WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.000
But I have to check. Give me just a SEC.

2
00:00:07.000 --> 00:00:23.000
Alright everybody, this should be working now. Um, okay. Uh, I'm Mike Winger. I'm here to try to answer your questions about the Bible, at least to get us moving in the direction of thinking biblically about everything. Everything, including when you shouldn't take communion, which is the first question we have today.

3
00:00:23.000 --> 00:01:51.000
Question number one. And um, this question comes in from Megan who asks, when should a believer not take communion? I is finding myself repenting of the same sin over and over and having an ongoing struggle with the same sin, a reason not to, not to have communion. So this is one that hits home heavy and I think that it connects with something that I've totally changed my understanding, not like flipped upside down, but rather developed like broaden a new idea. And my understanding of this issue that I didn't have when I first started doing ministry when I was younger in the Lord and when I was doing communion and then eventually leading communion, I didn't get this right away. And so I'm assuming that if I didn't get it, there's probably a lot of other people that didn't get it and that this might actually help. So let's look at the passage that I think stems leads to this question that causes people to ask maybe I shouldn't have communion. And this is a Bible passage that's actually taught on frequently in regards to this passage or this topic. Here we are, verse 27 of, uh, one Corinthians, chapter eleven. Speaking of communion, whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Now if anybody's a non believer listening to this, um, you can at least understand like a Christian to think that you are somehow guilty in relation to the body and blood of Christ.

4
00:01:51.000 --> 00:02:05.000
You can't overstate how big of a deal that is, right? So this is a big deal. Let uh, a person examine himself then. And so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

5
00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:19.000
There's a lot you could say about this and we'll go on a few different little side issues that I'll bring up as well. But it's so extreme that Paul tells the Corinthians that this is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.

6
00:02:19.000 --> 00:05:11.000
Wow, okay, so this is huge. So maybe I shouldn't have communion. In fact, some people, every time they go to the altar or go to church service or whatever and they have a communion moment, they're asking themselves, should I partake today? And there are probably many of you who regularly abstain from communion because you feel like that's what this passage is communicating. I think you may be incorrect, you may be misunderstanding it. And hopefully the things we're about to look at are going to help. So what we get wrong, I think, and I'm going to leave this up on your screen so you could be looking at it as I talk. But what I think we get wrong on this, um, is we don't realize a few things. One is the thrust of the passage is not whether or not you should have communion, but rather the thrust of this passage is how you partake of communion. Everyone is expected to partake of it. Everyone is expected to do it. It's the how, the manner in which you do now that changes things. Because if you're going to church and you're thinking, should I or shouldn't I? That's not the question. The question is how should I? That's the focus of the passage. The desire that God has for us is that we partake of communion every time, all the time, and we do it in the right way. Not that we sit there and flip a coin that day on whether we think we're worthy. And that brings up another issue, is it's not about your worthiness. There's a worthy manner in which you can partake of communion, but it's not your actual worth that makes you good enough to partake of communion that day. So it's a how you should do it, not whether you should do it. It's not about your goodness, but about your awareness, the honor that you use when you're treating communion with respect and dignity, uh, and a, uh, knowledge about what this thing is, and also a sense of surrender. And this is the one thing I'll add when we look at this passage here. We're to surrender ourselves to the Lord in that moment. God, I'm yours right now. I'm freshly and fully I belong to you. I'm relying upon the grace of Christ. But I'm also yielded in my heart to you in that moment. And then you move forward and you partake of communion. Um, there are other traditions that I'll bring in real quickly. We'll talk about, um, say, Jehovah's Witnesses, which is a non Christian, as in, it's so different in their knowledge of Christ, their teachings about Jesus and stuff like that, that you shouldn't even call it truly Christian, not genuinely following Christ. Sadly, they will, uh, pass communion once a year. They have a big gathering. You get invited to it. Most of you guys, you get invited to a local one every year. Um, and it's a once a year, giant, like, stadium type event. And they will pass the communion. But they expect pretty much everyone in the audience to not do it because they think only the 144,000, only this special select group are supposed to partake of communion. And if you do, if you take the communion, you're saying, I'm one of the 144,000.

7
00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:52.000
Um, but most are supposed to pass this up. This is a weird thing. This is Jehovah's Witnesses, not a biblical thing at all. Um, then there's like, say, in Roman Catholicism, uh, there's two things I'll mention. One is they can refuse people communion. Now, this can be appropriate, because if someone is in such rebellion to God that it's obvious that they are outside of Christianity effectively, right? Let me give an extreme example. Someone denies Christ, and then they show up and they want to have communion because maybe for social reasons, maybe because it'll make their grandma happy, it's appropriate to say, look, you got to be a Christian to do this. This is your reception of the body and blood of Christ.

8
00:05:52.000 --> 00:06:47.000
Or if there's a high handed sin in their life that they're unrepentant, uh, of, that they're just going to keep on doing. There's no attitude of surrender to the Lord. I can understand there's a time when you say to someone, you're not ready. Of course, our solution is we would want them to repent and come and partake of communion. We're not trying to ban people from communion. We just want them to do it in the right way. But. In Roman Catholicism, though, I'd officially do this. Uh, recently this has been in the news because someone like, say, Joe Biden has been refused communion by a local bishop. And, um, yeah, that's appropriate, even though I totally disagree theologically with the nature of communion when it comes to Roman Catholicism. But I agree with that stance. If Joe Biden was in my church, and he's having the stance he is on pushing forward abortions and things like that, um, this is not a political issue. This is a moral issue. That's an active, ongoing, unrepentant sin that is very high. And, um, anyway, that makes sense. Okay, that works.

9
00:06:47.000 --> 00:07:45.000
The other side, though, with Roman Catholicism is for many, many years, many, many years, uh, the Catholic Church would refuse the cup to the lady, to the people. They would only give them the bread. And so this became an issue in the Council of Trent. Now, earlier on, as I understand it, there were some Popes who said, you have to give the bread and the cup to the people, and there was other ones who said, no, you shouldn't. And so there's this internal thing where not even the Popes are agreeing. Well, then the Council of Trent comes and says, hey, if you have just the bread but not the wine, it's good enough, because you get all of Jesus no matter which one you're having. And so they could continue the practice and did for many, many years, hundreds of years, um, of only giving the bread to the lady. Why? Because they thought, we don't want them to spill the cup. To spill the cup. And then it would somehow profane, um, the name of Christ, the blood of Christ, because they would see the Eucharist as actually being literally the blood of Christ.

10
00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:51.000
I don't hold that view. I'm not holding that view of communion, although I have a very high view of communion, just not transubstantiation.

11
00:07:51.000 --> 00:11:22.000
And just know when you look at the passage and Jesus says, here, this is my body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of me. I don't think it means it's literally his body. I think it represents his body. It stands for his body. There may well be spiritual elements there, but not something like the transubstantiation, uh, of the Catholic Church. He also says, according to Paul, right, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do they think that the cup literally becomes a covenant? Like it changes into a covenant, the substance becomes a covenant in Jesus'blood? No, they don't think that. So this is using symbolic language that we're interpreting wrongly, I think, when we do that with Jesus. But at any rate, all that being said, let's now look at the passage in more detail. We'll ask a few important questions. Um, verse 27, Paul says, whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. So the question is, what is the manner? What do we mean by manner? And as we read on, it's an attitude a person has. It doesn't mean that they're not holy enough to partake. Um, because no Christian is holy by any grounds of their own right. I'm clothed with the righteousness of Christ. I'm not holy on my own. I don't have my own righteousness. I'm given his righteousness. So in that sense, I'm worthy because I have his worth. That's the whole nature of this is all that I'm doing. I take in his body and blood because, uh, I receive his righteous sacrifice and I'm now clothed with his righteousness. So the worthiness here is not about my holiness, my goodness, my righteousness. It's about my manner, my attitude, my behavior. So I want to partake in a right way. And so he says, um, let a person examine himself. Examine himself. That is your manner. What am I examining about myself, my attitude, my manner? Am I respecting the body and blood, uh, that are represented by the elements? Am I respecting the body of Christ locally? And that's actually what's going on in one Corinthians eleven. Let me read on. Let a person examine himself, then so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. And, um, again, I'll just remind us, this isn't whether you will eat or drink. It's examine yourself and then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. It's not a question of should you do communion, it's just how. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. According in Roman Catholicism, they're going to say, and some others would say, you're not discerning the body. When you're Mike Winger and you have communion and you don't think transubstantiation is taking place, you're not discerning the body. So every time I've ever had communion in my life, I'm drinking judgment on myself, if you have that view, um, because I never discern. I don't see that in communion. Um, but I don't think that's the case. I think that that's reading Catholic theology into the text where it doesn't belong. Um, what we're not discerning is, well, what they were doing when they were in one corinthians, or in corinth rather. And First Corinthians is being written to them in response to this is they were gathering together for communion and the people were just sort of feasting and drinking and treating it like a communal meal where whoever got there first goes ahead and eats and drinks to their full and some of them even getting drunk, whereas others would come a little bit later and then they wouldn't get anything. So that the poor are being disrespected, the poor people, because they would show up and perhaps there's nothing for them. And that was going to be their meal that day, the communion meal, because it was a whole meal, not just a bread and cup.

