WEBVTT

1
00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:58.000
All right, this is a special skeptics, doubters, and unbelievers. Q and A. The idea here is to take your questions as a skeptic, non believer, doubter, treat it with respect, treat you with dignity, and give you the best answer that I can, at least. I can't promise to have all the answers. Um, I never can, and that's understandable. If anybody promises to have all the answers, then throw going to break that promise. But I will try to give you something at least helpful, something to point you to the goodness of the truth of Christianity. That I believe is not only good in the sense that it pragmatically helps people in their lives, but that it's true and that salvation is really found in Jesus Christ, that there really is a God who loves you and who has provided for you for forgiveness of your sins and for eternal life. I want to encourage you to take one more step closer to God, if you're a doubter, to see that there's light at the end of that tunnel, that you can have your faith restored and strengthened, all those good things.

2
00:00:58.000 --> 00:01:27.000
This is the Q and a occasionally where I just want to take questions from the live chat that are specifically from the perspective of the doubter, the skeptic, the non, um believer. You guys can load your questions in right now. The first question I always have ready to go. And that comes from Lily Wang, who says in Genesis 22 two, God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering. How can God ask men to do something that is sinful? And how could Abraham obey God's direction to sin?

3
00:01:27.000 --> 00:02:50.000
So I think this is, uh, again, I want to treat these questions with respect. Right. I'm going to offer a simple answer, but then I want to give you an explanation of that answer so we can come back to the simplicity of it, and you'll see, hopefully, it'll make sense. I would say that my response to this question is to say it wasn't actually sinful for Abraham to obey God or for God to command Abraham, that it wasn't sinful in the first place. There's a few reasons for this. Uh, so from a christian perspective, if you're going to know, Lily, you're either a believer or a doubter, or you're asking this for someone else, but, uh, from the perspective of, let's say that Christianity is true, let's say God exists, let's say that he really is the creator of all things, because you can't ask this question without that in place, because the hypothetical even if you're a non Christian, the hypothetical is based on the idea that God really did do this. Okay, so God exists. He's really the creator of all things. And this has strong implications about a few things, about morality and also about God's, you might say, God's rights. That's, ah, probably a clumsy way to put it, but I don't know what other term to use here. But God is entitled in a sense. It's his creation. He made all things, and therefore God can do what he chooses with his creation. That that is actually a right, a proper role that he has to do what he wants with his creation, including with, uh, killing or making alive.

4
00:02:50.000 --> 00:05:24.000
That is, God can simply do that because of his role as creator of all things. There's another aspect, which is God's morality. God is the grounding of all morality and our. And this is my understanding of this stuff, okay, my best understanding. Our duties, like our requirement to do what's right, is based largely on what God tells us to do because of his role and his grounding of all reality. Now, his goodness is grounded in his nature, but when he gives us commands, we are then obligated to do those things. God tells you, I want you to do this, you have to do it. There's a sense in which we understand this with parenting. Uh, if a parent tells a kid, um, go to your room, then there's a moral obligation that the kid has. Now, it's not an unbreakable, um, moral obligation, or that it can't be trumped with anything else. Perhaps the parent is being highly abusive, but I'm talking normal, healthy family stuff. A parent says, go to your room. The kid's supposed to go to their room. Parent says, hey, pick the thing up that you just dropped. Stop poking your sister. There's a moral obligation that the kid has to obey the parent in that situation, and that this is so much more true in such a bigger way when we're talking about God commanding humans to do things. So this well known story of Abraham offering Isaac or attempting to offer Isaac, that this is a command from God. Um, when God commands you to do something, it is morally acceptable to do the thing, even if apart from a command of God, it would be unacceptable to do that very thing. Now, this might sound like, oh, well, this is special pleading and this kind of thing, but it's really not. We do this all the time, even in our current laws that we think are good and are right. If you ever come to a red light and a cop is waving you through because they're dealing with an accident or something. There's a cop there waving you through the red light. You are running a red light, but you're doing it under the authority of this cop who has the ability to tell you to go through the light. How does this work? Well, the same rule that makes it so you can't run a red light. That same authority, governmental authority, that same authority is being extended by the cop in a special circumstance to say, okay, in this case, do it. There are specific reasons why this situation is different. God commands Abraham to offer Isaac. There are specific reasons why this situation is radically different than any other time someone would offer up or sacrifice a child or a person to a deity. That's completely different. And that's actually how the Bible couches this as a one time, very different scenario than any other time in which this sort of thing has ever happened before. So this is pretty significant. Um, okay, just checking.

5
00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:57.000
Um, let me talk more about how I explain this. Okay, so some would respond to this. Um, I can feel your response saying, so you're saying, might makes right. Might makes right. And no, nothing I've said is remotely like might makes right. Might makes right is the idea that the most powerful person can simply take charge. And because they can, they have some sort of moral right to take charge. And that's not what we're saying at all. I'm not basing this on God's ability to control people, but on God's proper authority over his creation.

6
00:05:57.000 --> 00:06:22.000
That's one of the rungs of the ladder and the other rung of the ladder to climb up to this conclusion. So God has authority over creation, and God is also the source of our moral imperatives. And that source is the one who said, I want you to do this thing, abraham, go and offer your son whom you love. That's significant. That is significant. Now, this immediately brings up a lot of scary concerns.

7
00:06:22.000 --> 00:07:29.000
In fact, last time I answered a question like this, multiple atheists made videos and wrote articles about it. No joke. Right. Um, and the reason is because, partly because they're scoffing, okay, that's just reality. But another part of it is that they're genuinely worried about real religious weirdos who've done psychotic and horrible things in the name of religion. And that I've just answered in a way that could be taken to mean, so if God tells you to go kill people, you're going to go kill them, when normally it would be wrong to do that. And, um, this is a challenging thing to work through, because either you affirm God doesn't have the authority over life and death, which I can't reject that as a christian, uh, or I think as any reasonable theist, you can't reject that. Or I am going to be embracing this idea, or at least painted as embracing this idea, that people going out and killing in the name of God is something I approve of. But here's the difference. Killing in the name of God is not actually the same as God actually commanding somebody to kill.

