into the water.

Philip and the eunuch and he baptized him.

They both went into the water.

Then they come up out of the water.

Does that mean then that if Philip and the eunuch went down into the water that they were both immersed in the water.

Of course not.

So to come up out of the water doesn't mean that the eunuch was was immersed.

It could mean.

And I'm not saying it doesn't mean it.

It could mean it.

But you can't say it necessitates it because it includes Philip who was he immersed in the water

also.

That doesn't make sense to say so does it.

Do you see there's all kinds of stuff like this.

And when I show people this they they get uppity.

Sometimes they get a little uppity.

And here one quick thing not a minute here the population estimate for

Judea and Jerusalem at the time of John the Baptist was around 2 million people.

So if 10 of the population was being baptized by John because it says all of Jerusalem

and Judea are going out to him all.

Well okay.

What does all mean.

Well we don't know.

Let's just take 10 %.

If that's the case then if John alone was baptizing for

14 months then he'd have to be doing that would be at eight hours a day.

He'd have to be doing 57 baptisms per hour by immersion.

Not going to happen.

If 12 of John's disciples are baptizing be five per hour one every 12 minutes.

Now that's doable.

Does it ever say that anyone else was doing the baptizing 12 of them.

It goes on and on and on.

I can mess people up Jamal from North Carolina.

Welcome buddy you're on.

The air appreciate you taking my call.

It's a pleasure.

Just wanted to come.

You know you're listening.

You know it seems to you just we agree with what you're

saying.

But the passage of this it I think he's talking to Jesus

talking to Peter.

That's

good.

Sure.

Yeah.

John 2028 he says put your hand into my side.

Now believe.

So we have not

seen his wounds.

We do not touch his wounds.

But we believe it because that's something that has been passed on to us.

He would say what you read it.

Yeah we might have read it yet through our eyes but still it's still a belief to the

people that have the right thing and read the book on the left hand about the Apostles but

they have a feeling that there's something greater out there.

And I think from one of your shows earlier you said well if you just have the feeling that there's a greater

being out there then you can be saved.

So it doesn't really.

Oh here's another real quick and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that her name was Helen Keller.

I might be wrong about her name but later that was blind had no senses at all but still had to believe.

And then someone talked to her about God.

Sorry.

But they.

Would communicate by writing letters on her palm of her hand.

So what.

An empiricist with a strict empiricist would say that all sensory input would ultimately be understood by

rationalistic processes.

Not all of empiricists will say that.

But anyway they will say that you have to use your logic in order to justify certain empiricism.

But that refutes empiricism.

And empiricism is the view that knowledge is gained through the senses.

But the Bible says that God grants that we have faith in him.

It's not by the senses that it's obtained it's a granted by God in his holy work.

That's what it is.

That just refutes refutes empiricism in that sense you know even with other.

People talk to her with a letter on over on our palms.

He still said I knew who God is.

I just needed somebody to tell me what his name was something like that.

But yeah thank you appreciate it.

All right brother.

God bless.

But all right.

Okay all right.

Let's see.

We get real fast on with Michelle we got about half.

A minute sorry but you got okay.

I'll just listen in.

And I just don't really see any big deal whether it's immersion or sprinkling

because as long as you get baptized and you get meaning you're filled with the Holy Spirit and you learn about the Lord and

you live your life according to what you know his command.

I really don't think it's that big of a deal.

Ultimately I agree with.

You.

And then.

But yet there's theological perspectives that come out of it and the difference.

But.

But I agree with you that's the issue.

Are we saved this bit and the Spirit upon us and in us amen.

And get baptized amen.

Good stuff sister.

Appreciate it all right.

God bless.

Bless.

Have a great weekend.

All right everyone.

There you go.

Wish we could have gotten to that kind of stuff more if you have more questions and you think I'm full of it.

Well it's a call back Monday and you can say okay wait a minute and we can talk all right.

That's fine but the Lord bless you.

Have a great weekend.

Then we'll talk to you next week.

God bless.

Bye.

Another program powered by the truth network.