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 this show. It's me, Matt Slick. You're listening to Matt Slick Live. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. It is easy to do, and you can also email me. That's also easy. Just direct your email to info at CARM.org. Info at CARM, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. And we can get to it and put the subject line in a radio comment or radio question. And we can get to your stuff. All right, all right, all right. Now we do have, just so you guys are interested, we do have a chat room that we kind of go into and talk with a bunch of people in Rumble. So if you go to rumble.com, rumble.com forward slash Matt Slick live, then you can join in the chat. There's a lot of good people in there. And we have good discussions. And it's fun. It's fun. People enjoy it. They do. Occasionally, we'll get an obstreperous twit in there. And then what they want to do is just be foul, and we kick them out. But we do have a lot of fun and a lot of jokes and stuff, some good stuff, good times back there in that. So if you want to participate in that, you can. Do we have? Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Well, let's just do it. Jump on the air here, let's get on to Jermaine. Hey, Jermaine, welcome, man. What are you doing? I mean, how's it going? I'm doing okay today, Matt. You know, our conversation about Mormons the other day kind of piqued my interest. I forgot to ask you a question. What exactly would you say the curse of Ham is and how did it get twisted into racist propaganda, because I know what the Mormon church used to teach as far as people with darker skin, how that was a curse upon them. I've even seen some in-laws of mine who have darker skin who almost try to deny that part of them just purely based on the fact that they're Mormons. They never quite say that, but I can hear it in conversation, but how did that get so twisted into something that became racist? just dumb stuff you know it's just it's just dumb and so there's a mark on Cain all the mark now is black skin nothing in the Bible says that and in fact in Mormonism it reflects the issue of their prejudice back then that in the pre-existence a third of the spirits born to God as God's wife in heaven a third of the spirits put with Jesus playing for salvation they're born in white skin bodies And third, that went with the devil's plan. They're cursed never to be born in human bodies or demons. And then those who, you know, they didn't make a decision either way. They were cursed to be born in black skin bodies. This is what their prophets taught early. They don't really officially teach that anymore. But it's just a good example of the rampant prejudice. So you know how people are. They want excuses to find the Word of God and in the Word of God make themselves be better and others not as good. So obviously white skin is better than black skin obviously and so therefore you gotta find a way to justify that in the Bible and that's what the sinful man does. Such stupidity. That's where it is. It's sinful. I guess that's the best explanation I know of. I've yet to hear anyone come up with something rational that makes any sense from a Mormon perspective. And many of them do try to distance themselves from that teaching, but the problem is they can't just in their literature. Yeah, and it is. In fact, the blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood because they were cursed. And then, hey, what do you know? Now you can hold the priesthood. And it was 1971 or 81, they got a revelation. And so now you can hold the priesthood. So, you know, Mormonism is just a It's a religio-political-social construct that enslaves members to false God and false gospel and then requires money for development, for being able to go in to receive certain things from God in the temple and the Mormon church is a money-making machine. So that's what it is. It's certainly not Christian, that's for sure. you know i do know about the uh as far as the allowing of darker skinned people into the precinct i think that coincided with them having their tax exempt status threatened by the government so then they had a um that one i know well because that's that's one of the debating points i hold on to that a lot of them are unaware of. But once the tax-exempt status got threatened, then they had a new revelation from God, and everyone's welcome. Yeah, it's coincidental. And that's just kind of weird how that happens. In fact, polygamy was practiced in Utah until armies were going to be sent in to deal with them because of the heresy of polygamy and the false doctrine back in the 1800s. And hey, they got a revelation. Plagiarism is no longer necessary and an obligation. So, yeah, it's just, you know, it's ridiculous. And, you know, we already have enough problems. We don't need religious based ones and the stupidity of differentiation between skin color. You know, I remember this. I remember, let me say this. I was 11 years old, March Air Force Base, Southern California. My dad was in the service and new neighbors moved in. And I remember they were black, and I'd never seen black people before, for whatever reason. And I was like, hey, look at that, they're black. And my dad goes, yeah. And I go, okay. So we played with the kids, and that was it, you know? No big deal, no one cared. But now, man, I'll tell you, people are so sinful. Who cares? I'm gonna see what they are before the Lord. That's what's important to me. That's why you're awesome. You're an awesome guy, man. You love the Lord. Good for you. Amen. We're all family to me. That's right. That's