12
00:11:22.000 --> 00:15:12.000
Um, and they're also being disrespectful. So to the people, also to the very body and blood of Christ, this is not meant to be just a feast. It was meant to be a representation of the love and the unity that we have with God and with each other. And to treat it like this sort of selfish, carnal, um, pig out session was to disrespect Jesus and his people. So this is what they were doing. It's very different than what you're thinking of, um, Megan, as you're asking this question. But this is probably the verse that comes up that you think might apply to your situation. Verse 30 says, that is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died. Actually, that phrase died is fallen asleep. It's a euphemism. So it's probably being used of those who were actually still saved, even though some had died, they got sick. They didn't have God's favor. Whether it was, uh, through the sickness itself was a judgment or it was with the withholding of a healing that they might have received. But consequently, their ungodly behavior was resulting in even their own deaths. But it doesn't mean they weren't saved. Falling asleep is the term that's used there really being used of Christians because falling asleep is a term of hope about their future as well. Um, if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. Okay? So, yeah, judge yourself not on whether you'll do communion, but with what attitude you'll do it. I will have respect and honor and see the dignity of this moment, see the love that God has given to me and that he's united me to a body of believers. And they matter and they're important. Um, verse 32 says, but when we are judged by the Lord, we are what going to hell. No. We are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So again, the suffering that even came through the misuse of Communion, that suffering was not like final judgment. It was not being cast from the presence of God. These people are saved. They're disciplined, so they will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, here's his solution. When you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let them eat at home. Don't make communion about just stuffing yourself. Like if you just need basic food, just eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for judgment about other things. I will give directions when I come. So I didn't read the whole section, but there's more I probably should read. So, um, here's the symptoms. Here's the whole situation he's responding to earlier on. He says, when you come together, it is not for the better, but for the worse. For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. You could do a whole study on that. But verse 20 when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat. It's not even really a meal that's commemorating Christ. Instead, it's turned into something else for an eating. Each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What, do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. Then he talks about the nature of Communion, how the bread is the body of Christ, but you're also the body of Christ. And so when you discern the body, that's the instruction here for Communion. I'm to discern that this is representative of Christ. It's not just a feast, it's not just about getting full. It's about the spiritual food that gives life. Also to recognize the body of Christ locally in the church and the other Christians around me, both of these things are to be recognized by me every time I have Communion. Um, let me show you one. Corinthians 1017 talks about this, how there's both elements are there because there is one bread. We who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. You see that the communion is not just a celebration of what Jesus did for you. It's a celebration of how Jesus unites us together as a family in Christ. One body.

13
00:15:12.000 --> 00:16:44.000
That's huge. This is an element of communion that for years, communion to me was, um I was missing pieces of it in my own understanding and my own celebration of it. And it was through the study of Scripture that I just kept seeing there's more to it than this. And as I just looked at verses that talked about communion more and didn't just sort of copy whatever I saw when I happened to be at a service where we had communion, um, I saw a fuller thing going on here. Communion is as much a celebration of the body the local Christians gathered together, united in love in Christ, as it is a focus on the death and resurrection of Christ. I tended to focus, and maybe you guys have done this. When I did communion, I tended to focus on my sin, um, a sense of guilt, like a fresh sense of guilt over my sin and the death of Christ, his sacrifice for me. So that it was a very sober, somber moment, both of those words. And what I realized is that those elements are true. But when that's the whole focus of communion, you've excluded things. For instance, he says, do this in remembrance of me until I come. I'm proclaiming not just the death of Jesus, but his resurrection and his return. There's a celebratory, victorious element in communion. I'm proclaiming my sins are forgiven. Not just that they exist and that, um, I'm bringing them to Jesus, but they're forgiven and washed. I'm also proclaiming that I am part of this universal body of Jesus Christ that is an eternal family of love and fellowship and hope and life.

14
00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:55.000
That's a beautiful thing. All these fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers around me, that's, uh, a beautiful thing. And I need to be aware of all of that in communion.

15
00:16:55.000 --> 00:18:36.000
So what I want to encourage you, though, is with this last thing you said, megan, if I can give you some encouragement. You said you find yourself repenting of the same sin over and over and having an ongoing struggle with the same sin. And is that a reason not to do communion? I think that, um, there's a few elements that we have to always have in place as Christians. One is, obviously, is my proclamation to be a Christian sincere? Is it genuine? Um, and that's not that crazy of a thing to just genuinely ask yourself and think about, to examine yourself, test yourself, to see if you're in the faith, like the Scripture says. But in addition, there's a recognition that even if I'm a real Christian, I'm going to continually deal with sin and temptation. I will continually deal with that which won't always just be new temptations. It'll be the same old pride, the same old lust, the same old laziness, the same old, uh, jealousy or selfishness or fill in the blank gluttony that you're going to be dealing with the same things, and you must continually bring those to God. And the problem with thinking I struggle with this sin a lot, maybe I shouldn't. Partake of communion is you might be moving into a place where you think you can't bring your sins to Jesus, and that is you never, ever, ever want to live in that place. You need to come boldly to the throne of grace, like Hebrew says, where you can have confidence in the grace of God. We almost have confidence to come for the grace that we need in Christ. Boldly every time, again and again and again. 70 times seven, lord, I did it again. I'm sorry. And otherwise, I think all of us are going to be in this place of despair, in a place where you're like, lord Jesus, I know you love me. I mean, I hope you love. I think you don't. I'm not sure anymore because I'm now testing your love based upon my obedience.

16
00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:51.000
But I never got into this Jesus thing through my obedience. Why am I thinking that I'm sustained by obedience that my relationship with you will be protected and kept by my obedience? And not just always by the grace of Christ.

17
00:18:51.000 --> 00:19:22.000
We stand in grace, Romans five says. And you need to remind yourself of that. And I hope that helps. All right, let's go to question number two. And, um, here we go. Just getting my screens. All right. Okay. This question is an anonymous question. Comes in, says, my parents sit under a pastor who claims to have a prophecy from God. Almost weekly, he preaches in Jesus's name and glorifies God, but his prophecies are always totally wrong or incredibly vague. Can a man who glorifies God also prophesy falsely?

18
00:19:22.000 --> 00:19:33.000
Absolutely. Um, uh, this situation might be there's probably more people in that situation than many of us realize.

19
00:19:33.000 --> 00:20:28.000
Um, people are a mixed bag. People, humans. We are a mixed bag. We may be aware of the goodness of God and of the glory of the gospel of Christ, and yet may also have our pride or our confusion or our misunderstanding of what genuine spirituality is, or what it means to have a wonderful church service, or what it means to be a man of God. We can have confusion on those issues, and we can drag our dirty laundry into this perfect and pure and righteous and clean thing called true Christianity. And that's probably from what you described, that's what's happening here. This pastor, insomuch as he proclaims the truth of God, it's wonderful. But weekly, or almost weekly, you say, there's this constant drumbeat of him fabricating things in the name of God.

20
00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:33.000
It's hard to say how big of an to understate. I should say how big of an issue that is.

21
00:20:33.000 --> 00:22:32.000
This is pretty huge. And I would not want to be in a church like this for a long term. And let me give you a handful of reasons why. Just because someone may need encouragement there. Um, this will probably be systemic, because when the pastor is doing this and it's not been corrected, that means the congregation has been taught to accept false fake prophecy, fake words of God, and to not protest and to not test all things. Like scripture says to not vet whether it's real or not. To have no consequences when somebody's wrong and says that something's being told them by God. So the church has been taught this, which means that anybody attending the church will be reinforced. They'll be taught this as well, to believe things are from God when they're not, that's kind of a problem. But also, it sets up, um how do I put this? An expectation of what a man of God is and what a true spiritual person is. That's a deception. It's a lie. You're not a man of God or a Godly man. Can I put it that way? When you get up and falsely make claims in the name of God, that's ungodly. This is not just neutral behavior. This is the opposite of what we want that gets set up as the pillar. And in a church culture, what you'll see is the people who rise up in ministry are not responsible, genuinely spiritually wise people, because those people know to stay away from that stuff. No, you're going to get more fakers, more fakers who rise up in ministry because people will always look for those who are like them and who follow the model they set. So he sets an example of someone who's willing to speak in the name of God, falsely, who he thinks it's right. Okay, he's self deceived here, but he will do this. So he's going to look for others who will affirm him. That means they have no discernment. And then they will even do the same thing, because he thinks that's a key element of leadership is that they do those things. So this is going to unless something changes, it'll be a generational thing. It'll continue. It'll grow.

22
00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:55.000
I think what common sense tells us, um, and experience tells me this, too. When you have irresponsible people, when it comes to the Spirit, to the Holy Spirit speaking, they will raise up other irresponsible people. They want it for self affirmation. They want it because they think that's what real leadership and genuine spirit filled ministry looks like. So they'll find people like that. So it's going to just continue.

23
00:22:55.000 --> 00:24:09.000
That's all. Besides the issue of what if he says something wrong? Like crazy wrong, like ungodly wrong? What if he's like, I feel like God's showing me this, and he has a bad teaching now, what if he has a everybody will have to move up to this mountain over here and start a little commune. God showed me. And they're like, that scary. What are the consequences of these things? What if he says comes to you and he says, god showed me that your daughter should be marrying that man, and he's appointed them to do missions and this and that. Uh, and now there's all this church culture pressure for them to do a marriage that you're like, wait, what? This is a dangerous environment to have someone who speaks in the name of God, um, falsely. Um, my counsel would be for anybody who's in that situation to get away, get far away from that church. Maybe one way you could do this, if your parents are slow to do this, is start writing down the things the guy says week after week. Write them down. He said this. Even video or collect audio clips of it. Gather several examples of where he's wrong, pull it together, prove that it's wrong, and then show it to them. I'm just saying, here's one way of saying, like, you need to take a longer look at this stuff. This really matters. Um, I hope that helps. There's a lot more to deal with there than I've dealt with, but yeah.

24
00:24:09.000 --> 00:24:29.000
All right, question number three. This is from Melissa Berry, who says, at the end of Colossians, it talks about Christ in us. And in Galatians, it talks about the Spirit of his Son in our hearts crying out, Abba, Father. That sounds, uh, like the Holy Spirit, but is it modalism to call Christ in you the Holy Spirit?

25
00:24:29.000 --> 00:24:45.000
Um, this is where Melissa, in my opinion, the Bible isn't as cut and dry as our theological statements are. Um, but our theological statements are trying to draw some specific lines of distinction.

26
00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:48.000
But, gosh, how do I put this?

27
00:24:48.000 --> 00:25:34.000
Though we have some clear lines of distinction, we also have other truths that we need to not lose. And so here's an example. Here's the line of distinction. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Spirit. That's a line of separation or distinction. Right. Um, separation might be the wrong term to use there, but we have teaching in Scripture, like what you're mentioning here, where Christ says, uh, something like perhaps in John, where he says, um, if you believe in me, I'm going, but I will come, and me and the Father will make our home with you. We will be with you, we'll be in you. And he's like the Holy Spirit will be in you. So, wait, if Christ is not the Spirit, but the Spirit is in me, then why are you saying you will be with me?

