MATT SLICK EXPOSED

[epostle1]

Matt Slick makes a mockery of Catholic teaching by abusing the catechism. He tries to "summarrize" one or a few CCC paragraphs that he cherry picks. Carnival barking ridicules what he thinks Catholicism is. No page to the paragraphs are ever linked. No footnotes, and no context. Then he compares it to his Calvinistic interpretation of scripture. Oddly, he is not a full Calvinist. Matt doesn't understand what the catechism if for nor does he understand it's proper use.

The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105), Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035), Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100), The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034), The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846), Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82), Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068),...
Some of Matt's carnival barking is just misrepresentations, and some are blatant lies.
Let's take the first one.
The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105) but not the way Slick puts it.
Here's what it really says:
2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33
footnotes:
30 DH 1 § 3.
31 AA 13 § 1.
32 Cf. DH 1.
33 Cf. AA 13; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 3,17; Pius XI, Quas primas 8,20.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

If you are going to cite a paragraph, that is how it should be done. Matt preaches sound bytes, not Catholic teaching.

Matt doesn't understand what "subsists" means. If the CC cannot define itself, then Matt's brand of Calvinism can't be defined on the same basis. "...one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church..." does not mean it is the only church with truths. There is a lack of context with other paragraphs. For example:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

So the CC recognizes other churches as a means of salvation, even the ones that don't like us. Context is Matt's enemy. Matt would never cite this paragraph.

Dear Catholic, do you know for sure if you are going to heaven?
by Matt Slick
John Martignoni
Dear Matt Slick,

Since you go by the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), I have to ask: Is this little salvation quiz of yours in the Bible? If not, why are you asking it? Also, do I have to answer your question in a certain way as a requirement for getting into Heaven?

Matt Slick
As a Protestant, I can say that I know I am going to heaven. This isn't arrogance. It is confidence in the work of Christ and not my own work. It is confidence in the ability of Jesus to save me completely, to have fulfilled all of the Law perfectly, and to have cleansed me from my sin totally. Therefore, because all my hope and trust are in him and not what I can do, I know I am going to heaven.


John Martignoni
Matt Slick says, “I know I am going to Heaven.”

God says, “Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed, lest he fall,” (1 Cor 10:12). You might want to read that over a few times, Slick.

Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes...” (1 Cor 4:3-5).

Matt Slick says, “I do indeed judge myself before the time, before the Lord comes, and even though I am aware of all sorts of things against myself, I am thereby acquitted.”

Sorry, Slick, but your words do indeed seem to indicate just a wee bit of arrogance on your part.

Oh, and one other thing: If Jesus has cleansed you from your sin “totally,” then how come you still sin?

see the rest of the debate here

 

[Willie T]

Just mentioning his name was enough to discourage me from reading anything he had to say.

 

[epostle1]

Matt Slick, anti-Catholic, who has avoided any direct confrontation with me for a few years now, even though I have "analyzed" some of the articles from his website from time-to-time here in this newsletter - and many folks have forwarded those analyses to him - recently popped up on one of the Facebook pages that I am a member of - "Catholic Church/Bible Only Debates". I couldn't believe it! At last, a chance to go head-to-head with him. So, I dogged him over a few days by responding to every single post he made. Guess what? He didn't respond to a single post, until he finally said something like, "Really?!" And then, in his next post, he feigned hurt and offense because of my posts - basically to keep from answering the questions.
https://www.catholictransformation....c-faith-against-the-matt-slicks-of-the-world/

 

[epostle1]

Just mentioning his name was enough to discourage me from reading anything he had to say.

Yes, but we have had an invasion of CARMinions in here lately.

 

[epostle1]

“If You Died Tonight”: Debate w Matt Slick of CARM

2nd Live Chat w Matt Slick. Oops! He Cancelled….

 

[epostle1]

Slicks's Not-So Slick Questions for Catholics

 

[Enoch111]

Matt Slick makes a mockery of Catholic teaching by abusing the catechism.

There's nothing like "exposing" Matt Slick. He is generally quite biblical in his teachings. But any time Non-Catholics address the false teachings within the CCC, it become an "abuse" of the Catechism.

So let me ask you few questions which simply require a "Yes" or a "No".