8
00:07:29.000 --> 00:08:14.000
These are very different things because the vast majority of anybody who's ever killed in the name of God certainly didn't have God telling them to do so. And people of all religions would agree with that. An atheist would think it was in every case. So the hypothetical of, uh, if God tells you to do this, yeah, so what do I do? Um, to prevent crazy people from, uh, doing crazy things. If someone out there right now, you're watching this video and you're thinking, hey, I think maybe God's telling me to offer my son, too. And you're getting, and probably you have delusions of religious grandeur going on in your life. I'm being honest with you here. This, um, is not happening to you. I can say that with a lot of confidence, actually. And it's not because of my own bias. It's because of when you back up and you look at the whole story of Abraham and Isaac, you realize that one of the lessons is you don't sacrifice your kids to me.

9
00:08:14.000 --> 00:11:32.000
Let me explain. Let me explain why people have misunderstood this passage. I think not everybody, but many people have. So, first off, if you're feeling tempted to do something like this or feeling that maybe God's showing you to do something like this, you're not Abraham. Okay? That was a one time thing. Never happened again in the Bible. And it was actually argued against in the Bible. We'll get to that in a second. But also, Abraham had a number of powerful experiences that showed him that it was really God speaking. It wasn't his own delusions, it wasn't his own confusion. It wasn't something he was, um, coming up with in his own mind, where it was an obsessive religious thought that he started thinking God was telling him, where it was just sort of an internal voice kind of thing. It wasn't like that at all. Abraham had many previous miracles, like the birth of Isaac. He had visitations from God that were literal visitations in his very presence. And it wasn't only Abraham that experienced it. So if Abraham was crazy, he could have hallucinated that. But no, there were other people there too. Abraham had real confirmation that God had spoken to him. There was many other things. Read the full story of Abraham in Genesis. That backdrop gives credence to the idea that, yeah, Abraham could really believe this was truly God speaking to him. But also, if you think that it's okay to go out and kill people in the name of, like, because you have some internal voice telling you to do so, you're definitely not hearing from God. But, um, part of the revelation of this, part of the whole point of this thing with Abraham was to tell them never to sacrifice their kids. Zoom out a little bit further than just the story of Abraham and ask yourself this. Where does this fit in God's revelation of how he wants people to sacrifice to him? Right. God calls Abraham sacrifice. This is something other canaanite deities did. And it was definitely a huge test of faith, that's for sure. Abraham goes out to do it, and God stops him and provides a ram. What does he do next? Well, next, when they become a nation, when the exodus happens, he gives them rules. He says, you owe me your firstborn sons, just like Isaac was Abraham's firstborn. And he says, but you will not sacrifice them to me. You'll redeem them with an animal offering. What's the foundation of that? Abraham offering Isaac and having this ram show up as the alternative to sacrificing his son. God is changing the way they do religion because they're all moving from paganism into Judaism, paganism into monotheism, sacrificing kids into. No, you're not allowed to do that. This is part of the message of the Abraham story is you're not allowed to do that. To see this, you could actually look at scripture. Let me read some stuff to you. So deuteronomy 18, it says, when you come into the land, this is verses nine through twelve, that the Lord your God is giving you. You shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or daughter or his daughter as an offering. Anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer that's contacting the dead and messing with that, or one who inquires of the dead. Right? For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations, the Lord your God is driving them out before you, not contacting you that's kind of an important one for, uh, today, at any rate, you'll not do this. God tells him you won't do this, right? He gives them instructions. Yeah, you owe me your first born, but you'll use an animal instead. Abraham did the same thing. I want your willingness to follow me in all things, but I'm telling you, this is off the table. I don't want you to do this.

10
00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:45.000
Uh, deuteronomy 1231 says, you shall not worship the Lord your God in that way. For every abominable thing that the Lord hates, they've done for their gods. For they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.

11
00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:52.000
So I would say then, if God tells you to do what Abraham did, that wasn't God.

12
00:11:52.000 --> 00:11:56.000
Why are you at my door? Go away. I'm busy.

13
00:11:56.000 --> 00:12:03.000
At any rate, I'm checking the ring app. Yeah, where I live, you got to have eyeballs on your house.

14
00:12:03.000 --> 00:12:06.000
At any rate, um.

15
00:12:06.000 --> 00:13:04.000
Uh, the point is that, um, should a person be willing to offer anything to God, it is his rightful position to call for anything. It is rightful authority and our moral duties do come from his commands. So, in a sense, yes. Does that create religious crazies that are willing to go out and just start slaughtering people wrongly? God, um, has given us a bunch of stuff in scripture to prevent that from happening, so that a well grounded christian who understands scripture wouldn't be doing those things, um, and would be protected against those sorts of delusions, even from hearing them, supposedly from God. So that, uh, the warnings in the Old Testament are, if a prophet comes to you and they're giving you advice to do something contrary to what's written here, don't follow them. So even if it's supposedly a voice from God, yet it conflicts with statements like, don't sacrifice your kids to me, then. Yeah, don't do it now. Abraham didn't have that deuteronomy law. I know what I'm trying to, um.

16
00:13:04.000 --> 00:14:22.000
You know, that came afterwards, so he doesn't have that in place. Abraham's learning something about God as he goes to Sacrifice Isaac, he's learning something about God. Yeah, I don't want you to do that. But there's tons more to talk about with the Abraham Isaac story. I won't get into all of it, but I'll say this, it's a strange story. It definitely gets your attention. It may seem barbaric, but some people conveniently forget that God refused to let it go through and replaced and turned it into a prophetic event. That's right. Even Abraham in Genesis 22 saw it as prophecy. He did all this, and then he said, in the mount of the Lord, it shall be provided. Never describe what it was, that phrase. It shall be provided. But God Jehovah Jireh, the Lord the provider, is going to provide something where? Mount Moriah in the mountains of Mariah. So he's there at, uh, ancient Jerusalem, in that region of Jerusalem. Before any of them were actually living there, before they're inhabiting the land. And what will be provided? Something just like what just happened. Abraham offering Isaac is a picture of Jesus from the book of Genesis. Thousands of years ago, so long before the birth of Christ, before the gospel had been understood, we have this incredible, detailed picture of Jesus Christ. Let me talk to you about some of the details so you can see how amazing this is. And then we'll get all your guys questions.