28
00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:47.000
Because while Jesus isn't the Spirit, the unity there is between the Father, the Son and the Spirit is such that when we have the Holy Spirit, we are filled with we have Christ in us in another sense as well.

29
00:25:47.000 --> 00:26:11.000
I don't know how to draw that on a math test. How to create those logical distinctions in every way, I don't know. But I do know the Bible speaks of it this way, that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are not the same. Jesus says, I'm going, but another comforter will come. So there's a distinction there. But then he also says that the know, when the Holy Spirit's with us, he's with. US.

30
00:26:11.000 --> 00:26:40.000
So there, you know, Philip, you've seen me, you've seen the Father. Does that mean? Jesus is the father. Does this become modalism? No, because it's very clear that he is not the Father. And he goes, oh, the father is greater than I. There's distinctions between them that make them different, but there's such a unity and such an overlap of connection between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that you can also say that when you have the Holy Spirit, you have Christ.

31
00:26:40.000 --> 00:28:21.000
So, um, to put it another way, I can affirm that if I have the Holy Spirit, Christ is in me, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is Christ, but rather, the Holy Spirit is in such connection with Christ that Christ is with me. Um, yeah, and maybe for some people, they go logically, Mike. I just don't know how to draw every line there. Um, but I think that our theological statements are not meant to be full descriptions of every aspect of the nature of God, but they're meant to be protections, as in, here's a truth you don't violate. Does, uh, that make sense? Okay, maybe not everything we know about the Trinity, everything that can be known about the nature of God, but rather, here are some facts, some safety barriers. Do not cross this line. Don't say that the Son is the Father or the Spirit is the Son. That's a line you don't cross. But there's a connection between them that allows us to say, if you've seen the Son, you've seen the Father. Okay? That's not an identity thing, that they are the same, but there's an overlap there in the closeness of them, the similarities between them and the fact that by nature, father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God. And so God is with me. So, yeah, um, I hope that helps. All right, we'll go to the question number four. Um all right, kali Gal says, uh, why will there be animal sacrifices in the millennial kingdom? Love what you do and have sent many your way, brother. Well, thank you very much, you guys. Um, i, uh, love what I get to do. Um, it's God's grace to me, and I pray that I can do a good job with it for the next 30 years. And then I'm done. I quit.

32
00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:48.000
Um, at any rate, um, the idea of animal sacrifices in the Kingdom, I think I understand some of the reasons why people go, this is challenging. First off, I'm premillennial. I do think there's a millennial kingdom that's like a thousand years or something like a thousand years reign of Christ on Earth in the future, where he's sort of directly ruling over the nations. Um, I think that that is a thing that's coming. Is it coming in my lifetime? Is it coming far, far after? I don't know. God knows.

33
00:28:48.000 --> 00:28:55.000
But Ezekiel talks about sacrifices happening at what looks like the millennial time.

34
00:28:55.000 --> 00:29:25.000
What is going on there. So let's say that that's correct. That's the right understanding. Ezekiel, Isaiah, they talk about sacrifices taking place. Gentiles coming. Why would there be sacrifices when, um, Jesus has already been sacrificed? So there's no more sacrifice for us. You already have one sacrifice for all, as Hebrews says. In fact, that's .2 hebrews tells us there's no more sacrifice for sin because Christ offered himself once for all. And the ongoing nature of the sacrifices that they never ended.

35
00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:34.000
It was one way of showing that the work was never done right. It was only Jesus who would fulfill the task and do the sacrifices.

36
00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:50.000
Um, and then other people have other problems, like just the idea of killing animals just feels wrong to them. They feel like it hurts. And most of those people are not vegetarians. Um, which may seem a bit ironic, um, maybe it is. Well, it is.

37
00:29:50.000 --> 00:30:47.000
Um, but just the very idea of animal death, just they go, oh, I don't feel like I like that thing happening. So to think that this would happen in the millennial reign, not maybe in the eternal kingdom where new heaven and new earth are made and we just go on living forever, but rather during that one season. Why is that happening? Um, well, I think that the simple answers are, one, um, these are not being done in order to achieve forgiveness of sin. They're being done in memorial of Christ. And there's actually a close parallel here to the sacrifices in the Old Testament. They were not really, really cleansing you of your sin. Ultimately, it was only Jesus that would cleanse someone of their sin when they did the sacrifices. They were just doing this as a way of demonstrating what Christ would become, and they were doing it as a way of showing faith in what he would eventually do for them. So they were done in foresight of Christ and their only effectiveness was tied to how much faith the person had ultimately in the Messiah.

38
00:30:47.000 --> 00:31:39.000
So in the millennial time, if sacrifices are continuing, they're not being done in foresight, they're being done in hindsight. In hindsight. So they're being done to memorialize. This is what Jesus did for us. Here's a symbol, here's a representation, just like Passover is a representation of what Christ did for me when I have communion. Um, and someone might say, but isn't that violate Hebrews? Because Hebrews is like, hey, stop with the sacrifices in Hebrews. It's a little more nuanced than that. It doesn't actually just say, stop with the sacrifices. Hebrews is railing against the idea of going back to sacrifices as a way of achieving forgiveness, as if Christ didn't do enough. But if somebody were to partake in sacrifices at a temple, for instance, as a way of remembering Christ, as a way of just testifying to the goodness of Christ, it's the opposite. They're not saying Christ isn't enough. They're saying Christ is enough. Christ is sufficient.

39
00:31:39.000 --> 00:32:27.000
Um, there's soft evidence for this, maybe even stronger than soft. In the Book of Acts, the apostles, after the death and resurrection of Christ, they don't immediately stop going to the temple. They don't immediately stop all sacrifices. If you read the Book of Acts carefully, you'll see a few times where they do things that are involved in temple sacrifices. Um, even Paul, the Apostle, uh, takes a vow, and at the end of the vow, you cut your hair and then you bring a specific sacrifice. He brought the sacrifice, meaning this was not being done in rebellion to Christ. So it wasn't doing what Hebrews was warning about. Hebrews was warning about wholesale bringing in the law like it was going to get you saved, and doing it in rebellion, ultimately, to the work of Jesus, the millennial kingdom. Sacrifices would be in fulfillment and in memorial of what Jesus did, not in rebellion to it.

40
00:32:27.000 --> 00:33:19.000
Finally, um, I might mention the issue of, um, the animals and animal suffering and all that. Um, I think for some people, I would just say, you may not be okay with it emotionally, but you can be okay with it theologically. Um, maybe I can't get your heart to the place where you're like, I'm okay with the idea of an animal dying to picture Christ. Um, maybe you won't get there, but you can perhaps say, But God, they're your animals, you can do what you want. I'll just trust you, and that's good enough. You could just live there and be fine. Okay, but for those who will hear out this next part, here's my case for why I think it's appropriate. Um, at least partial case for Q and A's, everything's off the top of my head. So there's always I always think, oh, I could have answered that better, or, I wish I would have had a few hours to think about that, or days or weeks or whatever. But here's a few thoughts.

41
00:33:19.000 --> 00:34:14.000
One, um, god really is the one who owns all the cattle in the world. Uh, he created that animal. He's made that animal. And to use it for a purpose, for his purpose that involves even the death of the animal is entirely within God's prerogative. There's nothing morally wrong about the Creator doing what he wants with his creation. You can't do whatever you want with your stuff, right, when it comes to, say, even children, your pets and things like that, because ultimately, you may have birthed this child, but you are not fully responsible for them the way that God is. You may have adopted this pet, but you can't just do whatever you want with them, because again, you're not the creator of all things. You are still a steward of something that you've inherited, that God made. So, um, there's just a big difference there. But also there's this. And this, to me, okay, this affects my heart. This brings a lot of peace to me on this issue.

42
00:34:14.000 --> 00:34:51.000
When an animal is killed so that it can be eaten, I think that the sustenance it brings to the life of the person is proper justification for the death of the animal. I think that that's appropriate. I don't think that it's wrong. I think that if you're killing to eat, killing animals to eat, that that is appropriate and that is like a proper use of animals. This is my view now, might sound barbaric to some, but this has been, of course, the view of most humans throughout time. Um, and I think it's appropriate. And this isn't about me devaluing animals as much as me valuing humans. Humans are that valuable.

43
00:34:51.000 --> 00:36:36.000
How much more, though, for an animal to die as a way of demonstrating what Jesus has done for us? That is an honor. That is a high thing. This is a lofty, lofty thing that has incredible value. And I don't look at it as just some petty who's going to kill the animal, but rather as a lofty and glorious thing. And so, to me, this is my personal opinion, mike's opinion here, that seems like it changes my perspective on the death of these animals. It's not pointless death, it's justified. And, yeah, those are my thoughts on that. Hope they help whoever's listening. Number five, Phil Agape says from Mrs. Phil Agape. Well, hello, Mrs. M. Phil Agape. In light of Ephesians six five in colossians three, uh, 22 to 23, was it wrong for African slaves to run away from their masters? She loves your ministry, too. Oh, awesome. Um, okay, so talk about a heavy question, but let's look at it now. And anytime these kind of questions come up, I think calm yourself to myself and to others, um, because these are loaded questions. And what happens is you bring up a question about, uh, African slaves running away from their masters and immediately thought ceases and fight, um, takes over. And so we're not thinking clearly about these issues, and so let's think clearly about it, hopefully. Uh, bond servants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling with a sincere heart as you would Christ. Not by the way of eye service as people pleasers, but as bond servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with goodwill as to the Lord and not to man. Knowing that whatever good anyone does this, he will receive back from the Lord, whether he's a bond servant or is free.

44
00:36:36.000 --> 00:37:30.000
Um, now, that's bond servants in general, which would have been a very wide range of individuals with different life circumstances in the first century as he's writing to them, than specifically, um, kidnapping, ah, based slavery, which is ultimately kidnapping, uh, theft, taking people from their homes, forcing them into slavery. That is the theme that you're dealing with when you say African slaves. That's the predominant thing we're thinking of. So what I'm suggesting is Ephesians six five was not written to African slaves or any slave that is a result of kidnapping. It wasn't focused on that. But rather, there were lots of people who were maybe there were bond servants because of debt they had gone into, uh, debt slavery. Um, many of you guys, you work all day and you're working off debt. These aren't totally foreign things.