right. There's only one race, the human race. That's it. One race, the human race. We have different shapes, sizes, and colors. That's it. That's how we are. Easy. Thanks a lot, man. Talk to you next time. Amen. You're welcome. God bless. Alright, alright. I like Jermaine. He's got a lot of good things to ask. He's got a good head on his shoulders. Let's talk about this racism stuff and what it really is. Where does it come from? It comes from the wickedness of our hearts and the devil certainly adds to it. You know, the devil wants to divide. He wants to cause people to become hateful. And this racism stuff, from blacks to whites to whites to blacks to browns to whites to whatever it is, all this stuff. is a manifestation of the sinfulness of hypocrisy, the sinfulness of judgment, of judging people based on exteriors, something that is condemned in scripture. In fact, let me show you where it's condemned here. We'll go to James 2, starting at verse 2. And this is what it says, it says, if a band comes into your assembly with a gold ring, dressed in fine clothes, there's a poor man in dirty clothes, you pay special attention to the one who is wearing fine clothes. You know, you sit here, you do there. Are you not making distinctions among yourselves? Become judges with evil motives. Well, this doesn't mention skin color because it really wasn't an issue in the Bible. Skin color was not an issue. That's not how people thought back then. They were just people. But this can be applied that what a person is, possesses, clothing, or what they look like, and you stay here, you go there, as privileged because of that, is just simply sinful. It's ungodly. It's a tendency of people to do that because we're comfortable with what we're familiar with. And we tend to draw conclusions based on our own worldview. And some doesn't fit that worldview. Like I had lunch today with a friend of mine. And we went into a restaurant. And there were Asians there who were working there. And they're talking different languages. And it was interesting to watch them, how they talked, their body language, their tones with each other. And it was different than what I would do or how I would treat fellow workers. But I enjoyed the difference. And I didn't judge them. They're just different. And that's okay. No big deal. I had a good meal. And that was it. All right. Hey, look, if you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. All right. So. So, over the weekend, on Saturday, I spoke at an online conference about the priesthood of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I started reading a book recently on Eastern Orthodoxy as well, on why a particular Orthodox priest left the Orthodox priesthood. I've been going through that book, and it's been interesting, and he's turning me on to other resources. research and stuff like that. But the East Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, let me just give you a synopsis, a very simplified version. Both teach that they are the true church and both exclude each other from being true. And you have to have membership in their church and submission to their priesthood. Now each priesthood is similar between the EO and the RC, the East Northern Doctrine of the Roman Catholic, in that they teach that their priesthood has the authority to be intercessors for God and to offer up sacrifices to God, namely the Eucharist by which a person is then cleansed and that God works through the hierarchical structure of that church, the true church, with the true priesthood so that it can then be administered to the true parishioners who are members of the true church and The system that they have is a sacerdotal system. Sacerdotalism deals with the issue of mediation of sacrifice and graces through a priesthood. So it's called sacerdotal, and sacerdotalism is that. So salvation in both the EO and the RC is sacerdotal. And what that means is that a system of do's and don'ts through rituals and ceremonies are what you must do in order to not only be saved, but to continue to be saved. And if you were to contrast it with what's called a penal substitutionary atonement, PSA. Penal means legal. The penal colony. Substitutionary is that Jesus took our place. And I'm doing research, believe it or not, on the church fathers who... Let's see if I can find my research here. Where is it? The church fathers and... There we go. Anyway, I'm finding that they did teach Penal Substitutionary Atonement, PSA for short. What's interesting is that both these groups, the RC and the EO, claim that the church fathers teach what they taught. This is something I think is really interesting because what I see is an attitude of superiority among the among the people, among the members of the church, attitudes of superiority. And this is, you know, it's like we're talking about racism here. Whites are superior to blacks, blacks are superior to whites, the idea of superiority. The idea of superiority is something that exalts the individual and foments pride inside of a person, which is something God hates. And so we self-identify with the truth. The truth can be a concept. The truth can be skin color. The truth can be a church. The truth can be a political organization. It can be anything. A sports team. And you identify with it, and then you identify it to such a degree that you become wrapped up in your value with that system, and it must be defended at all costs. And the word of God is that which is needed to break through. And so when we get back, I think I'm going to talk about Penal Substitutionary Atonement on the radio here. So if you want to give me a call, we have wide open lines, 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, the number is 877-207-2276. We'll get a frog in my throat. who snuck up out of nowhere 877-207-2276. Okay, what is penal substitutionary atonement? This is really important, and this is the biblical position. Why? Because that's what the Bible teaches. Alright, it is the doctrine that Jesus took our punishment, took our place for sin, and he bore what we were supposed to bear. He did it on the cross. So we can go through some various verses for this to talk about this kind of a thing. Did Jesus take our place? Well, yes, he did. Absolutely, he did. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6.23. That's what the issue is. Sin requires a payment. It's a penalty. The wages of sin is death. In Ezekiel 18.4, the soul who sins will die. So, the person who is guilty is the one who needs to be punished. However, we can't make it on our own. Our suffering is not going to replace the offense committed against God. So, this is what we have in Isaiah 53, a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement. By his wounds we are healed. So this is what happened. He bore our griefs. In other words, he carried our sins. So as it says in 1 Peter 2.24, he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross that we might die to sin and live to righteousness for by his stripes we are healed. And in 2 Corinthians 5.21, for our sake, Jesus was made sin. He became sin on our behalf. That's what the Bible's teaching. That Jesus, what he did was he took our place on the cross, and he bore our sin in his body on the cross. Now, what a lot of people don't understand is that Jesus' sacrifice was according to the law, okay? And we have to understand that Jesus was made under the law, and he had to fulfill the law. And so, let's see. Let's see if I can find my article about this when I wrote about it. So, here we go. Was Jesus sacrificed according to the Old Testament law? I wrote this back in 2015. So, check this out. In Exodus 12.3, it says, speak to all the congregations of Israel, saying, on the 10th of this month, they are each one to take a lamb for themselves. Now, Jesus is called a lamb, okay, in John 1.29. In Leviticus 17, 11, the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I've given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls. In Hebrews 9, 14, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God. And then we have in the priests make the atonement. This is Old Testament law, right? Jesus had to fulfill the law. This is important because it comes up with the issue of what he did on the cross and why he did it. But Leviticus 4.20, he shall also do with the bull just as he did with the bull of the sin offering. Thus he shall do with it so the priest shall make atonement for them and they'll be forgiven. So he had to kill the bull, right? And in Hebrews 7, 23-24, the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing. But Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently. Now, the priests in the Old Testament, however, would die. They needed a new priest and a new priest. In Deuteronomy 17.1 the sacrifice that is offered is to be without blemish and of course in Hebrews 9.14 it says that Christ who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God. In Leviticus 25.47 we have the concept of the kinsman redeemer and also in the book of Ruth But basically it's a countryman of yours, is the one who comes to your aid, a kinsman, a biological relation, is the one who will help you and redeem you. This is a concept in Leviticus 25 and other places. And so we know that Jesus is the one who is our Redeemer and he's our kinsman because he was made like us. John 1.1, Colossians 2.9, he's made a man. And then we have the Passover in Exodus 12, and people know about that, what that is, and of course on John 19.14-15, the day of preparation for the Passover. then that's when Jesus did what he did, his Passover time. So just real briefly going over this, it means that what happened is Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law in order to be a sacrifice. So his sacrifice was legal. This is important. Legal. Because sin is breaking the law of God. Therefore, sin is a legal problem. Not only a legal problem, but it's definitely a legal problem. And so Sid is breaking the law of God, 1 John 4, 3. All right, 4, 3, 4. And so what a lot of people don't realize is that what Jesus said, I'm going to go to this. You know, he said, our Father who art in heaven, Matthew 6, he said, He said, our Father who is in heaven, hallowed is your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors. So that's Matthew 6.12, forgive us our debts in the Greek word Zophilema and it means legal debt. Now, in Luke 11, 4, the parallel, you know, he says, Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed is your name. Your kingdom come. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our sins. And notice what he says in Luke 11, 4. Forgive us our sins. We also forgive everyone who's indebted to us. There, Jesus relates. That's the word of Philemon again. Jesus is relating sin to legal debt. This is legal stuff. So Jesus was made under the law, Galatians 4.4. He had to fulfill the law, Matthew 3.15. He never broke the law, 1 Peter 2.22. He was a substitute for us, Isaiah 53. He bore our sin in His body on the cross, 1 Peter 2.24. He was made sin on our behalf, 2 Corinthians 5.21. So Jesus fulfilled the law. This is a penal substitutionary atonement. It means it's a legal substitutionary atonement that He did according to the law. That's what it is. That's what it means. That's how it is done. The Eastern Orthodox hold to what's called the recapitulation theory of the atonement. And I'm going to go over that a little bit, what that means. Because it fits the works righteousness system that they have. In the recapitulation theory, Jesus recapitulated, or relived, all of human experience. And it focuses on Christ as the new Adam. As Adam brought sin and death, Christ, who is victorious in his life in all areas, he brings life. And so Jesus' death and resurrection reverse the effects of the fall. And salvation is then about participation in what Christ has done. Now this is critical because if salvation is based on participation in what Christ has done in his life, then it's not forensic, it's not legal, it's not instantaneous where justification is granted by faith, justification being declared right. Nope. With recapitulation, you have to participate in the life of Christ through the sacraments and the graces of God given to you by which you then become saved over a long period of time. See, heresy leads to heresy. We'll be right back 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. Alright everyone, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. We've got nobody waiting right now, so you can give me a call. Alright, so The issue here that I'm talking about is the issue of justification, which is a critical doctrine within Christian faith. Now, I want to make a point here, and I hope people understand this, that you must understand that doctrine is critically important in Christianity. Now this doesn't mean everybody has to know all kinds of doctrines like a professor. That's not what it's saying. But doctrine is important because without it, you don't have a faith. A doctrine, for example, is the Trinity, or that Jesus Christ is God in flesh, or He died on the cross, rose from the dead. These are doctrines. when people don't know what the truth is, they don't understand these things. If they don't understand, for example, that Jesus is God in flesh, and they believe that he might be the brother of the devil begotten through sexual relations between a god and his goddess wife who came from another planet, like Mormonism teaches, if that's what you were to teach or believe, then your faith is misplaced because it's not in the truth. So doctrine is an intellectual understanding of the truth that God has revealed in the scripture. And so with these doctrines, they are the things that define and give parameters to the way a fence gives parameters to a property what belongs to a certain person the truth that belongs to God the fence is the doctrines of the fence around that area of truth and they separate truth from error one thing from another thing and so doctrine is really important and one of the important things we have to understand is the doctrine of justification. Justification is a teaching that the righteousness of God in Christ has been and is imputed or reckoned to our account by faith alone. And this is Philippians 3.9. We have a righteousness that's not our own, not a righteousness derived from the law, but a righteousness that comes by faith. And so we have a righteousness that's by that. Now in Galatians 5, it says, if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Circumcision was a step according to the law, a requirement of the law, and so people would then say you have to be baptized or you have to be circumcised in order to be saved. So what they're doing is adding something to the requirements of salvation and any ceremony or anything added to to salvation, invalidate salvation, because Paul says if you've received circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Now people will say, well, circumcision is not what we're talking about. Well, circumcision represents the keeping of the law, keeping of any law. And he says you wish that those who are disturbing you would be mutilated. They would cut themselves off, mutilate themselves. He actually talks like that. Paul does in Galatians chapter 5. So this is a serious issue. So the reason I bring this up is because I want people to understand that salvation is being saved from the righteous judgment of God, and along with salvation is what's called justification, the crediting of righteousness, which is received by faith alone, not by faith in baptism, not by faith in ceremonies, not by faith in the Eucharist, not by faith in not going to a movie or helping a little old lady cross the street. Because what justification is, is that legal standing of righteousness before God is obtained by faith. Romans 3.28, Romans 4.5, etc. If you affirm this doctrine, then you have the truth, you have the fence that then differentiates between what belongs to God and what belongs to the devil. Doctrine is the fence that separates truth from error. And so you must know these things. And this is why if you know, for example, the doctrine of justification, you will then know that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Mormons, et cetera, are all false because they're outside that fenced area of doctrinal purity. They're outside. They're outside the gate. They're outside in the darkness. They don't understand what the truth is. They don't understand who God is. They don't understand the true doctrine of salvation. They just don't get it. And so this is why it's so important for you to study doctrine. It doesn't mean you have to have everything memorized all the time. It does mean, though, that you should study some things. And the minimum that I would recommend you study is the doctrine of the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, and justification by faith alone