17
00:14:22.000 --> 00:16:28.000
So it's a father offering his son in Genesis 22 two, we see that, um, abraham is told, take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and he's going to go, where's land of Moriah? Here we are at, ah, the area of Jerusalem, and offer him there as a burn offering on one of the mountains, which I shall tell you, he doesn't let him do it. But guess what? There is a father who takes his only begotten son to that same location, and he actually does offer him for our sins. Now Jesus offers himself. It's not a child sacrifice, some barbaric thing. It's Jesus taking the place of our sin for a substitutionary atonement, basically. Um, I know I'm using fancy words there, but you can look them up and it's amazing. It's how he achieves our salvation. The son Isaac was born of a miraculous birth, just like Jesus was born of a virgin birth. Uh, Isaac was the son of the promise, this long awaited, really long delayed promise that God gave Abraham. And then Isaac shows up and he's like, you're the promised son. Jesus was the ultimate promised son of the lineage of Abraham, the ultimate fulfillment of this, a long awaited son. The father is the one who carries the fire up the mountain. While they're walking up the mountain, Abraham, it says, had the fire in his hand. And Isaac, he had the wood. And fire often represents judgment in scripture. Jesus experienced the suffering of our judgment. And Jesus himself, though, right, the father is, uh, giving that out. And then Jesus is carrying the wood up the hill, so to speak, to calvary blows my mind. There, uh, was a three day journey. Genesis 22 four says it was a three day journey. And so for three days, it was as though his son was dead. And for three days, Christ was, in fact, dead. The son submits, it seems Isaac was probably old enough to fight back, and he didn't fight back. Um, now, there's a bit of conjecture there, but we don't have anything in there where you might expect it. Some fighting going on there. The sun seems to be yielding to some extent, and Jesus voluntarily, that much more voluntarily, went forward to offer his own life for us. This passage, Genesis 22, is the first biblical use of the word worship or of the word love.

18
00:16:28.000 --> 00:16:43.000
Think about that for a second. It's again in Jerusalem or at the Jerusalem area, mountains of Moriah, a ram takes Isaac's place. Because Isaac is not actually sacrificed, never intended to be. Jesus is the one who is sacrificed for us.

19
00:16:43.000 --> 00:17:00.000
So that's just this beautiful thing. Uh, the irony of offering one through whom the future people will come is not lost on me at least. So Isaac is the one who Abraham was told, all your offspring will come through Isaac. You're going to have tons and tons of kids and grandkids and great grandkids through Isaac.

20
00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:03.000
Now go offer him.

21
00:17:03.000 --> 00:17:36.000
Do you see that? This is like such a, uh, test of Abraham's faith. So Abraham, according to Hebrews, believed that God was going to raise Isaac from the dead after the offering took place because he thought God has to do this. So he was thinking of a death and resurrection of his son. That's amazing. But what's cool about this is also that Abraham is going to offer the son, through whom all the offspring will come. And the father offered Jesus, through whom we all become children of God, by that offering. Um. It's just beautiful.

22
00:17:36.000 --> 00:18:19.000
Um, let's see. It's also said to be prophetic, like I said in Genesis 22 eight, Abraham said, God will provide himself a lamb for the burnt offering. That was kind of for himself a lamb. That's kind of a prophetic moment. The ram then shows up. Um, but then Genesis 20 214, I guess I'll put this on your screen. So Abraham called the name of that place, the Lord will provide as it is to this day on the mount, said, to this day on the mount of the Lord, it shall be provided. And what is the it again? You could say, well, God will provide things in general. Um, except there is a specific provision in the passage that is someone else to die in your place. Um, powerful stuff. There's other things we could talk about there as well. It's amazing.

23
00:18:19.000 --> 00:18:32.000
I think the answer to your question is it was not sin because God commanded it. Had God not commanded it, it would have been a horrible sin, just like there's so many things we can do with authority.

24
00:18:32.000 --> 00:19:36.000
Without that authority, it would be very wrong to do it. Uh, a government will lock someone in prison for ten years. Locking someone in prison for ten years, or in bars and locking them up. That is a horrible, horrible, immoral crime. Unless, of course, you've gone through the justice system and you have the authority of all the government. And, of course, if there's a moral right behind what they do. But God has both of those for us. He has his moral right in the goodness of the story he's telling. He has the thing he's calling Abraham to do. And Abraham has a right to obey. Has a rightness in his obedience to God, because God's commands we are obligated to obey. Just like running a red light when a cop waves you through is entirely appropriate. All right, let's go to question number two. This is from get it? Who says Deuteronomy 20 213 to 21? Um, that's the verse reference. Uh, why were the women to be stoned to death if they didn't present proof of virginity? Was it the same for men? Let's look at this passage. Deuteronomy 20, 213 to 21.

25
00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:39.000
So Abraham called the name of that place.

26
00:19:39.000 --> 00:19:45.000
I definitely did not get to Deuteronomy. Let me go there again.

27
00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:47.000
That worked.

28
00:19:47.000 --> 00:21:13.000
Um, let's read the passage, and we'll ask your question again and try to answer it. So 13 to 21. If, um, any man takes a wife and goes into her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, I took this woman and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity, then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity. And the elders to the elders of the city in the gate, and the father of the young woman, uh, shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her. And behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity. And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him. They shall find him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel, and she shall be his wife. And he may not divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true that evidence of virginity was not found in, um, the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house. And the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones. Because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. Um, okay, let's talk about the questions here. So there's, um, probably a dozen questions that are in your guys minds.

29
00:21:13.000 --> 00:21:24.000
Um, why were the women to be stoned to death if they didn't present proof of virginity? Um, we should say this instead. I think, to be more clear on the passage.