45
00:37:30.000 --> 00:37:40.000
Um, okay, so general teaching. Obey them, obey them as unto God. And that's the general idea there.

46
00:37:40.000 --> 00:38:18.000
Well, you could read on. I have videos on this where I talk about slavery, stuff like that. Those of you who've never really thought deeply about these things, um, I'd encourage you to slow down. Maybe look up my video on slavery. I'll put it in the link below. It talks about some of these things. In fact, it includes here a threat to the masters. If the masters are threatening they're not only abusing, but just threatening the bond servants, then guess what? God is your master and he's going to deal with you. And he doesn't care that you're in the higher position. He's going to deal with you without partiality. So there's actually a straight threat to the masters. So it's not, um, the pro slavery book that some people pretend it is. Um, colossians 322.

47
00:38:18.000 --> 00:39:13.000
The other passage says, bond servants obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye service as people pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord, you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You're serving the Lord Christ for the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he's done. And there's no partiality. Again, no partiality. Uh, those who are bond servants, whatever work they're doing, paul is trying to highlight not actually focused on obedience to their masters, but rather obedience to God above their master, knowing that the work they're doing, whatever labor they do, if they do it for God, god will reward them for it one day. And if they're being abused, if they're being mistreated, god will deal with them. Without partiality, he will deal with them. Um, so what we're getting from this is a general principle of obedience, right? Um, but what about running away?

48
00:39:13.000 --> 00:40:31.000
What about fleeing? Okay, now, in the Old Testament, if your master, um, abused you, if they beat you, you would go free. That is, debt free. Even if you owed them money, the debt was canceled because they were abusive to you. If that's one of the rules in the Old Testament. And, um, this would be part of the background that Paul has. In addition to that, if ever a slave fled a master, they were in a situation where they had to flee. They're not just in obedience to somebody, but they actually had to run away for some reason. They took off without even asking why they ran in deuteronomy. They're told that they do not catch this. They do not send the slave back to the master, but they give them a place to stay around wherever they find them. Oh, you ran into Gibeah or you've run into the tribe of Benjamin. Uh, you're a runaway slave. We don't send you back to the master. Our laws tell us we have to give you a place to stay here. This is written in the Old Testament, meaning that any slave who fled for their for well, fled for any reason, whether it was for their life or some other reason, they are not to be sent back to their master. They're to be set up for a free place to be. I think that what this does in the Old Testament is it shows that fleeing, say, runaway slave, is that person is given favor and protection, and you're told not to send them back.

49
00:40:31.000 --> 00:41:08.000
Uh, this is amazing, because you go back to the time of Moses and you have things like the code of Hammurabi, where if you catch somebody's slave, you actually have to give them back to the master or you can be in trouble with the law. So this is the opposite of that. So there's a favorable thing here. But also there is, um, the idea of somebody who is, uh, a slave in the New Testament talking about that a little bit. So, um, one corinthians, 721. Let me take you guys to it.

50
00:41:08.000 --> 00:41:53.000
Were you a bond servant when called? Okay, this, again, was a very broad category. It's not you're just thinking of, like, early American slavery. This is much broader, and not just that that's going to confuse you. If you think it applies directly, it applies indirectly. He says, Were you a bond servant when called? Don't be concerned about it. The don't be concerned about it thing is actually interesting. The language implies while in your society, uh, you're lower because you're a bond servant. As a Christian, you're a child of God, so don't worry about it. It's not something to be concerned about. Your status is in Christ, not in your career, not in your status of slavery or not. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.

51
00:41:53.000 --> 00:42:25.000
That's the advice in the New Testament is Christians. If you're in servitude, don't worry about it. Like, it doesn't change your status at all. But if you can get free, get free. Now. For some people that might have been through running away, uh, for others that might have been through saving up and paying off your debts and getting back on your own feet, I don't know. Um, but for he who was called in the Lord as a bond servant is a freed man of the Lord. Again, don't be worried about it. You're free in Christ. Your status in Christ is bigger and better than your status as a bond servant.

52
00:42:25.000 --> 00:42:48.000
So, um, yeah, there's, I guess, some more full teachings on that general obedience, with exceptions of running away, especially from kidnapping, um, or abuse, and the preference of freedom, of trying to become free, if possible. Um, that's a more thorough teaching on that than just obedience. And then that's the whole story.

53
00:42:48.000 --> 00:43:13.000
All right, number six. This comes from Katie's online name, uh, who says people have been saying with increasing frequency, make your prayers specific. And I'm wondering why I keep hearing this lately. Is this biblical? Uh, you're my favorite online pastor. God bless you and your team and family. Thank you very much. Appreciate your prayers, uh, for my family. Um, now, um, is it biblical to make your prayers specific?

54
00:43:13.000 --> 00:45:03.000
Um, yes, ish is my opinion. Okay. My thought on this is if I survey through scripture and I look at the prayers in the Bible, I will see both generic or general prayers and specific prayers. So I do see both. I see both. So there's times where it's just know Jesus gives us a prayer that we can all do. Um, and it's very general. Father, uh, in heaven, hallowed be 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 sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. And I say amen. That's a super general prayer. There's a couple things about our provision, our daily bread, just the things that we need today. We're trusting you to provide for us forgiveness, um, of sins in general and forgiving others of sins in general. That's a very general prayer, and it's instituted by Christ himself. So how could we possibly come against people having general prayers? You can't do that and be biblical. When a model prayer Jesus gave us is very general, then we have the Book of Psalms, which does have very it has a lot of prayers in it, right? And many of them are general. You read that and you know the person was in distress, but you don't even know specifically exactly what was going on, because sometimes it just doesn't specify. And we'll just say something like, Lord, help me, Lord, you're the lifter of my countenance. I'm relying on you. I'm waiting on you to deliver me fairly general. But we also have examples of specific prayers where it's specific prayers, lord, don't let that person do this to me, this specific thing, Lord, in Nehemiah when he's praying, there's lots of prayers in the Book of Nehemiah. So you could read Nehemiah's like a study of prayer. It's kind of interesting. And they pray, Lord, look on their threats and they're trying to stop us from building the wall and help us in these specific ways.

55
00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:42.000
We get both specific and general. So as a Christian, I can't suggest one or the other, except maybe I could say both. Why not do both? Why not have both specific and general prayers? Why not pray specific things like, Lord, let the gospel go out. Let your kingdom expand. May more Christians be bold in their faith, and may you just work by your Holy Spirit in your church to glorify yourself. And can I be specific to things like, Lord, let get Paul out of prison. We pray that he would be able to visit our church so we could see him again. Nothing wrong with that. Um, specific prayers are good, too. So, yeah.

56
00:45:42.000 --> 00:48:07.000
Um, maybe the advice of make your prayer specific is good for Christians who always pray general prayers. Maybe the advice of praying general prayers is good for Christians who always pray specific prayers. And maybe the fuller advice is do both. Just do both. My opinion? Um, let's take question seven, and we have all 20 questions today. I've got all 20 already loaded up, and I'm going to be working through them all one at a time. We do this every other Friday unless, um, something comes up that keeps me from doing it. My plan is every other Friday at 01:00 p.m.. Pacific time. I take your guys questions. The first question, I always know when I come, so I have something to say as we're gathering in the other 19. All other 19 come from the live chat. That's true. That's real. One of the most common things people ask me when I'm talking to them is they go in person is they're like, do you really just get those questions live? You don't know them ahead of time. It's so funny. I get that question a lot. Uh, yeah. Uh, this question, I'm reading it for the first time with you right now. Was Jesus the biological son of Mary? If so, how did he not inherit a sin nature? Um um when we say biological son, I think that what we mean is, did he have 50% of Mary's DNA? And so that if we ran a test or however, whatever the percentages are, if we ran a test, would we be able to do a DNA test and confirm that this Jesus is a son of this Mary? And I think the answer there is probably yes. I mean, while I don't have scripture talking about DNA down to that minute of a detail, what we do have is the standard idea in the way they're writing about genealogy and about birth and where somebody comes from. That's how it talks about that. If you read the genealogies, like in Matthew and Luke, the way that it says, like, um and then so and so begot. So and so it then says that about Jesus, that he was begotten or that he was basically he came about in a way a lot like the way all the other humans come about. The only exception is that there was no husband involved. There was no man involved. It was just the power of the Holy Spirit. So that I think we can safely conclude that Jesus was biologically the son of Mary and that the DNA test would look a lot like it would for any other son being compared to a mother.

57
00:48:07.000 --> 00:48:14.000
Um, yeah, they didn't know about DNA, perhaps, but the way it's written, yeah, it seems to be the case.

58
00:48:14.000 --> 00:48:19.000
Um, but then your follow up question is, hey, if that's the case, then how did he not inherit a sin nature?

59
00:48:19.000 --> 00:48:48.000
I, um, think that we might be assuming too much about sin nature at that point, and there is debate on that in church history. There's different theories as to how sin nature is transferred. Exactly. Um, what exactly is the deal there? And I think that I'll just say this for now. The fact that there's debate on this is because it's not entirely clear. Is sin nature biologically connected? Is it connected to our DNA?

60
00:48:48.000 --> 00:49:31.000
Is the difference of having the Holy Spirit bring, like, life into the womb of Mary? And while there's probably one of Mary's biological eggs resulted in Jesus, is that difference of the, you know, being active in the miraculous nature of the conception, is that enough to sort of, like, bring freedom from Jesus, from the sin nature that would compel him to sin, where he would sin and fall like every other human? I think that we might just be asking questions, at least that are beyond my knowledge. I'll put it that way. They're beyond my knowledge. Um, I know that Jesus was tempted in all ways, just as we are, so we know he genuinely experienced actual temptation.