Does the RCC believe that Peter was the first pope?
Does the RCC believe that it is the one true Mother Church?
Does the RCC believe that there is no salvation outside itself?
Does the RCC believe that no Catholic can have assurance of salvation?
Does the RCC believe that all Catholics will end up in Purgatory after death?

 

[epostle1]

There's nothing like "exposing" Matt Slick. He is generally quite biblical in his teachings. But any time Non-Catholics address the false teachings within the CCC, it become an "abuse" of the Catechism.

The focus is on Matt Slick, not anyone who reads the catechism. I've never seen anyone use the catechism for toilet paper the way Slick does.

So let me ask you few questions which simply require a "Yes" or a "No".

Does the RCC believe that Peter was the first pope?

Jesus thinks so. History records a continuous line of succession. If you don't accept historical facts, you have to write your own. There are no "yes or no" answers. Catholicism requires thinking.

Does the RCC believe that it is the one true Mother Church?

The "RCC" doesn't restrict the definition of "Church" to just herself. The Church recognizes other churches as means of salvation. Why are you asking me this when the answer is in the OP?

Does the RCC believe that there is no salvation outside itself?

See the OP, paragraph 819. Your question, that looks fresh of the CARM site, is answered in that paragraph, and Slick would never post it.

Does the RCC believe that no Catholic can have assurance of salvation?

Assurance of salvation is a myth invented by John Calvin; there have been endless debates on this board concerning it. It's not in the Bible. We are assured of our salvation if we persevere, and then die. Then we can be assured, but not before. Do you demand proof text?
Heb. 9:12 – Christ’s sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God’s doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of “once saved, always saved,” such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church.

Does the RCC believe that all Catholics will end up in Purgatory after death?

We don't know. There are some who go straight to heaven, but not many of us die in a perfect state of sanctifying grace. Only a cruel god would send less than perfect souls to hell; they are not yet fit for heaven, and don't deserve hell.

Now it's my turn:

Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
What is the expiration date of this verse?

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

Some say the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth. Why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the foundation and basis of Christian truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

If Christianity is a "book religion," how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)

If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there thousands Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

Since each “bible-only” Christian must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can they in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

Some Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?

How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?

How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?

You better call Matt.

 

[epostle1]

There's nothing like "exposing" Matt Slick. He is generally quite biblical in his teachings. But any time Non-Catholics address the false teachings within the CCC, it become an "abuse" of the Catechism.

There are no false teachings in the CCC, just false readers.
There are some sections in the catechism itself that explain what it is, and how to read it. It is not intended to use as an arsenal to beat Catholics with; much depends on the motives of the reader.

IV. Structure of this Catechism

13 The plan of this catechism is inspired by the great tradition of catechisms which build catechesis on four pillars: the baptismal profession of faith (the Creed), the sacraments of faith, the life of faith (the Commandments), and the prayer of the believer (the Lord's Prayer).

Part One: the Profession of Faith

14 Those who belong to Christ through faith and Baptism must confess their baptismal faith before men.16 First therefore the Catechism expounds revelation, by which God addresses and gives himself to man, and the faith by which man responds to God (Section One). the profession of faith summarizes the gifts that God gives man: as the Author of all that is good; as Redeemer; and as Sanctifier. It develops these in the three chapters on our baptismal faith in the one God: the almighty Father, the Creator; his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour; and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, in the Holy Church (Section Two).

Part Two: the Sacraments of Faith

15 The second part of the Catechism explains how God's salvation, accomplished once for all through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit, is made present in the sacred actions of the Church's liturgy (Section One), especially in the seven sacraments (Section Two).

Part Three: the Life of Faith

16 The third part of the Catechism deals with the final end of man created in the image of God: beatitude, and the ways of reaching it - through right conduct freely chosen, with the help of God's law and grace (Section One), and through conduct that fulfils the twofold commandment of charity, specified in God's Ten Commandments (Section Two).

Part Four: Prayer in the Life of Faith

17 The last part of the Catechism deals with the meaning and importance of prayer in the life of believers (Section One). It concludes with a brief commentary on the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer (Section Two), for indeed we find in these the sum of all the good things which we must hope for, and which our heavenly Father wants to grant us.