and Christ alone. Those are important, and they're easy to study. Let's get to Josh from Raleigh, North Carolina. Josh, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. I've been doing well today. It's gone. Yeah, it's gone. That's right. Sweet. Amen. Um, I remember listening to you, it's probably been a few months ago, but you said that you had some affiliation with, uh, the PCA church and that there was kind of like a division among, uh, you and them as far as, uh, pedo-baptism goes. Yeah, I affirm pedo-baptism and so do they. I affirm it, but not for salvation. I believe it's a covenantal thing. Okay. Okay. Okay. So do you think that we should be baptizing infants or? Yes, I believe you should. But when I say that, I say it with caution because I'm trying to be consistent with what I believe is true. I believe that covenantally, and I can explain it all, covenant and federal headship and covenant signs, I believe it's warranted. On the other hand, nothing in scripture explicitly teaches it. And so because of that, I say, well, I think you should, but if you don't think so, that's okay with me. Because it's not explicitly taught in scripture. So we can be fair in that, okay? Got it, got it. Do you have like any good write-ups? I'm just looking for some good material as far as that topic. And then also, Um, you know, maybe research to when that was actually practiced, like first century, second century, when did they actually kind of get adopted by the church as like a standard process in the Catholic church? From what I understand, it was practiced in the first century. I can do some research to see if I find about that. But here's an argument here. Here's something to think about. Okay. Let me just run stuff around. This gets people to think. And as I say this, I don't believe everybody has to believe what I believe here. I think it's a debatable issue, and use your own judgment. But look at this. God works covenantally. A covenant is a pact or an agreement between two or more parties. So my covenant with my wife, my marriage vows, is symbolized by my wedding ring, which I wear. If I were to reject my marriage, one of the ways I could do it would be symbolically to take the ring and put it in the trash. Because to reject a covenant sign is to reject a covenant. To accept the covenant sign is to accept the covenant. So my wife and I got married. The symbol of our covenantal agreement was our wedding rings. We wear that and people know that we've made a covenant with each other. That's what marriage is, is a covenant. All right. So covenants have signs. When Abraham was told by God, is you're going to give him the land and bless him. The covenant sign was circumcision. Now, circumcision is interesting because it involves the shedding of blood. And then when I asked the apparently stupid question, well, why are only males circumcised? They said, what? Man, we got some talking to do. The issue here isn't biological. The issue, well, it is and it isn't. The issue is male headship and federal headship, that the reproduction organ represents the progeny. And the males are the ones who represent the descendants, not the females. I can get into that. It's called federal headship. So the circumcision involves a shedding of blood in relationship to covenant representation, because we know I don't want to get too much into it. Okay, I'll read this really fast. Adam and Eve were in the garden, she sinned first, but sin ended the world through Adam. Romans 5.12, because he was the federal head. He represented us. Romans 5.18, Romans 5.19. All right. Now the interesting thing is that in Genesis 12.3, God says to Abraham, in you all the nations shall be blessed. Paul quotes that very verse in Galatians 3.8 and calls it the gospel. Because the gospel is preached to Abraham saying in you all the nations shall be blessed Okay Now the question is then is the Abrahamic Covenant still in effect? The answer yeah The Abrahamic Covenant was commanded to have infants in it So if the same Abrahamic covenant is in effect and is commanded to have infants in it, then don't we need a command in the New Testament to exclude them if we're not to include them in covenant work? You see what I'm saying? Yeah. But what about all the verses that have like the process of somebody repenting, believing and then being baptized? Wouldn't that be the, process that you should follow the example that same example absolutely and what we're seeing there is the work of God inside of people at the beginning of the church when there's adults everywhere repent be baptized but also what happens it says that the word household is used in different ways in different senses so I did a study on this and I Anyway, this study, for example, John 4.53, so the father knew it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, your son lives, and he himself believed and his whole household. All right, so that's a generic statement, his whole household. If there was an infant in there, then how do we say that he believed? We can't or can't, and that is another discussion. We've got a break, so hold on, and I'll show you something, and then we'll get back into the discussion, because it's just a good discussion, OK? And we'll be right back, OK? Hey, folks, please stay tuned, if you want. And we'll get, wow, it's already a quarter towel. We'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show. It's a quarter till. Man, it's flying. And if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Josh, are you still there? Yeah, I'm with you. All right. So I was going to say, as an example of something, a woman named Lydia, this is