30
00:21:24.000 --> 00:22:37.000
The women were to be stoned if in fact, they find proof that they've been sleeping around, lied about their virginity, got married under that lie, and then both bring sexual immorality, uh, the guilt of sexual immorality onto the people, as well as threatening the very genetic lineage, um, of the people of Israel. Um, whereas the tribes and the lands are all set aside for those specific tribes according to prophecy and stuff like that. And so those are big deals. Okay, so here's our modern ears hear it and we go, ah, they're stolen them for not being virgins. And then we get uppity about it and we don't realize that, one, sexual immorality is actually a really serious sin. And two, this was a fraud done in relation to marriage and offspring and kids and lineage and all that other stuff. So that was a big deal. If she was guilty, she was guilty of a very different thing than if the man was guilty in this scenario. If he was guilty, he was guilty of falsely accusing a woman. So he got whipped, he got a financial penalty, and he got publicly shamed. If she was guilty, she wasn't guilty of falsely accusing somebody. She was guilty of something much worse.

31
00:22:37.000 --> 00:23:05.000
Catch that. Um, so why was the woman to be stoned to death? We didn't present proof of virginity. Was it the same for men? Uh, for men, it wasn't physically possible. What is the proof of virginity? Right. Ah, I'm not going to get into all the details. If you don't know what this proof of virginity is, you can figure that out on your own. I'm not going to educate people on the medical side of things like that, but that's the idea. Um, this is not physically possible with men as it is with women.

32
00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:07.000
There's a difference there.

33
00:23:07.000 --> 00:23:14.000
It's just the reality of life that pushes that upon us. We don't have that proof possible.

34
00:23:14.000 --> 00:23:37.000
Um, uh, the issues of sexual immorality, of fidelity in marriage, and of knowing who the dad is, you always know who the mom is, right? She's the one pregnant. You always know that. You need to know who the dad is. And the only way to know that is if there's, um. Um.

35
00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:56.000
So those things were all really important, especially in Israel during that time. Yeah. We tend to think nowadays in our culture the way we are. We think if a woman senses any shame for not being a virgin, then the real shame is on the person who brought it up.

36
00:23:56.000 --> 00:25:13.000
Um, while I don't want to sit here and just shame to death people who have committed sexual immorality, who've been sleeping around, who've done those things, as many of my audience have, I want you to recognize that that actually is a grievous sin before the eyes of God. And it's a huge deal. And in our culture, it's not a big deal. But think back to other cultures that you've heard of growing up who did horrible things and thought it was no big deal. Uh, they did horrible things. And you can think of lots of examples in history of people doing they did what, they treated people how they did what, and they didn't think it was a big deal. Yet those same groups would have seen the errors of other cultures and said, that's so immoral and horrible. The real wisdom and real moral maturity is seeing the errors, uh, and sin in your own culture that are embraced by your culture and being able to understand that it's wicked and evil, including the stuff that you've done yourself. And there's no help in trying to hide from it. There's only help in running to Jesus to receive grace and forgiveness and the acceptance and the cleansing that comes from him. Your life is not over if you've done these things right. The law here that says stone her, that is meant to drive you to Christ so that you see how serious your sin is, so that you get driven to Christ.

37
00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:30.000
Is, uh, fornication and stuff just as big of a deal with men? Absolutely, 100%. It's just that the laws of physics allow you to know who the mother is every time, but not the father. And so it changes the way you handle things, at least in the Old Testament law.

38
00:25:30.000 --> 00:25:40.000
Let's go to the next question. This is from Emily Lewis, who says, hi, Mike. Why do Christians try to keep all ten commandments to the word except the fourth one? I hope this doesn't sound rude.

39
00:25:40.000 --> 00:25:56.000
Yeah, this is a good question. Um, so when you look at this question, I'm going to offer an answer that I think is unpopular, but I think is biblically sound. That is, that we are not under the law, and that includes the Ten Commandments.

40
00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:20.000
However, that does not mean we don't have any moral commitments that agree very much with many things found in the law and in the Ten Commandments. But by saying I'm not under the law, including the Ten Commandments, it means that these are not exactly bindingly my rules, but that there's lots of overlap in God's ultimate moral truths that do apply to me as a christian today.

41
00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:48.000
Um, I don't know why more people don't agree with me on this particular one, so I probably haven't heard all their arguments, and maybe there's something specific to be said there. Um, but let's just run through some of these together. Um, moving my things around. Uh, okay. So the, um.

42
00:26:48.000 --> 00:26:54.000
Just a second. I'm struggling with finding what I'm clicking on.

43
00:26:54.000 --> 00:27:41.000
Um, the basic principle of not being under the law is something that Christians would, by and large, just widely agree with. Yeah, we're not under the law. I agree we're not under the law. But then when it comes to the Ten Commandments, they think, but those are for everybody, right? Those are for everybody. And, uh, largely, as you read them, you think, yeah, that sounds like don't murder people. That sounds like something for everybody. Don't commit adultery, don't steal. That all sounds like things that you don't want to do. And I'd agree you don't want to do them. But theologically, where are the ten commandments given in scripture for all people, all nations of all time? And the fourth commandment is one of them in particular, that stands out as evidence that God doesn't require this of all people, both in the Old and New Testament.

44
00:27:41.000 --> 00:28:20.000
Let's run through the ten real quick. So you shall have no other gods before God. Okay. 100% agree. You shall not make any graven images for worshipping, bowing down to as part of your worship, like that sort of thing. As part of receiving worship. Yeah, don't do that. Okay. Uh, I, uh, think that totally applies today. And we also see that these are taught, right. The first two commandments are those things that God judges all nations for in the Old Testament. Like, he doesn't just judge Israel for that, he judges all nations for that. Here's how, you know, you look at the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, you look at the prophets, and when they speak of foreign nations who are not under the law, do they get on them for these issues?

45
00:28:20.000 --> 00:28:41.000
Yes, both of those issues. Let's take the third one. So that shows what? That God judges people not under the law by that same policy. And when you're in the New Testament, christians who are not under the law, are they told the same things? Yep. No other gods before God? Yep. Even things like, um, covetousness is idolatry. Right. Things like that. Thou, uh, shalt not make any graven images. Absolutely.