Matt ignores the basic structure, and reads it the same way he reads the Bible. That is not how the CCC is to be read.

 

[epostle1]

V. Practical Directions for Using this Catechism

18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. Numerous cross-references in the margin of the text (numbers found at the end of a sentence referring to other paragraphs that deal with the same theme), as well as the analytical index at the end of the volume, allow the reader to view each theme in its relationship with the entirety of the faith.

19 The texts of Sacred Scripture are often not quoted word for word but are merely indicated by a reference (cf.). For a deeper understanding of such passages, the reader should refer to the Scriptural texts themselves. Such Biblical references are a valuable working-tool in catechesis.

20 The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.

21 The quotations, also in small print, from patristic, liturgical, magisterial or hagiographical sources, are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations. These texts have often been chosen with a view to direct catechetical use.

22 At the end of each thematic unit, a series of brief texts in small italics sums up the essentials of that unit's teaching in condensed formulae. These "IN BRIEF" summaries may suggest to local catechists brief summary formulae that could be memorized.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Post that in the CARM site. It either gets swarmed and buried by the CARMinions, or it will get deleted.
I don't recommend the catechism for non-Catholics, unless they are guided in its proper use. There are plenty of good apologetic sites that are easier to read and not so technical.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There's nothing like "exposing" Matt Slick. He is generally quite biblical in his teachings. But any time Non-Catholics address the false teachings within the CCC, it become an "abuse" of the Catechism.

So let me ask you few questions which simply require a "Yes" or a "No".

Does the RCC believe that Peter was the first pope?
Does the RCC believe that it is the one true Mother Church?
Does the RCC believe that there is no salvation outside itself?
Does the RCC believe that no Catholic can have assurance of salvation?
Does the RCC believe that all Catholics will end up in Purgatory after death?

Hmmm, I was GOING to address this - but Kepha31 did such a masterjul job, there really isn't any point of entertaining it any further. Only to say that by calling Matt Slick's manure "quite Biblical" - you expose in yourself an abject ignorance of Scripture . . .

PS - Ummm, you mentioned some "false" Catholic teachings. Care to elaborate on that??

 

[epostle1]

#2 of Matt's CCC rant:
Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035) Before delving into the question of infallibility, we must be certain as to how we understand truth. As Catholics, we believe in an absolute, immutable truth rooted in God. This truth has been perfectly revealed in Christ, for He is the Word who became flesh (Jn 1:14), and "the way, and the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6).
First, we will look at what 2035 says, then I will add context.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

Matt's summarized slogan is misleading, when you examine 2035. He is counting on his readers not checking 2035. The CC cannot be infallible without the authority of Christ. The deposit of divine revelation should not give Protestants fits because they benefit from it. Divine revelation is the manifestation which God has made to us of what we should know about Him and His will in our regard, and how we are to worship Him. This revelation is called Divine because it comes from God. e.g.: Jesus Christ is God...the Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Trinity, and so on.

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

The gift of infallibility is a gift, it is not the property of the Church.

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

There is much more on this topic. Matt's carnival barking does no justice to the topic.
more here
see also EXPLAINING THE IDEA OF INFALLIBILITY

Again, Matt's overly simplistic 'summary': Infallibility of the Catholic Church, is misleading to one who doesn't do any research. One paragraph, that no one would check, is dishonest.

 

[epostle1]

The Catholic Church according to Matt Slick:

#3: Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100)

Let's see what 100 really says:
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Where is the word "only"? It doesn't apply to Protestants. It applies to Catholic teaching. No interpretation is imposed on anybody. Here is a re-word:
The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Baptist Church...
The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Evangelical Church.
The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to Matt Slick.

Without qualifying context, Matt's summary is absurd. If a Calvinist theology professor started teaching Arminian theology, he would soon be out of a job. Every denomination has rules, guidelines or parameters for interpretation, as it applies to them. There is nothing sinister in this. Matt's "summary" is designed to arouse suspicion.

Why does the CC teach that Protestant churches are a source of grace and a means to salvation?
(CCC817-820)

Is Matt lying? Is Matt misrepresenting? Is Matt's isolated summary fair? A falsehood? You decide.

 

[Enoch111]

Is Matt lying? Is Matt misrepresenting? Is Matt's isolated summary fair? A falsehood? You decide.