in Acts 16, 14, a woman named Lydia from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening, and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her whole household have been baptized, you're just saying, if you have judged me to be faithful, et cetera, et cetera. So we have an instance here of a whole household being baptized. Now, this isn't proof of anything, because we don't know what that means exactly. Does it mean there were infants there, babies? Well, we don't know. But there's an example of whole households being baptized, as was consistent. Now, there's also statements in Acts where whole households believed and were baptized. And this doesn't say that. This just says whole households baptized. So it's a weak kind of a proof to say that infants are in households because it's not mentioned. But the issue of the covenantal aspect is strong. And that's why I believe in it. Covenantally, a covenant always has a sign. So, and I'll be done here in a sec, when a mom and a dad get up in front of the church and they dedicate their child, that's fine, dedicate your child to the Lord. They're making a promise before God and before the congregation to raise the child in the way of the Lord. That's a covenant. Then they sit down. Where's the covenant sign? And that's the whole question I ask them, where's the covenant sign? And there isn't one, but that's not a biblical system. how it always is there's a covenant signed with a covenant. Anyway, just stuff. Just stuff to think about. Yeah. No, I mean, I totally get where you're coming from. It's just, it's hard for me to, I mean, it's such a huge issue. Um, it's such a big, it's very weighty, um, in our faith and it's just like, we want to make sure we get it right. And my tendency is to err on the side of, okay, Okay, if the person has genuine faith, they've repented for sure, have them baptized, because that's what scripture clearly teaches. But as far as baptizing somebody who might not even be elect, is maybe even potentially doing them more harm than good, because it might give them like a false sense of security later in life, or something like that. It's just, what's the benefit of it if it isn't required for salvation? It's more of an obedience thing than anything. Wouldn't it be more... there is a benefit. Because God is covenantally faithful. What he does is he says, for example, you go to the Old Testament, Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments are an interesting document. There are two tablets, 10 and 10, and I can explain that another time. And in there are covenant boundaries. Don't worship another god because if you do, I'll punish you. Honor your mother and your father. If you do, you'll live well. There's these basic statements. And so inside the covenant, people were, they benefited just as God required the infants to be circumcised, to be in a covenant. When they were in the covenant, there was covenant faithfulness that God was with them. That's not a guarantee, but it meant that he would consider them. Now think about this, because Moses did not circumcise his son. And Sapphora circumcised him and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet. Because an angel was going to come and kill him, Moses, for disobeying God. So the covenant sign meant something. And it was something God had commanded to include the infants. And so my question is, does God change in such that no longer are infants of households of the faithful included in the covenant faithfulness of God? That's just a question to ponder, to think. And so that's why I say to people, I say Romans 14.5, be convinced in your own mind. If this doesn't convince you, that's OK. If it does, that's OK. And I'm not going to divide over it. No, I wouldn't divide over it either. I'm just, you know, I'm trying to figure it out in my own mind and, you know, just come to a good conclusion. And I've read a handful of articles on it and, uh, yeah, just trying to be not swayed by, you know, whatever I first learned or whatever, cause I grew up Baptist. Um, so what would be your strongest argument against, um, you know, like arguing yourself, what will be the best argument that you think somebody would have to make and for. waiting until salvation and repentance. Well, the best argument I could come up with is that you don't see any direct statements of infants being baptized in the New Testament. You see the pattern of belief and then baptism. And that seems to be the norm. So there you go. If you have someone who's baptized as an adult, that makes perfect sense upon their confession. And like you said, there's a danger in everything. People can put their faith in their baptism no matter what. But I think there is a potential problem with the idea of infant baptism in that, just as you articulated, do you put your faith in that ceremony from back then? But that's not what a Christian household would tell anybody to do. They would say, no, in the covenant. So I could argue both sides. I could argue both sides. But I tell folk, do you have any articles on your website that I could quick pull up or write ups on it? Uh, let's see. Let's see if I do, uh, infant baptism. I don't really push it. I don't worry about it. It's just something I hold to. And if people don't agree, that's fine. So is it okay to baptize infants is an article I have. Um, and, uh, wrote, wrote, I wrote it in 2008. So, and even in there, by perusing it, you know, I quote Romans 14, one through five, and this is really critical. One of the reasons I will defend it from baptism, not for salvation, but as a covenant sign that replaces circumcision as a covenant