61
00:49:31.000 --> 00:50:24.000
But we also know that he was without sin. So that while, uh, maybe a clumsy way to put it is when the sinful tendencies of man is met with the righteous character of God, you have one who's tempted in all ways, as we are, yet without sin. He never fails. He never falls into sin. This doesn't make him less of a human. It's just that he's human and more he's not less human. He's human, but he's also more he's God. And so we have all the temptations of humankind, but we have the overcoming, as it says in Scripture, jesus tempted in all ways as we are, yet without sin. So I do have a video on the temptation of Jesus. How could Jesus be tempted? Where it gets maybe not into the nature? Of what avenue does sin nature come? Is there a part of it that's connected to our spirit or soul? Is it biological, primarily in nature? And I don't know the answer to those questions.

62
00:50:24.000 --> 00:50:49.000
Um, but rather, how was Jesus tempted? How do we factor in the possibility of Jesus being tempted, yet being perfect and holy? Um, does that mean he had some desire for bad things? That was rising up within him. I have a video on that. I'll link it below, um, as soon as the stream is over and you guys can follow up more on that. It was part of my verse by verse series through the Gospel of Mark when we got to the passage where Satan tempts Jesus, and we asked, how is that possible?

63
00:50:49.000 --> 00:51:27.000
Okay, number eight, Yoko Opossum says, do we live in heaven for eternity or is it a finite time period? Um isaiah 65 20, love your content. You helped convert me from Norse paganism to Christianity. God bless and keep up the good work. Yes. Praise God. That is so wonderful to hear that you followed in the footsteps. The oldest pagan tradition of converting to Christianity. So beautiful. Um, yeah, I'm seriously stoked to hear that. I would love to know more about your story. Maybe one day we'll meet, you can tell me.

64
00:51:27.000 --> 00:52:40.000
Okay. Isaiah 65 20. Let's go to the verse you referenced, and then we'll talk about heaven and eternity and what's the dealio? As they say in Hebrew, they don't all right, Logos Software, help me out here. Verse 20 of Isaiah 65, no more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die 100 years old and the sinner 100 years old shall be accursed. Um, without getting into all the details of this verse, because it's not about your question is longevity is the theme here. There is great longevity, and we know that in Scripture, we hear that we will be living forever, eternal life, and that in the ages to come, he'll tell us of God will be revealing his grace to us and his glory, and we'll just be learning and growing and fellowshipping with one another. And there's a new heaven and new Earth where there's no more destruction and no more death. Death is no more. Death is the final enemy, right? Death is cast away. And so new creation with perfection that lasts forever. So then your question is, does that mean we're going to live there for eternity? Well, I will say that heaven meets Earth. So our eternal heaven experience is on Earth. It's a heaven and earth combination.

65
00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:48.000
New, uh, earth. Will we ever live for eternity? The answer I would give as I best understand this is yes and no.

66
00:52:48.000 --> 00:53:13.000
Yes. Um, you live and that goes on forever. There's always another minute coming up. There's always another hour, another day that this is time, and time will continue ticking, and it will always be ticking. So that when I've lived for 10 trillion years, I will then live for another year and then another, and then eventually 20 trillion and 30 trillion, and eventually the numbers will just get ridiculous.

67
00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:22.000
But I also say, no, we won't live forever in the sense that we will never have. Lived forever.

68
00:53:22.000 --> 00:53:26.000
We will never look back and say, check.

69
00:53:26.000 --> 00:53:30.000
I've checked the box of eternity. I have now lived forever.

70
00:53:30.000 --> 00:53:43.000
So that is to say, we will always be moving forward in time. We will forever continue in time, but we will never reach a point at which we've said, that was everything. I've lived for infinity.

71
00:53:43.000 --> 00:53:59.000
No, there will actually be a number of days attached to any day we're alive. And this is kind of due to the nature of infinity. And forever. Forever is a concept. And we say it's going to go on forever. We just means it never ends. We don't mean you'll hit a point where you're like, and that was it.

72
00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:05.000
Beep, beep, beep. It's officially been forever. That's never going to happen. Infinity is like this, too. It's not a number.

73
00:54:05.000 --> 00:55:08.000
You can't use infinity. And mathematicians do weird things, but I'm not talking about you weird mathematicians with your weird stuff you do. I got a buddy who's a mathematician, and he's like, we like to play with infinity. And I'm like, okay. I'm talking about normal, real people, okay? Not mathematicians, but, um, with infinity. To the most of us who understand, infinity is not really a number, it's a concept. When I say we'll be living on for infinity, I mean a non finite there's no stop, there's no deadline, there's no end. In that sense, it's infinite. But I'll never reach the end of it and say, I've lived for infinity years, because the nature is of infinity is it just keeps going. Anyway, I think I've explained as best I can. Hopefully that helps. Yeah. All right. Question number nine, Douglas says galatians six two. Um, he says, should we share our burdens or carry our own loads? And this is actually a verse that I've heard used by, um, a skeptic website, like an atheist website that was talking about contradictions in the Bible.

74
00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:15.000
And let's go to it because there's some lessons we can learn about this. Supposed contradiction bear one another's burdens.

75
00:55:15.000 --> 00:55:19.000
So you're to bear other people's burden.

76
00:55:19.000 --> 00:56:01.000
But if you read on, it says, um, for each will have to bear his own load. So, wait, do I bear other people's burdens or do I bear my own load? Bible contradiction? This is not what you've said, of course, Douglas. Uh, but obviously, you've probably heard someone else say it. I've seen people say it. I want to say a couple things here. First off, um, it's good if we don't assume an author, even if you're an atheist, even if you're a non Christian and you read the Bible, um, it's good to not assume any author is just like a total moron, because who would write within a sentence of each other?

77
00:56:01.000 --> 00:56:08.000
A and not a and that's actually what they meant. Um, not very likely.

78
00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:28.000
Probably the author is a little smarter than that. They're trying to say something a little more interesting. So here when you read the whole statement. Bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. See, Christ's law is love and bearing other people's burdens. It means you're going to come alongside them and you're like, what are you going through? Let me help you. Let me carry some of that, too.

79
00:56:28.000 --> 00:56:54.000
But then he goes on in verse five, and it says, for each will have to bear his own load. What is that talking about? Well, it's not just talking about burdens here, but I think about the weight of your own decisions, the weight of your own actions in life. And the verse in between is maybe what helps us. So let me read it again with a little bit of commentary that might help bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.

80
00:56:54.000 --> 00:57:33.000
What is he talking about here? He's really backing up. He's talking about the struggles we go through, the sins that we fall into. So, in verse one, he says, brothers, if anyone's caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Remember, when people are in sin, our agenda is always to restore them. If possible, keep watch on yourself, lest you, too, be tempted. Bear one another's burdens. How am I bearing other people's burdens? Well, in the example above, I'm bearing their burdens by seeing that they're in sin. It's a burden they've got on their own issue, but I want to help them through it. I'm going to sort of carry with them the thing they're going through that I might help them bring them to Christ.

81
00:57:33.000 --> 00:57:38.000
For if anyone thinks he's something when he's nothing, he deceives himself.

82
00:57:38.000 --> 00:59:24.000
Do you think you're something? I mean, this is, uh, a deceptive thing, but let each one test his own work and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. Verses three and four, these two sentences, really, these, um, verses are I think they're basically saying, look, you need to soberly recognize that even though you're bearing other people's burdens, when you stand before Christ, you'll be responsible only for your part of things. I'm not responsible for that guy over there, but I'm responsible for how I treated him, including whether I tried to bear his burdens. But I will be tested ultimately by Christ. So I should test my own self. I should be considering my own works, whether I'm pure in them, whether my motives are right, whether my actions are honoring to Christ, whether pride has replaced what used to be, um, true good intentions, things like that. And then for each one will have to bear his own load. I think that here it's talking about when I ultimately stand before the Lord and I have to be accountable for what I've done. So while I bear other people's burdens to try to assist them through their hardships, when I stand before Christ and he evaluates my life, I'm only responsible for what I did and didn't do. I'm not responsible for them, maybe for trying to help them, but ultimately their choices, they'll stand before God for that. So it's just finding that balance of, yes, help other people, but guess what? You're not actually responsible for everybody else. You're responsible for you and the way that you reacted to them, but not ultimately for them. Um, okay, let's go to question Numerodas. Lady Thomas says, if I reject the church as an institution, do I automatically reject the Christian faith?

83
00:59:24.000 --> 00:59:40.000
I don't know how to answer that question with a yes or no. Um, or maybe to be careful. The answer is sort of no, right? Because I would say automatically. Let me just say it's not healthy to reject the church as an institution when you understand it biblically.

84
00:59:40.000 --> 01:00:21.000
It is, however, you might be like, but I reject the claims of Roman Catholicism. And I reject that they are who they say they are. That they are, in fact, really the church when they use the term the, uh, church. And they often mean their authorities and not the body of Christ. Biblically speaking, the church is the body of Christ, meaning anybody who's a Christian, you are part of the church. And while you might say that church doesn't seem legit, or the claims of this institution don't seem right, or even this is a false church, like Mormonism, that's actually not really a church. It's not really the body of Christ, uh, based upon the doctrines and the things that they're saying.

85
01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:51.000
But no Christian can reject the actual church without I mean, if I reject the actual, like the real church the people who have faith in Jesus, who are cleansed by his blood, who are given the Holy Spirit, who are made part of the body of Christ if I reject the body, I am in danger of having rejected Christ, too. There's some connection here between the two. So that's a big deal. I would say it's at least a big deal and something to be concerned about.

86
01:00:51.000 --> 01:02:00.000
Often when I hear people say, um, I don't want institutionalized church, I don't want institutionalized religion, I don't want organized religion, what I often hear and not always okay, but often have seen in their lives, is, I'm going to do my own thing. I'm going to obey God. I'm just going to be honest with you guys. When it's convenient to me, in some areas, I'll disobey God. I don't want any accountability in my life, and I don't want any fellowship that's really focused on Christ in my life. That's scary to me when I see that and hear that. Totally understand rejecting the claims of a particular institution. But, uh, the actual organism that is the body of Christ, we must embrace, we must seek out. Hebrew says, do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, as is the manner of some, that this is what some do it's at least dangerous. Um, if, however, someone's like, I never go to church, I don't want to go to church, does that mean that they're automatically not a Christian? I'm not saying that it seems very unhealthy and potentially very dangerous. I would say that.