So no matter what Matt says, he is dead wrong (according to you). That is hardly credible.

 

[epostle1]

So no matter what Matt says, he is dead wrong (according to you). That is hardly credible.

I never said that. Matt destroys his own credibility with his intense anti-Catholicism that is not based in reality. If he wants to preach Calvinism that's up to him. But his Catholic bashing obsession, based on lies and misrepresentations, needs to be exposed. There is a massive amount of falsehoods on the CARM site and I didn't even scratch the surface. He is compelled to undermine the historic Church to bolster his man made system. He is driven by an inferiority complex, among others. That's why he can't leave us alone.

 

[epostle1]

The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034)

Matt Slick wants his readers to think the Pope has assigned "head of the church" and the authority of Christ to himself. This is false. The authority of Christ is endowed, not self acclaimed. All bishops are authentic teachers, not the pope alone.

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

"preach the faith to the people entrusted to them". Those entrusted to the Pope are Catholics, not angry anti- Catholics. Matt feeds the dominating dictator image with his accusatory "summaries".

The reason Protestants don't have authentic teachers is they got rid of them 500 years ago, so they grew their own.

"...the faith to be believed and put into practice..."put into practice what you believe" There is no separating faith from practice.

"the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for."
Is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
We don't "practice" because the Pope, we "practice" when we respond to the grace of Christ, the same as Protestants. Sometimes we fail in various degrees just like everybody else.

Question:

Matt:
"The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ"

Is Matt being fair?​

 

[epostle1]

CANON SLIPS SLICK​

On Matt Slicks website Carm.org, he has an article written by a man named Ryan Turner. In this article, he says:

The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

This is a very slippery statement. Yes, Trent was the first official Dogmatic decision on the canon, but that was for the whole canon. This is true for the “apocrypha” and the 66 books that Slick accepts. If I’m wrong, Matt Slick should be able to point out a list where the 66 books were officially decreed to be the canon of the Church. He’ll never find one.

There is also a footnote to this statement from Ryan Turner. It says:

It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council’s decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.

Yes, three out of the four councils were “not universal” but can Turner or Slick point to a council that gives their 66 book canon, whether universal or not universal? The answer is no. If they can’t find a council that says this and many to the contrary, shouldn’t Slick admit that the Church always accepted these as scripture? I would think so. It should also be noted that Augustine converted to Christianity in 386 so he could not have influenced the first of these Councils and probably didn’t influence the others either.

On February 22, 2017 on his podcast at 16:30, Slick said: They were never considered to be Scripture.

It is true that there were a few Church Fathers and Medieval theologians who denied these 7 books to be Scripture. I’ll never deny that, but that’s not what Slick said. He said the Catholic Church never considered them to be Scripture before Trent. I also find it funny that he brought up Martin Luther quite a bit in regards to the canon. This is the same person who wanted to take the book of James out of the canon because it contradicted some doctrine that he cooked up. Sounds like someone you’d want to learn the Christian faith from, right?

Here are three questions that I have for Matt Slick:

1. Why do four pre-Tridentine Catholic Councils list the full 73 book canon without any distinctions?
2. Can you give me one list from a pre-Tridentine Council which says that only the 66 books are Scripture?
3. Can you name one Biblical codex before 1400 which contains only 66 books? Any Bible in the world will do.

Refuting Matt Slick on the Historicity of the Canon

 

[BreadOfLife]

So no matter what Matt says, he is dead wrong (according to you). That is hardly credible.

Matt Sllick doesn't lie about everything - just where he disagrees with the Catholic Church. And his lies are easily refutable - as are ALL lies.

I have NO respect for a person who has to resort to lies to support his positions.
I also have NO problem with people who simply "disagree" with Catholic teaching - as long as they are honest about it.

 

[epostle1]

Matt Slick of CARM Gets The False Teacher's Award

The Ugly Truth About The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM)!
HERETIC Matt Slick CARM Christian Apologetics Research Ministry
Evangelical Outreach- only links are permitted

 

[brakelite]

The reason Protestants don't have authentic teachers is they got rid of them 500 years ago, so they grew their own.

That is a very brave call, when the scriptures declare:
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come....Lu 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?