sign. One of the reasons I'll defend it is I want people who don't agree with it necessarily to go, to say, okay, why you believe that biblically? Because see, there's an argument for it. And that's all I'm interested in. As long as they don't look down their nose at somebody else and go, well, it's obviously not true. Why are you so stupid to believe it? That's the thing I want to stop. Okay. Right. Yeah. Yeah. We don't want that. We just want to be able to have, like you said, just being convinced in your own mind of what you believe the Bible says. That's what the Bible says. All right. Well, I don't want to take a whole lot of your time, Matt, but thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Hey, no problem, brother. Call anytime. All right. Well, that was Josh and good conversation. Good conversation. Let's get to Ebeneezer from California. Ebeneezer, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, hey, Matt. Just one quick question. Yeah, because I was listening to what you said about the recapitulation. Yes, recapitulation. Oh, the law of recapitulation. Yeah, so I looked that up. I looked it up online, and it said that the Eastern Orthodox derive their theology from church fathers like Irenaeus and Athanasius. And so I don't know if that's a biased source, I guess. Well, what they do is they appeal to church fathers a great deal. And the problem with that is, how do you know your church fathers are correct and which church father are you going to follow? The church fathers, they will say, unanimously taught Recapitulation Theory, RCT. And no, I'm gathering documentation to show that a lot of them taught penal substitutionary atonement, PSA. So recapitulation theory goes hand in hand with their teaching of works righteousness, that you go through ceremonies to be saved and keep yourself right with God, because that works with recapitulation ideology. But penal substitutionary atonement does not. So they reject PSA because they want to do works righteousness. So, so, so, um, cause like it's cause I, I looked, I looked it up on, I looked it up on like Google and stuff and it's, it seems similar to, I mean it doesn't like, it doesn't, it's supposed to be saying that, Oh, you're getting muffled. You're getting muffled. Hello. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So I looked it up and I, you know, um, it's, it's, it looks similar to, you know what I'm saying? Like as far as it's saying that, Oh, um, uh, Jesus being the second Adam, uh, I mean, it's just leaving out the substitutionary, uh, I guess part of it. Right. So I guess it's a weakness. It's a weakness. Huh? It's a weakness on their part. They're not very explicit. Yes. Okay. Oh, okay. Yeah. So I mean, cause I'm trying to, cause like, say if I work, if you like, you're going in and out here of, I can hear you and I can't hear you. Yep. I can't hear you now. So the same thing. You're breaking up. You're breaking up there. Try it again. Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? Yeah. Now I hear you. Go ahead. Yeah. Now I hear you. Try one more time. So, so I was, I was wondering, like, I was like, um, like say if I were, like, if I were to talk to him about that, like, wouldn't, wouldn't they agree with me in a sense? Like, you know, because it's the same thing. Well, okay, look at it this way. This is focusing on the difference. Recapitulation theory, RTA, just basically Christ's obedience replaces Adam's disobedience. And he has a victory over sin and death. And so therefore he enables you to have victory over sin and death through your life. But that must be coupled with the church system of salvation. where PSA would say Jesus substituted your sins in his body on the cross, specifically died with them. Canceled the certificate of death at the cross, Colossians 2.14. How do you receive that? By faith alone. Radically different doctrines. Radically different. And RTA, what it does is it encourages the idea of works righteousness. Ceremonial salvation. Through the ceremonies of confession, penance, the Eucharist, baptism. Salvation is retained through these things. You see? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Alright, alright then. Because I was just trying to understand, like, you know, the whole thing. But thank you, Matt. Appreciate you. You're welcome. All right, man. God bless. All right. Yes. So he mentioned Irenaeus, the church father, and he kind of held to this view. And so the EO will appeal to him, but they ignore other teachers who say other things, other church fathers. And they shouldn't do that. They should not reject this. So when I discuss this with them, I ask them specific questions. And the most difficult question I've got for them deals with Colossians 2.14. I asked the East Northodox, what does it mean when it says Jesus canceled the certificate of debt at the cross? What is the certificate of debt that he canceled, he blotted out, that he removed? What is it? And they have trouble. They have trouble answering the question because they're trying to adopt it to their recapitulation theory. And they'll say, you canceled your sinful life practices. Weird stuff. And they read into the text. And then I show them scripture. And then we have discussions. But both the EO, Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches are not true churches. They're not Christian churches. They teach a false gospel, a false priesthood, and a false Mary. There you go. Hey, well, we're out of time, so may the Lord bless you this evening, and by His grace, we're back on air tomorrow, and we'll talk to you then. So have a good evening, everyone. God bless, bye.