46
00:28:41.000 --> 00:29:14.000
They destroyed their idols, they burned their magic books, all that kind of thing. Um, the third one, you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Yep. That's something. We're still told to honor God, to sanctify the Lord Jesus in your hearts, all these different things. New Testament still applies that. Um, I'm going to skip number four. We'll come back to the Sabbath in a second. Number five, honor your father and mother. Yep. Ephesians specifically calls it out, honor your father and mother. Even ties it to the Ten Commandments, which is the first commandment with promise that you may live long on the earth. So Ephesians calls it out specifically and applies it to us.

47
00:29:14.000 --> 00:29:28.000
You see, the commandments can apply to us. That doesn't mean we are under them. We look at how through the lens of Christ, does this apply to me, instead of thinking, I'm just simply under that commandment.

48
00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:46.000
I don't know how people have the Ten Commandments theologically. I'm not sure. Maybe there's an answer here. I just haven't heard how people have just the Ten Commandments, but then they have none of the rest of the law, and they start chopping the law up like that, and they say, well, it's moral law versus civil law. And it doesn't really work when you actually try to go to the law and figure out what's moral versus civil like that.

49
00:29:46.000 --> 00:29:56.000
It's not like the ten commandments are all moral and the rest is all civil. It's more complicated than that. It's okay for the Ten Commandments to be more complicated than that as well.

50
00:29:56.000 --> 00:30:34.000
Sorry if I'm getting. I'm talking past anybody here. I don't mean to. I'm just trying to cram a lot of answers into a short time here. Um, so you shall not kill. Okay, that's specifically committing murder. Don't commit murder. Um, it's not that all killing in every circumstance is always wrong. Don't, uh, commit adultery. Yeah, we're told not to do those things as well. Don't steal. Right? Ephesians, Colossians, don't steal. Instead, work hard, save up so you can have to give to others. Go above and beyond, even, um, don't bear false witness. Right. Don't lie. Stop lying to one another. Scripture says in the New Testament as well, and don't covet. Now, these are all things except for number four, they're all things God judges all the nations for.

51
00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:54.000
He has Old Testament prophets that judge all nations for these things. He has given us New Testament scripture that tells us repeatedly to do these things or observe these things and to even go next level on them as well. But not number four. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

52
00:30:54.000 --> 00:31:01.000
Now, there are some Christians who observe the Sabbath, and they're believers. And I don't divide over them, uh, over this issue with them.

53
00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:06.000
Not, um, at all. And if you wanted to go to church on the Sabbath, I don't really care.

54
00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:58.000
Now, they care. Okay. They care quite a bit. But my understanding of the theology here is this Sabbath commandment is never placed on foreign nations. Of all the things that Babylon is judged right? Of the Canaanites that they are judged for, all the things that these different. And the different groups, all the ites, right. All the different groups are judged for in scripture. And we're given many lists of things they've done wrong. It's never violated the Sabbath. Never. Never is a foreign nation judged in the Old Testament for violating the Sabbath. Yet Israel is big time judged, big time judged for violating not only the Sabbath day, but the Sabbath year, the farming year, where they let the land rest for a year. So for 400 years they didn't do it. So then they end up 70 years, um, uh, in captivity, so the land can get its rest. In Jeremiah.

55
00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:06.000
I'm too many things. I'm saying too many things. I'm sorry. Let me just say this. Israel big time judged for violating the Sabbath. Other nations never.

56
00:32:06.000 --> 00:33:04.000
Never. Now we see, you know, the Sabbath happening, being sort of acknowledged. In Genesis, God rested on the 7th day, but we don't see it commanded until Exodus, when God calls his people out and then gives them rest. And this is the people who are working so hard, backbreaking labor all the time, and he gives them a day of rest, and it does tie back to God's creation in seven days. But God never commanded it for all people. Now go to the New Testament. You're a christian, you're not under the law. You are still observing the same moral principles that God has always had for all people of all time. But you are not under the law. What about the Sabbath? The New Testament never tells christians to observe the Sabbath, and it makes it clear in romans 14, despite all the arguments I've heard otherwise, it makes it clear that we do not have to observe the Sabbath. And I want to be careful here. I say don't have to. Scripture doesn't say don't observe the Sabbath or that observing the Sabbath is bad.

57
00:33:04.000 --> 00:33:11.000
It just says you don't have to, which would mean that this commandment is not binding upon us. Let's look at romans 14.

58
00:33:11.000 --> 00:33:39.000
Um, I'm going to read through a lot of stuff here, so I'll move quickly. As for the one who's weak in faith, that is a reference to a person who has maybe, um, more restrictive rules because they don't have a sense of confidence that God will allow them to do something, like maybe eating pork, right? They don't have that confidence. So they have, like, their faith is kind of weak on that, so they stay away from that. Or, um, maybe on the Sabbath they have a similar issue. So as for, um, what did I just click?

59
00:33:39.000 --> 00:34:00.000
Okay. As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him. But not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. It doesn't say what they believe. It just says here they eat only vegetables. And this is the condition to just don't argue about it. Hey, Christian, these are things to not argue about.

60
00:34:00.000 --> 00:36:20.000
You have a conviction about the food you eat. You feel like you can't eat this, then don't. Let's not argue about it. Let's not divide over it. Let not the one who eats, despise the one who abstains. Hey, Christian, you see a person who's, let's say, take the Sabbath, for example. They're observing on Saturday, right? They observe it, maybe even Friday night till Saturday evening, same thing. They go, hey, I'm going to observe the Sabbath same time as the Jews traditionally do, and I'm going to be going to, uh, church on that day as well, and gathering with others who do. Here's the rule for those of us who say, I don't have that requirement. Do not despise them. Don't look down on them, don't despise them. Don't get mad at them for it. Don't feel like there's some. Just accept them as your brothers and sisters, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Now, applying that same principle to the Sabbath, it would be, don't let the Christian who follows, um, Sabbath Rules, don't pass judgment on the one who doesn't. Like, you want to do this? That's fine. You can do it. You can do it under the Lord. Enjoy it. Don't pass judgment on others over this issue. Uh, why am I applying this to the Sabbath? It's obviously about food. Let me read on and we'll see why. Because Paul applies the same principles to Sabbath in just two verses. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls, and he will be upheld. For the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day that would be observing the Sabbath is a subcategory of observing the day. This 100% applies to the Sabbath. The one who observes the day. A person who observes Sabbath is observing a day that they esteem different than others. This is 100% applicable. The one who observes the day observes it in honor of the Lord. Right. Honor the Lord by observing the Sabbath. That's what they're doing. The one who eats eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the lords. For to this end, Christ died and lived again, that he might be lord of both the dead and of the living.