87
01:02:00.000 --> 01:02:17.000
Question eleven anonymous questions. Uh, hello. How would you answer claims that committed sexual relationships have everything good that a marriage has? What is the essence of marriage that withstands infertility impotence, distance, et cetera.

88
01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:28.000
Interesting. So the claim is any committed relationship where it's the two of you and you have sexual relations that that has everything good that a marriage has.

89
01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:43.000
Um, I think that what you would want to do is then try to evaluate what elements are present in a marriage that a committed sexual relationship might not have.

90
01:02:43.000 --> 01:04:58.000
First, um, off, you have a committed part of it is that a committed sexual relationship might just be a marriage in that a man and woman say a man and woman, they say, I commit to you for the rest of our lives. We will only be together. We'll commit to each other to take care of each other and love each other and nourish each other and be there for each other and better and worse, uh, in sickness and in health, we're committed and we have a sexual relationship, right? Because we're a man and a man and a woman. But it's not a marriage. I'm like that's marriage. Like, that's what marriage is. So it's a commitment between these two individuals. So, in a sense, it's like, maybe you don't like the word marriage, but you're making a marriage commitment between a man and a woman, in which case someone's just being weird. And I wonder why they've got an issue with the word marriage. Um, on the other hand, marriage is a little bit different than that, in that marriage is a committed relationship between a man and a woman by nature. This is the definition of marriage. Uh, a man and a woman that would seem to be invalid between whether they're siblings, um, or people that are of the same gender, same sex, that those would not be valid relationships. So they might be sexual and they might be committed. And here's where marriage gets revealed to be something more than just commitment and sex. It's also about male and female, a husband and wife. When they come together, they demonstrate a picture of what represents procreation, like you mentioned, um, and represents Christ in the church. And you can't do that outside of a man and woman and the lifelong commitment, which just is marriage. So it's interesting what we're committed now, maybe when they say committed sexual relationships are the same as marriage, what they really mean is, well, in marriage, you're committed till death. I just mean committed like, for now, I'm committed to you. But that's not really commitment, is it? And here, then, marriage, the difference between marriage, a temporarily committed relationship. And marriage is marriage is a real commitment, whereas a temporarily committed relationship is so long as you perform well, I'll stick with you, but the back door is open. I'm ready to go at any time. That's not commitment.

91
01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:07.000
So that obviously well, let me put it this way. Um, here's me. I'm married.

92
01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:22.000
Imagine if my wife says Michael. She always calls me Michael. Uh, most people call me Mike. I don't really care either way. But she says, Michael, I just want you to know I'm committed to you for now.

93
01:05:22.000 --> 01:06:26.000
Or she says, or if you want, I can be committed to you for the rest of your know, which one do you prefer? And obviously one is better than the other as far as, like, you know, a lifelong commitment or what if I said the same thing, I'm committed to you for now. That's obviously a massive difference between the two. People get all weird about the marriage stuff. Just get over it. There is this thing where men and women are supposed to commit to each other for life till death, monogamous only you. And then that is the grounding and foundation for not only culture and family and children and the well being of a society, but also a picture of Jesus in the church. And Jesus isn't like, I'm, um, committed to you for now. We'll see. Maybe you get fat and ugly later and I decide I don't like you no more. That's not the case. Um, Rexy's Burner says I left the Hebrew Israelite movement three years ago, and since then I've been struggling with my walk. I know we have God's grace, but I was so used to doing works that I feel lost now. Any suggestions?

94
01:06:26.000 --> 01:07:06.000
Um, I think that getting Godly counsel would be really good for you, Roxy. Ah. Rexy's burner. I'll just call you Rexy. Forgive me if that's not the right way to do it. Um, counsel would be good because having someone who can help you work through these things more slowly and patiently, I would highly recommend you just pull aside someone who you think like that person seems a knowledgeable in Scripture and B, compassionate towards me. Um, both of those things are real important because you might know knowledgeable people who yet lack compassion. So I wouldn't recommend going to counsel for counsel to someone like that. Maybe for a theological question, but you're dealing with something a little different.

95
01:07:06.000 --> 01:08:26.000
Well, one thing you might have is lingering, uh, guilt, because you're just not doing more stuff. Now, theologically, perhaps you tell yourself, look, I know I don't have to do ABC in order to be right with God, but yet I felt a certain comfort before when I was doing those things. I did ABC. And, yeah, okay, biblically, it's not required, not necessary, but I did those things and it made me feel more security in my relationship with God and in that I would say perhaps that there's and I could be wrong here. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Like, really, I hope I'm not wrong and that this isn't just going to create an anxiety in you because I just want to solve anxieties, not make them here. Um, it's possible what you did was you looked to your activities, checkboxing these things you were doing to provide you with a sense of security. And that, uh, those things never really were it wasn't really giving you anything, it was just giving you a feeling of security. This is like the Pharisees when they walked around and they could checkbox lots of things and it made them feel righteous. So that when Jesus tells the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, how the Pharisee comes and he's like, I thank you God, that I'm not like this tax collector. I do this and this and this and this. And he's thanking God for it. He's being grateful, but he's getting security in his relationship with God through these outward signs.

96
01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:29.000
Check, check.

97
01:08:29.000 --> 01:08:41.000
If that Pharisee was to suddenly become convinced he doesn't need to do that stuff to be right with God, he would be stripped of the securities he has, but he wouldn't have them replaced with confidence in the grace of Christ.

98
01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:47.000
It would be tempting then to go back to those things, to just feel that sense of security.

99
01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:56.000
You need to just not go back to that stuff. You need to just strengthen your confidence in the grace of Christ because he is enough for you.

100
01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:45.000
Your righteousness, like your actual righteousness before God, comes from Jesus having a righteousness that is not your own, not found through obedience to the law, but is the righteousness of Christ through faith. Read Romans again. Read Romans again and remind yourself of this, your straight up righteousness before God, your security, your confidence in Christ. Read Hebrews for that. Your confidence in Christ comes from his finished work, him being your high priest, him being the one who tore the veil that you might boldly enter into the throne and receive grace in time of need. So my encouragement to you is don't go back to those things for the outward feeling of being secure. In a sense. Uh, I'll give an analogy. I hope you guys don't find this crude, but I think that it seems appropriate.

101
01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:54.000
Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed in the garden and ah, this is my own analogy. Judge it as you will.

102
01:09:54.000 --> 01:10:14.000
When I present my righteousness to God, it's as though I clothe myself to cover up the shame, and I clothe myself in my own sort of good things I do when I come to Christ. I have to take all that off and just be ashamed. Look at me, I'm naked before you, Lord. I have all this to be ashamed of, metaphorically speaking here.

103
01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:30.000
Um, and Christ then clothes us in his righteousness so that in a sense, we're back in the garden, naked and unashamed naked because I don't present any of my good works, but unashamed now because I've been cleansed by the righteousness of Christ.

104
01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:47.000
This is how it is for every Christian. All day long. You come to God with nothing but his own gift of righteousness, so that and I could easily become ashamed looking at myself, knowing that I still have failure here and flaw here and compromise here.

105
01:10:47.000 --> 01:11:05.000
I'm insufficient in ways that matter, but I'm clothed in his righteousness. I present the sacrifice. In fact, he's my mediator, presenting a sacrifice on my behalf and then just inviting me in. Remind yourself of this as many times as you need and read Romans again.

106
01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:44.000
Number, uh, 13. Truth has a question, says Deuteronomy 13, verses six through ten. Is the apostasy law similar to the Muslims? Okay, I understand the question now. It's the way it was written made me confused. Is this deuteronomy law similar to Muslims? And is it inherently immoral for an apostate to be put to death because of their beliefs, according to the Old Testament? Well, let's look at Deuteronomy 13, too.

107
01:11:44.000 --> 01:12:49.000
If your brother, the son of your mother or the son of your daughter or the wife of you embrace, or your friend who is as your own soul entices, you, secretly saying, let us go and serve other gods which neither you nor your fathers have known. Um, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other. You shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him, but you shall kill him. This is not a, uh, murder thing. This is a judicial sentence, like you said there's, like an apostasy law, sort of. But let's come back to that and question that. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death. And afterward, the hand of all the people, uh, the first people to throw the stone were the people who were bearing witness against a person. Typically, um, you shall stone him to death with stones because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Okay, check this out. Um, this is not actually an apostasy law when you look at it carefully, because what is the people doing?

108
01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:57.000
They entice you secretly saying, Let us go and serve other gods.

109
01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:04.000
That's not the same thing as saying, you're not going to follow what I believe. I'm going to kill you for it.

110
01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:14.000
They were actively going to try to get Israelites to worship false gods in Israel. Then, as we read on, this is part of the sentence.

111
01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:21.000
Um, why are you going to stone them? Because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God.

112
01:13:21.000 --> 01:14:19.000
There you go. So it is, in a sense, an apostasy thing. But what it is, is it's somebody who's a religious recruiter taking people from Israel and recruiting them over to these false religions. Um, now there's several problems with trying to apply this to, um, uh, say, Islam today. Uh, the biggest problem is mainly that Islam is a false religion. Islam is drawing you away from the Lord your God. That's the nature of Islam. And so for a Muslim to use this, it could only backfire because it draws them away from Christ to Muhammad. It draws people away from the truth that God has revealed to a false religion. So inherently, uh, you can't use deuteronomy no matter what you want to do. You can't use it as a rule that apostasy stuff is okay to make laws about apostasy things in. No, no, it's not about just whatever anyone calls apostasy. It would be specifically about the true God.

113
01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:30.000
So that's already going to be a problem for Islam trying to use this. Uh, if someone from Islam wanted to use this as an excuse. Another issue is that God called Israel.

114
01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:50.000
This rule is not a rule that God puts in any other nation. When we read extensively about the prophets talking about the judgment God's going to bring on the Midianites and the Amalekites and the Amorites and the Hittites and the all of them, over and over again, we read about different reasons God will judge them.

115
01:14:50.000 --> 01:14:58.000
One of these is not them, though. It's not because you didn't have laws about people evangelizing to false religions. It's not about that.

