The Apostle Edward

3/12/07: Correspondence with Matt Slick regarding his radio show interview at CARM Radio and the Apostle Edward's Blog posting concerning his radio interview.


After my ministry reviewed the radio show audio, we decided it would not be productive to have any further discussions with you on the radio.  The primary reason is our opinion that you morph and deny simple Bible Scripture and you interpret the O.T. with N.T. man-made Church doctrines.

I have posted comments on the show at a new blog created on my book site.  You can read that information if you’d like at the link below.  Feel free to post a feedback to these items if you like.


Rev. Edward G. Palmer

Apostle Ministry, Inc.
13570 Grove Drive #361
Maple Grove, MN 55311


From: Matt Slick
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ed Palmer
Subject: Re: Monday's Radio Show

thank you for your e-mail.  It is unfortunate that you do not want to follow-up on a radio show.  Nevertheless, I do have some suggestions about your blog.  Rather, some corrections.
Misrepresentation is a serious matter and I assume you do not want to Mr. present me.  As far as your list of my radio statements, your point number two is not accurate.  The verses you cite their deal with the day of judgment and those who in error look to their own works for salvation.  So, you could remove number two, that would be appreciated.
Re: number four.  Certainly you understand that the statement "Paul used the new American Standard Bible" is humor.  I shouldn't have to explain that.
Re: number nine, you didn't understand what I was saying there.  Jesus is divine, per the doctrine of the Trinity, and since he has two natures, both divine and human, being made under the law, and he would be required to worship God the father.
Re: number 11.  I did not in any way imply that Christians should steer clear of the book of Revelation because it is highly symbolic.  I would never say that nor would I imply it.  I simply said that because it is a symbolic book, we have to be careful when trying to construct doctrine out of it.
I'm not reading any further past these points.  But, if you'd be interested in continuing our discussion, I would truly love that.  We had a lot of feedback from people on that particular show.

Ed Palmer wrote:


I’ll post your comments and address the issues you raised on my blog sometime next week.  There would be no point in any further radio discussion since you fail to recognize Yahweh [Jehovah] as the God in the Old Testament.  This was evidenced by your interpretation of Joel 2:32 and Romans 10:13, which was only Paul’s reference to Joel 2:32.

Ergo, both verses mean “those who call on Yahweh [the God Jesus worshipped] -- shall be saved.”  I know that doctrinally this poses a serious challenge to your salvation teaching. However, Ezekiel 18 [other O.T. Scripture] and Jesus’ own teachings in the N.T. expound on a very different salvation than what you preach.

If you had taken the time to read my entire blog post on the radio show, you would learn that [from a biblical perspective] you [and many others] fail to honor and respect the ONE God [only ONE] that Jesus has called us to honor and respect.  That is the essence of John 20:17 and many other verses.  This, in fact, condemns you in Jesus’ eyes.  See 2 Thess 1:6-8 where Jesus takes vengeance on two groups of people.  First, those who do not know his God and second, those who disobey his teachings.

And, of course, you interpret Scripture with man made doctrines.  Ergo, the simple six grade language of the Bible makes no sense to you without your own interpretation of Hebrew or Greek “in light of your doctrinal education”. Therefore, you teach people they cannot read the simple language of the Scripture themselves.  Hundreds of translators already interpreted Scripture for the masses Matt.  That is why we have the simple language of the Bible to read for ourselves.

I suggest you toss your Hebrew and Greek dictionaries and linear bibles into the closet for 3 months and start listening to what your NASB bible actually has to say.  Argue with your callers only based on the words of the Bible.  This is especially true with the words of Jesus in the N.T.  Stop reinterpreting Scripture and start listening to the Word of God.  You’ll be amazed at what you’ll find.  You’ll also be amazed at how little support there is for your orthodox doctrines [trinity, hyperstatic union, etc] in Scripture.  Jesus said it correctly in Matthew 15.  “Why have you negated the commandments of God with your man made traditions.”  He was speaking to the leaders of the day, but he might as well have been speaking directly to you and others.

In regards to your statement that Paul reads the NAS bible, you failed to qualify it on the radio.  It was not my responsibility, it was yours.  Naïve Christians who listened to your show will take it as a literal truth, even if you meant it as humor, especially since you present yourself on the show as THE expert on all Bible matters.  I personally don’t believe any discussion of the Bible should be flippant. Perhaps you need to clarify a few points with your audience?

I see that the only post on your podcasting blog as of tonight [ten days after the broadcast] is the one that I posted.  Therefore, it’s hard for me to seriously believe that our discussion attracted any real interest.

All my best in your quest for truth.  You might want to start by studying the "Book of Edward: Christian Mythology."  It deals with a lot of the errant belief system — spewed out by man for over twenty centuries— and now by you on your radio show.  You didn’t get an education from God in understanding Scripture, you got indoctrinated by man in man-made Church tradition.

Times are changing Matt.  Many people do not simply lap up doctrinal issues not supported in Scripture.  Such is the case with the Trinity and Salvation doctrines that you teach.  Both are addressed in my book as false church teachings that do not line up with the actual word of God.  Many like the Bereans [now] search the O.T. for truth.  Ergo, you [need to] interpret the N.T. with the O.T. And not the other way around.  You also interpret the O.T. with the Hebrew texts available, not [with the] Greek.

I’d be more than happy to dialogue in writing and post our discussions on my blog.  Writing always produces a more sincere type of dialogue and is not subject to the “sound bites” that your radio venue is.  It also leaves less room for misinterpretations of what one another is saying.



Click here to read the Apostle Edward's first blog posting on CARM.

Click here to download a PDF version of The Apostle Edward's first posting.

Click here to download The Apostle Edward's pre-radio discussion notes.

Updated 3/22/08
Address change noted: 4/5/12

Return to Blog