61
00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:36.000
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? These are the two categories. Hey, are you observing the Sabbath? Stop passing judgment on christians who don't. Are you not, um, observing the Sabbath? Stop despising christians who do.

62
00:36:36.000 --> 00:36:38.000
Do you see, the point here is unity.

63
00:36:38.000 --> 00:37:19.000
Now, that means that as a Christian. Well, Mike, if the point is unity, why are you teaching that, um, we don't have to observe the Sabbath? Shouldn't you just get on the fence on the issue and say, I don't know, guys, I'll leave it up to you? Well, the Bible doesn't get on the fence. The Bible makes it clear you don't have to observe the Sabbath. That's the clear teaching. But you can and you can do it under the Lord. And then the major issue is, don't cause internal division in the body of Christ over it. That can only be true if we are not under the law, including the Ten Commandments. Now, I still don't murder, still honor your parents, still all those things.

64
00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:45.000
But those are moral truths in the law. They're not actually just something that's binding because they're in the Ten Commandments. I hope that makes sense. Every time I explain this, somebody, um, makes videos and doesn't understand what I'm saying. So I did my best. Um, later I'll be like, oh, I should have said this. I hope it helps. Let's talk about Bossinator 40. Three's question. He says, or she says, does God have blood? If not, isn't that nestorian?

65
00:37:45.000 --> 00:37:49.000
Um, does God have blood?

66
00:37:49.000 --> 00:38:08.000
Yes and no. Um, I think the answer to this question is simply God did not have blood until he took on human flesh, human form. He came in flesh and blood, and then he had blood. So we've got God coming and now God has blood.

67
00:38:08.000 --> 00:39:31.000
The blood of Jesus. Jesus is God and Jesus has blood, and that's God's blood. But it's not the blood of divine essence. Maybe I'm going to try to be careful with my terminology here. It's easy to stumble and get things wrong when you're trying to define things here. Um, but I think we should understand clearly God didn't have blood until the incarnation. The blood God has is only the second person of the trinity, Jesus, and is only a result of the incarnation. But because he's truly man, he truly has blood and he truly spills his blood for mankind. And so, um, scripture hints at this when it suggests that God redeemed us by his blood. Um, and so, yeah, the alternative to say God doesn't have blood, I don't know who would say that. Or if maybe they would only say it because they're confused about, um, the nature of the incarnation, or they felt. Maybe someone's trying to pigeonhole us into thinking that God, prior to the incarnation and aside apart from the incarnation, has to have blood. And that might be like someone who's leaning towards some weird theology that you'd want to avoid. Um, question number five. Kat high says, as an atheist who would like to believe in God, goes to church and has read the gospel, what steps do I take to believe?

68
00:39:31.000 --> 00:39:32.000
Um.

69
00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:50.000
Well, Kat, I am thrilled to hear that. I'm excited for you. I'll pray for you. Many of us, honestly, many of the people who are watching this video right now and watching the replay of the video later are going to be praying, stopping and praying for you. Um, what steps would you take?

70
00:39:50.000 --> 00:42:02.000
Again, I'm just one human talking to another here. I do believe what scripture says when it says, if you seek the Lord, you'll find him. It also says, seek him with your whole heart. And that where our hearts can become divided is one of the things to consider. And for me to consider, too. This is for all of us. Okay. Like, whenever you're trying to seek the Lord, if I'm harboring my heart, is holding on to things that are against God. I may not think I'm against God in that area, but my life is choosing an alternate path. How can I explain this? Um, God is goodness. And if I'm embracing something that's bad, inasmuch as I embrace that bad thing, I am rejecting God in that area. And so what we call sin can, uh, inhibit my ability to seek the Lord. I may be praying, I may think I'm seeking God, but I'm not yielding my life to the Lord in a real, true way where I'm, like saying, I want to turn from this sin and turn to Christ. So you, like me, have sinful tendencies just like I do. And those sinful tendencies are the opposite of seeking God. I think that this is a huge thing to think about, to be aware of. Do I know what those are? No. Um, at the risk of sounding like I'm being judgmental over you, I'm describing to you what I think is the condition of every human being, not just you, that we're all like this. And so I hope that you will consider that. Seek the Lord. Meaning? Yeah, you can read the Bible. Yeah, you can pray, you can go to a church service, go to a churches. And churches can be a mixed bag, because what you're doing is you're literally picking potentially a random group of people who say, we believe in God, we believe the Bible, we believe in Jesus, and we're following him. And you don't know how true that is. Uh, you're sort of at the mercy of individuals. That can be a challenging process, finding a good, solid church, some good christians to be connected with. Um, but, yeah, um, the seriousness with which we're willing to set aside the area, let's say, put this way hypothetically. God's real and sin is part of what's holding you back from knowing him.

71
00:42:02.000 --> 00:42:15.000
There you go. That would be the thing to deal with. Pray about it. God help me to see the things that are holding me back from knowing. You help me to see there's the truths that are there. Um. Man, you probably have a lot of questions.

72
00:42:15.000 --> 00:42:18.000
I wish I knew more about your story.

73
00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:24.000
Um, I'm glad you go to church. You've read the gospel, what steps you take to believe.

74
00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:31.000
Um, yeah, those are good steps. Continue. Pray, seek the Lord.