116
01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:23.000
Why is Israel different? Israel's different, and many of its laws are unique because they're the chosen nation. Like, God called these people out of Egypt, he brought them out of slavery, he gave them a land, he set them up, and then they made a covenant in Deuteronomy where they were like, we will do this and we will not do that. And they agreed to this covenant so that God himself institutes laws and rules and then naturally has requirements that they hold to those things.

117
01:15:23.000 --> 01:16:11.000
To then show up in a land and take over that land, and then just be like, well, now that I'm the president of California sorry, that was funny to me on three different levels. Um, but now that I'm the President of California, I'm going to make an apostasy law that you can't convert people to other religions than the one that I approve of. Um, would be to hijack something very special for Israel and just apply it sort of recklessly where you feel like it. So I think for all those reasons yeah. Also in the New Testament, um, if somebody apostatized, was there some death penalty? Were the apostles setting up a government where they tried to enforce a death penalty on people who left the faith? Absolutely not. If someone left the faith, they were just like, God will deal with them.

118
01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:48.000
That's how they dealt with it in the New Testament. That's our example of how we should deal with it as well. Yep. God will just deal with them. God will deal with them. Um, why? Because Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my servants would fight. But they're not going to, because his kingdom is not of this world. We are supposed to be a people who are integrating into every culture and background and location around the world, bringing the gospel with us, but not trying to punish those who apostatize with, uh, anything other than the obvious punishment that comes with apostasy. Automatically, they've departed from the truth of Christ.

119
01:16:48.000 --> 01:17:03.000
Number 14, gary Chang says, hi, Pastor Mike. What's your thoughts on when people say, this is the body of Christ broken for you? To me, this is not accurate, as Jesus was not broken for us. No bones were broken. Like the passover lamb.

120
01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:20.000
Okay, so, um, Jesus did not have bones broken. You're right. Um, but his body was broken. So his catch the same word being used in different contexts. Broken bones, broken body.

121
01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:45.000
Some of you have experienced this, your body being broken. That is, your body is being ruined somehow. And that's what happened to Jesus. Uh, but it's not about broken bones. So he didn't say, These are my bones broken for you. He said, this is my body broken for you. And he took the bread and he broke it. He tore it. Now, if somebody's body experiences that metaphorically, it's death. He's suffering pain and ultimately death.

122
01:17:45.000 --> 01:18:16.000
I think that's just we're getting hung up on the word broken. Broken. When it applies to bones, it means one thing. When it applies to bodies in general, it means something else. Yeah, my body is broken, so I don't think we should have a hard time with that. Um, I also think Jesus specifically said it. Um, and so obviously we shouldn't have a problem with it. We should just try to understand it there. So, um, it was actually the verse we just read a little bit earlier today, so let me bring that up for you guys.

123
01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:26.000
Paul says, um, when he'd given thanks, he broke it and said, Take, eat. This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

124
01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:35.000
M. Now, some texts. Uh, that's the new King James version. Hold on here's, ESV. Some of them don't include broken.

125
01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:54.000
Um, some manuscripts say broken for you, some of them don't. Right there. Um, I guess that would be another little study I'd have now. Wondering if I should think about that. Either way, I would say this. The term, um, shouldn't bother us, as the word broken means different things in different contexts.

126
01:18:54.000 --> 01:18:56.000
All right. Elijah B.

127
01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:25.000
Some Christians act like non believers are inherently untrustworthy or dishonest. Yeah, they definitely do. I've seen that, like, uh, they shouldn't be taken seriously. This feels wrong. Can you please help me find biblical teaching on this? I was thinking about this earlier today. Maybe it was today or yesterday. Um, and what I was thinking of was this idea that you shouldn't get worldly advice, meaning that you shouldn't get advice from people who aren't Christians.

128
01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:55.000
Um um, we can ignore this issue completely or we can go too far with it. I think that I just don't want to go too far. So it's true that people who don't have the Kingdom of God on their mind will not give me the same great advice that that person could if they did have the Kingdom of God on their mind. Same person with all their wisdom and everything, if they were a Christian, a genuine follower of Christ, they would probably give me better advice than if they weren't.

129
01:19:55.000 --> 01:21:56.000
That's true. I believe there's the truth that I want to grab onto. There's also a difference between a person who is unsaved and advice or counsel or whatever sort of thing they might tell you that itself is ungodly. So I could have a person who is themselves not a Christian give great counsel, great advice. Um, recently we've been dealing with some medical stuff. I've been in the hospital a lot for a family member recently. Um, not for myself, but, um, we're dealing with all kinds of professionals, and they come in and they give you advice, and I don't ask, like, Are you a Christian? Hey, doctor. Before you tell us what you think, as we're making hard choices about what we're going to be doing with the situation, before you give us your advice, I want to know if you're a Christian. I didn't even think to ask something like that because obviously, here's a common sense thing. Obviously, when a doctor who studies medicine is giving you advice on a medical procedure, whether or not they're Christian doesn't actually bear in very much on, um, whether or not this advice will be good. But that same doctor, if they were a believer, they might also offer to pray for the patient, or they might also be aware of some other need. So their advice might be better, but it's not really going to be bad because of that. The person who comes and does your carpet or you hire to build something on your house, it's not that important that those people be Christians. And I agree with you that there are some people who will treat all non believers like they're inherently dishonest. And I think that there's a two edged sword. It's wrong in both ways. One is, um, all non believers are not inherently dishonest, and all Christians are not inherently trustworthy either. That's the other side of it. As if because here's the thing. You hire the plumber who's got the fish on his car, that doesn't mean he'll be a good plumber. He. Might be a real Christian. He might be a compromised Christian. He might be a worse plumber than the guy that had the Darwin fish on his car. I don't know.

130
01:21:56.000 --> 01:21:58.000
I just don't know.

131
01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:39.000
If a plumber is a Christian, it should make him a better plumber because it makes him honest, it makes him trustworthy. It should at least raise the chances. But when you get the nominal Christians, the people who are in Christians in name only, they attend church, perhaps. Maybe they go, sometimes they don't. Maybe they never attend. But they call themselves Christians. The nominal Christians are sometimes the worst because these are people who have been living in hypocrisy for years. And so that can make them an even worse person than someone who doesn't even bother claiming to be Christian. Um, some statistics have borne that out. Uh, nominal Christians rank the lowest on some of the performance metrics in marriage and stuff like that.

132
01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:48.000
Are they a good person in that general human sense of goodness? Not in the divine sense, but nominal Christians can be the worst.

133
01:22:48.000 --> 01:23:01.000
So, yeah, I shouldn't act like all non believers are untrustworthy and dishonest. Um, I should act in wisdom, and wisdom wouldn't do that. Um, so, yeah, I agree with you.

134
01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:14.000
Deborah Johnson has a question. What kind of body will each group of people have during the millennial reign? I know the previous dead will receive new bodies, and those that die in God during the Tribulation will get new bodies.

135
01:23:14.000 --> 01:24:17.000
Groups of people. Deborah, when you say groups, I'm thinking maybe since you mentioned, um, people who died before versus during the, um know, I've always thought we get the same kinds of bodies. Not like clones. Like, we all look exactly identical. But I have always assumed we as Christians will get the same basic quality of body as every other person gets in the resurrection, every other believer. And the first John, it says, we don't know what we'll be like, but we know we'll be like him. And that seems to speak very broadly as though we all get sort of the same thing, a sort of a Christlike body. Um, then one Corinthians 15, it says, um, that the corruption must put on incorruption, immortal must put on immortality. But it sort of speaks of us as though we're all one giant category of those that are saved, that get a new body, get the same quality of body all the way across the board. So I don't think it makes a difference when you died, um, in that regard.

136
01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:27.000
Number 17, SSVR has a question. What is the prize of the upward call in Philippians 314?

137
01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:32.000
Well, it's Pokemon cards, obviously.

138
01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:36.000
Here, let's look at it in more detail.

139
01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:38.000
That was a joke, you guys.

140
01:24:38.000 --> 01:25:01.000
Most of you knew that. Um, okay, let's back up a bit. Okay, so he goes, not that I've already attained nor or am already perfected, but I press on that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. So already he's speaking about the thing, the upward call, the prize and all that, but he hasn't specified what it is. Um, let's back up a little, see if he gives us more detail.

141
01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:11.000
I'm going to back up all the way to the beginning of the chapter. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. For me to write the same things to you is not tedious, but for you it is safe.

142
01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:51.000
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation, for we are the circumcision who worship God in the spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. See, this is something we actually be happy about. I have no confidence in my own abilities and all that. Uh, it's all Jesus is my confidence, though I also might have confidence in the flesh if anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh. I, more so than he, talks about these things that he could have had confidence in if he was relying on his own works. Circumcised the 8th day of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew, of Hebrews, concerning the law of Pharisee, concerning Zeal, persecuting the Church, concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

143
01:25:51.000 --> 01:26:04.000
But what things were gained to me, these I've counted loss. Indeed, I also count all things loss. And then he tells you why. For the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.

144
01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:18.000
First thing, he's talking about the prize of the upward call. It's the knowledge of Christ. It is that which is connected to knowing Christ, um, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.

145
01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:37.000
Second thing. Not just knowledge of Christ, but actually gaining Christ, the experience of knowing Christ, of having Christ in us, um, of all that comes with having Christ and being found in him. Not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God, by faith.

146
01:26:37.000 --> 01:27:33.000
Then he goes on and says more, that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being conformed to his death, if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Knowing Christ, experiencing the righteousness of Christ, not your own, but his righteousness, and, um, knowing God by faith, um, and the resurrection of the dead. And that's what he's talking about when he says, yeah, I haven't already attained that, the resurrection. He wants to attain the resurrection, but he hasn't already attained it. But he presses on that he may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has laid hold of him. So he's talking about all the eternal benefits that we have in Christ. Uh, I'll read on now, brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended. But one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

147
01:27:33.000 --> 01:28:35.000
He's talking about resurrection. He's talking about eternal life. He's talking about intimate knowledge of and experience of God through Christ. He's talking about the righteousness that comes from God, all that stuff. That's what he's pressing on towards. So, ultimately, salvation, all those things that we, uh, talk about when we talk about salvation, I think that's the answer to your question of what is the prize of the upward call. Question number 18, dr. Fuzzy. One says, is it wrong that I don't want to raise my son around my unbelieving family members? They can even be hostile to the faith. I even have a trans niece and my wife and I don't want our son around that. Um, in a sense, I understand that impulse, and you want to be careful who can influence your son. But, um, I'm going to hazard long distance counsel on parenting here, so forgive me if I get something a little wrong. Um, and be open to that and don't hold it against me if I do. Um, but I want to encourage you to remember that you're not just raising a son, you're raising a man.

148
01:28:35.000 --> 01:29:39.000
And sometimes with parenting, it's easy to be focused on childhood as its own experience and not as childhood as preparation for adulthood. And that shift means that you want to expose that child to more things, not less things. Um, not everything, of course, but it's important to preserve childhood to a point. But that's not the whole purpose of childhood. Childhood is preparing you for adulthood. And if you look at it like that, um, at least at some point, you're not going to be protecting your son from unbelievers or trans individuals. Um, you're going to be wanting your son to reach out to those people and share the gospel with them and to know that he's competent in the knowledge of Christ and his worldview understanding of Christianity is immune to the influence of Ideologies that are not true and that he's actually able to shine a light into those cultures and those people into their lives. So I would just want to ask you, do you have a game plan for that?

149
01:29:39.000 --> 01:30:08.000
When is your son going to be ready to deal with ungodly influences, um, and ideologies that you know are counter to the truth? And are you taking steps to prepare your son for that? In addition, um, as a lot of parents are, a lot of parents are you're torn between, I want to protect my child and love them, but I also want to love my family and loving them.

150
01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:49.000
It doesn't feel right to try to love them while cutting them off from being around my own child, my own son um, and so try to find a balance would be my encouragement. Try to find a balance and prepare your kid for those discussions. And check out Foundationworldview. Um.com, they have curriculum to help you train your kids to deal with these worldview issues. It's from a Christian perspective, and the stuff I've seen has been very good, and I recommend you guys check it out. I believe it's foundationworldview.com. If I have the website wrong. Just Google Foundation Worldview and you could Google Elizabeth Urbanowics. Urbanowicks. She's the person who does all that stuff. It's really good stuff.

151
01:30:49.000 --> 01:31:07.000
Francie Pants has a question. Well, Francie pants can I do for you? A friend said that the Scripture, um, never calls us to praise the Holy Spirit, despite numerous worship songs and the doxology saying otherwise. Is he wrong? Should we only worship the Father and Son?

152
01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:15.000
Um, I just don't have this fresh in my head. Um, I've dealt with this question before. I don't know if I've done it online.

153
01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:34.000
Um, as far as a specific verse that talks about praising the Holy Spirit, I'm not confident that that's the case. That there's no text of Scripture that specifically shows praise or worship being given directed at the Holy Spirit. I will say it's not standard.

154
01:31:34.000 --> 01:32:20.000
It's not standard. And so if I'm in a church environment that is overwhelmingly focused on praising the Spirit, I would say that seems not to be standard from what I read in Scripture. Um, but the identity of the Holy Spirit is such that by nature of who he is, there's nothing wrong with worshiping the Holy Spirit in particular. Just as I can worship Jesus, just like I can worship the Father, nothing wrong with that in particular. But if there's an in some churches, there's a real strong emphasis focused on the Holy Spirit. And it turns out that maybe what they're focused on is their own use of the gifts of the Spirit. And maybe there's an imbalance there that is one's leading to the other, and that it's merely an imbalance, not necessarily a bad and evil.

155
01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:33.000
Uh, but it might be a symptom of something else that's going on that might not be the healthiest thing. Um, but, yeah, I would say this, though.

156
01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:37.000
Your friend is coming up with a rule that the Bible has not taught us.

157
01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:50.000
And the rule is my observation, because I think that the Bible never directly worships the Holy Spirit. Never has that instructed or exampleed. Therefore it can't be allowed.

158
01:32:50.000 --> 01:33:54.000
Do you catch that the problem there. I'm making a rule about what can happen based upon whether something simply does happen or not. Um, all you could really say is, hey, I don't have an example of that. It wouldn't mean that you therefore can't do it. And then you put a rule on everybody. I might make a suggestion and say, hey, oh. It just didn't seem to be something we see in Scripture a lot I don't think I would base a church practice on it and make it the center of a common church practice. And that seems wise to me. But I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility because that seems too extreme. What, uh, I'm doing here is I'm trying to respond to someone who just wants sort of a very strict law about something and try to make it more of a wisdom question instead, which often will help us to not be weird. Number 20, Chris Barrios last question for today says, how do we harmonize the Bible and psychology? I have some leaders that try to diagnose people's sin through the lens of psychology and not scripture. Things like compulsive, lying, laziness, et cetera. Um, yeah.

159
01:33:54.000 --> 01:34:37.000
Um, psychology is, in my opinion, a useful tool, but maybe we should try to recognize here's some principles. Uh, try to recognize when the psychology is based on a worldview topic, a worldview issue. And if that worldview issue is in conflict with Christian truth or teaching, then there's a problem with that psychology. You try to look beyond the observations about people's habits and behaviors, and you look to the worldview issues. For, um, instance, some people in psychology, they boil people down to nature and nurture as catch this. The only two factors in a person's behavior are nature and nurture. Both factors in a person's behavior? Yes. Can I learn a lot from the fact that nature and nurture are factors? Yes.

160
01:34:37.000 --> 01:35:05.000
If I treat it as though they're the only two factors, then I treat people like they're just meat robots who don't have free will, and the Bible doesn't do this, and that becomes a worldview problem. Um, psychology can sometimes, uh, it can devalue sin. Sin is not really a problem. All we have is compulsive, healthy or unhealthy habits. And that's a problem, a worldview issue where we won't treat sin as sin and call things out as they are.

161
01:35:05.000 --> 01:36:06.000
Um, in my opinion, though, pastors who you say you have some leaders that try to diagnose people's sin through the lens of psychology, not scripture. These are people that often psychologists don't care that much for because they don't know that much about what they're talking about, and so they're trying to diagnose things. I mean, I've used the word narcissist to talk about someone I don't really care about technical clinical meanings of narcissist and what that means on, uh, the DSM four or whatever it's called, that kind of stuff. I don't really care. All I mean is it's an English word to represent someone who is hyper focused upon themselves to the exclusion of others in an unhealthy way. And they keep filtering everything through the lens of selfishness. I don't mean more than that. Um, and so if they're just using terms that psychologists use, that's fine, we all use words. But if they're trying to do psychology as counseling, that can get weird. And I've seen this before. Right.

162
01:36:06.000 --> 01:39:04.000
Um, I'm trying to decide if I should share a story or not. I probably shouldn't. The fact that I'm thinking, should I share that story? I probably shouldn't. I'll just hold my tongue. But I've seen some of that stuff before. Can get a little weird. Um, maybe what we can do is say, uh, maybe look up some books on biblical counseling for leaders like that and consider making sure that they have all the tools of scripture when it comes to counseling people through grief. That you have specific verses and biblical principles to use for the topic of suicide. That you have a biblical perspective on that. For issues of depression, this doesn't mean you can't also aid with whether it's medication or psychological, uh, examination. I think we should be open to those things. But make sure that you're not neglecting the biblical tools that will also help, because you can lean too hard on those other things because they seem like they got it figured out. Well, they don't, okay? Nobody does. What we do have is some resources that can help people with stuff like that. And as a Christian, I want to make sure I'm familiar with the biblical ones, at least. If, um, you want to add other stuff in there, just don't try to put a Jesus picture over all your psychology and just turn into this wishywashy, like, amalgam thing where you're just like, I overheard this once. I'm going to use it, too, in counseling, and I'm going to grab this and use it. And it's like, people need the word of God, man. They need something grounded and not just armchair psychology. Anyway, but I'm ranting, so I'm going to stop. Um, at any rate, you guys, I am driven by a confidence that the Bible is better than people think it is, better than even most Christians think it is, that there's resources in the Scripture because after years of studying verse by verse, I just keep finding things that I'm like, wow, look at that. That's so helpful, that's so true, that's so good. And yet so often, Christians are starving from these truths. And I want to encourage us to be going back to the Word of God. You're dealing with depression part of your thing? How about you study the Book of Philippians? Like, actually study it, really think about it. Look at the Book of Psalms and look at how don't just read Psalms like it's therapy. Look at it and analyze how the author of Psalms deals with their depression and their anxiety. And learn lessons on how you can better handle yours. Like, there's truths in the Word of God that are really, truly helpful for the real life issues that humans face. And sometimes we jump to alternate methods because we haven't yet exhausted the goodness that there is in the Word of God. This is not at all to say that we shouldn't use the lessons we can learn from psychology. I mean, if somebody spends 30 years studying suicide and depression and they figure out, here's the things that tend to help people, I'd be a fool not to consider what they have to say. I just don't want to set aside the health and well being that comes from the scripture in the process. All right, y'all, let me, uh, pray us out. Lord, we thank you for the truth of your Word.

163
01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:14.000
You know, us right now, we're all going through stuff. Um, we're going through griefs and hardships. Some of us are angry, uh, disappointed.

164
01:39:14.000 --> 01:40:15.000
We have health issues, emotional issues, anxieties, depression, suicide. We pray, Lord, that we would see right now, even right this second, people who are listening to the recording of this, that they would just even right at the second, as they're hearing it, that they would be freshly aware of the goodness of Christ, of the light and the love of Christ. That they would remember now why it brought them such peace when they first heard about Christ, and that that would be applying into their difficult, maybe bitter old troubles, the pains that don't feel fresh anymore, that just feel like they're souring them, that the light of Christ would freshly help them through those hardships. In Jesus name, amen. Amen. I will, uh, see you guys in two weeks. In the meantime, I'm working in the background on a lot of stuff. It'll come, I promise. I haven't been putting out quite as many things recently with it. I'm working in the background. It will come. All right, lord bless you.