75
00:42:31.000 --> 00:43:28.000
The other thing, I think often when I talk to atheists and non believers is that sometimes really good reasons to believe in God, they just don't see that they're good because they've come to believe they're bad for bad reasons. And so, um, stuff that should be evidence to drive them to faith doesn't work because they've just took a wrong turn somewhere with the evidence, which we're all capable of doing. Um, but obviously, if God's real and all the arguments for his reality seem silly, then maybe someone's taking a lot of wrong turns on the evidence and we see this happen. Someone says, oh, here's the ontological argument for God. And then someone brings up a response, uh, forgive me for anybody who doesn't know this, but a response of creating the perfect island with more dancing ladies on it. And then you're like, but that misunderstands the argument fundamentally. So this is not actually a real objection to the argument, or someone brings up the argument, um, uh, from causation.

76
00:43:28.000 --> 00:43:54.000
The universe didn't just bring itself into existence, and so God made it. And then someone else says, yeah, but then who made God? And then they walk away thinking that they've actually trumped that argument for God's existence when they haven't really heard the answer of, like, no, nobody made God because that's his nature. See, God is fundamentally of a different nature than the universe. The universe is a kind of thing that was made and we know had a beginning, whereas God didn't and wasn't.

77
00:43:54.000 --> 00:44:14.000
This is not a weakness of the argument, this is a strength of the argument. Who made God? Just reinforces how strong this is for a reason to believe in God, because you have to eventually answer the question of what started all this stuff with something that didn't start itself, and that would be God. Um, at least that's the best explanation.

78
00:44:14.000 --> 00:44:36.000
But sometimes these arguments sound terrible to people because they just believe bad defeaters for the arguments. And for that, um, what do you say? Oh, man. Study more, think more, take your time more, and pray. Kat, I hope something I've shared has helped you and a bunch of people are going to be praying for you.

79
00:44:36.000 --> 00:45:25.000
Um, oh, man. I really hope one thing you might look into is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. What's cool about this is sometimes you find evidence for God or for a piece of Christianity, and yet, uh, you go, well, even if that's true, that piece of evidence, I'm not sure if I'm still convinced. Evidence for the resurrection is pretty awesome because if Jesus rose from the dead, it's like the key that unlocks all of the truths of mean. It's just, it all comes flooding in if Christ resurrected. Yeah, it's all true. So you might look into that. I have videos on that evidence for the resurrection. Um, and there's a bunch of videos I've got on my channel. I'll link some stuff down below after the stream for you to check out. And I hope you will. Elias Z says, how can christians believe in a literal Adam and Eve account or a literal worldwide flood?

80
00:45:25.000 --> 00:45:40.000
Elias, I don't know if I'm the best person to answer this. Um, the. Okay, so we have two questions. The question you didn't ask that I'm going to come back to is whether or not the bible teaches those things.

81
00:45:40.000 --> 00:47:17.000
The first question that you did ask is how can a christian believe in those things? Well, a literal Adam and Eve, um, uh, doesn't seem that hard to believe in. I know that people suggest that you can't have, ah, Adam and Eve at a certain date. Okay. The dating issue is the thing that I think people more scientifically have a harder time with is when did this take place? But not sort of, could there be an Adam and Eve then? There's all kinds of complex questions about a bunch of other stuff. I don't know if you've looked into this stuff. Genesis is something I've studied a lot. And the different theories about it, um, from christians on how they understand it, going back to even people like origen and stuff like that, who thought, uh, had like an old earth view long before evolution and all that kind of stuff, and the rise of science. So I don't know the answer to some of those questions. Many of those questions I've got, um. How can I scientifically believe in a literal Adam and Eve? I don't think it's that challenging. Having looked into it a little bit personally, I just don't think it's that challenging. The uh, timing of it is a bigger challenge, partly because we're covering a bunch of disciplines of science that most of us know nothing about. And here we are trying to marshal evidence from areas of research. We, for the most of us. Most of us, you and me, we know nothing about this stuff. Population genetics, what do you know about that? I don't know anything about it, but yet it weighs in on how I could scientifically support these claims. So, yeah, literal worldwide flood. Uh, again, we're into areas where, scientifically, most of us are completely out of our depth.

82
00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:49.000
Most human beings are just out of their depth. We're just not equipped with the knowledge to be able. What we have to do is we have to just find people we trust and then we believe them. And so some of you have found answers in Genesis, and you've said, young earth creation isn't fully supported with the worldwide flood, a recent worldwide flood, and all that. And you don't really understand the research and know all this stuff. And, you know, Mount St. Helens had layers, but you don't really know if know something that translates onto all of the earth or not. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but you don't know.

83
00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:53.000
Sorry, my dentist is calling.

84
00:47:53.000 --> 00:49:30.000
That's awkward. Okay. But what I'm suggesting here is there's an ignorance on the individual level where we simply find someone we trust. Maybe you go, oh, Hugh Ross. And he has his view, and I trust his view. And they have, like, an old earth, and they look at the flood account and, uh, they have a whole explanation of it being a literal flood and all that. But when they say worldwide, what they mean is, well, worldwide means like the world of humanity, right? It doesn't mean earth. Uh, typically, the word world in scripture doesn't mean earth. You see how it gets complicated pretty quick. Here's how I think a Christian can resolve this quickly. And then, uh, there's a longer resolution that takes more time than I've even had that I don't have the resolution for. Quickly, I say this, the statements in scripture about the flood and about Adam and Eve, I believe because of the credibility that scripture has already with me, that is, there's prophecy in scripture that is demonstrably fulfilled to show me that God inspired this text. There is, uh, a lot, actually. There is the person and work of Jesus Christ to show me that God, in fact, is involved in the inspiration of scripture. There is the radical transformation of my own life, my own experiences with God that also affirm and ratify those same things. There's the unity of the scripture, which, by the way, is one of the most neglected arguments, because it's complicated to talk about the unity of 66 different texts. But having studied this stuff a lot, I'm blown away by it personally. If I can't convince you of it, fine, but I'm blown away. Look at my Jesus in the Old Testament series.

85
00:49:30.000 --> 00:49:38.000
Just blows my mind. There's a long, it's like 20 something videos an hour or so each that are just going through it all. The unity of scripture is just amazing.

86
00:49:38.000 --> 00:50:21.000
Um, that shows me God's behind it. So what I see in scripture is an inspired text from God telling me there was a real Adam and Eve, there was a real flood, or there was Adam and Eve, there was a flood. Right? Now, I believe that, and I believe what scripture says is true. I am willing to entertain in house debates on what the bible meant in Genesis one through twelve when it talks about Adam and Eve and the flood. I do think that when you look at the scope of scripture, Adam and Eve, definitely real individuals. The flood, was it planet wide? Like, I once was 100% convinced. And then I looked at it more and more and more and I started wondering, like, was it really planet wide or was it humanity wide?

87
00:50:21.000 --> 00:51:32.000
I'm not sure. I'm a bit on the fence on this, not at all doubting scripture, but wondering if I have the right interpretation of it. I think that christians can say based on the credibility of scripture. I, uh, trust the Adam and Eve stuff. Now, for a skeptic, a non, um believer, if you're trying to challenge and get to the conclusion of do I believe the bible in the first place, I don't think I would go to the most distant, historically remote thing there is and then try to research stuff that goes way over your own head as a way of confirming it. I think I would start with something that is more central, like the resurrection of Christ. I would start with something that is more going to get on target of showing whether the bible is actually inspired by God, like fulfilled prophecy. I would recommend those things. Um, that's where I'm at on that stuff. Uh, one day I hope to have better answers, more thorough answers. Um, yeah, Elias, I hope some of that has helped. I'll just move forward since I have again, uh, some unresolved stuff. Not that my trust in scripture is unresolved, that's resolved. It's how I understand those passages that I wonder if, um, I'm getting them correctly. And that debate has been going on for a very long time in the body of Christ.

88
00:51:32.000 --> 00:52:25.000
Uh, corazone. Prodigal. Prodigal. Prodigal. I'm probably pronouncing your name wrong. Hi, Pastor Mike. Thank you for your ministry. Um, thank you for helping me have a ministry just by you guys partaking of it. Um, is it true to say that Jesus doubted? How would you respond to someone that claims that he did in Gethsemane, implying that it's okay to doubt? Oh, that's a really interesting question. So, um, did Jesus doubt? My answer would be, uh, no, I don't believe Jesus doubted. I don't believe there's any text of scripture that suggests for a second he doubted. There are other people who doubted, and they weren't always cast out for doubting. So, like, John the Baptist doubted. He sent messengers while he was in prison. Right. Okay. Imagine your life going through something like that. Like, if you really imagine life going like that, you understand why he was struggling. He sent messengers to Jesus, and he said, are you the one?

89
00:52:25.000 --> 00:53:13.000
Even though God had showed him that Jesus was the one, like God had showed him, like, the one upon whom the spirit remains, and all this. So he doubted, and Jesus gave him the prophetic answer of, like, look at what you're seeing. This is the fulfillment of scripture. I'm paraphrasing. So, yes, he's the one. Uh, we have the centurion who said, lord, I believe, help my unbelief. So there's a man who doubts, but he trusts at the same time. John the Baptist, he had doubt, but he also chose trust at the same time. I think doubt coexisting with faith is one thing, and doubt in the absence of faith, where I simply choose doubt, uh, doubt is where I live. Like, I'm an unbeliever. That's a different situation. But did Jesus, um. I don't think so. In the garden of Gethsemane, where does it say Jesus doubted? Did Jesus struggle? Yes.

90
00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:31.000
Did Jesus say, if there's any other way, let this cup pass from me? Yes. Did he know there was no other way? Yes. Why? Because the same gospel that where he says, if there's any other way, let this cup pass. He tells Peter, get behind me, Satan.

91
00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:58.000
Right? When he says, lord, no, you won't be killed. You won't be killed. He says, get behind me, Satan. And he says to the disciples, the son of man must be crucified. It has to happen. I have come to be the ransom for the world. He has all these statements. So Jesus didn't for a second doubt the necessity of his death and resurrection. He didn't for a second doubt the goodness of the father. He didn't for a second doubt those. It wasn't doubt.

92
00:53:58.000 --> 00:54:13.000
It was the horrific reality of the pain and the suffering and the shame and the anguish he would face that had him saying these things out loud. This is how I feel. How do you feel? I feel that if there's any other way, let us cut past. Uh, the only way I'm doing this is if it's the only way.

93
00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:27.000
And it was. So was that doubt? Um. I don't believe that was doubt. Um, but for your friend, or whoever might say this, um, is it okay to doubt?

94
00:54:27.000 --> 00:54:45.000
Let me say a person. I'll put it this way. A person who doubts can still be acceptable to God and embraced by God. Are their doubts good? They're not good. Doubt is sometimes treated in our culture like it's a moral good, like I have doubts, like it's a moral quality, like putting you on the good guy side.

95
00:54:45.000 --> 00:55:24.000
Um, and some people will act like their doubts are pious, that their doubts are righteous. I mean, I've seen this, and you see it. If you pay attention, that's not the case. Doubt, uh, towards God is not a good thing. It's not a healthy thing, but it doesn't mean that you're cast out. It doesn't mean that you're gone from God's presence. But you have doubts. You take those to the Lord. You choose faith in the midst of doubt, and that's what you do. I hope that helps in some way. Next, uh, question. Meg b. Says, why would I surrender myself to someone who could help me be well, not be in pain, heal me, and is with me at all times, but doesn't help me.

96
00:55:24.000 --> 00:55:56.000
And this question is a question from her friend, who is obviously, that's a hard question to answer. So let's suppose, hypothetically, your friend here is going through some kind of major physical, uh, suffering. There's a lot of pain, there's a lack of physical health. And anybody who's gone through chronic pain can understand how chronic pain is very different than temporary pain. Um, uh, I know it can grate on you in a different way, it can wear you down in a way that you didn't expect. Chronic pain is a different thing.

97
00:55:56.000 --> 00:56:23.000
And to think, God, you absolutely could help me, you could heal me, you could stop this pain right now. And yet you don't. And that is the case for many people. And now some would respond, well, he's going to do it. You just have to keep believing and keep trusting, keep having faith. And I think that this is, um, a very hopeful attitude, a very positive attitude, but not a biblical one, uh, in my view.

98
00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:36.000
I think instead, the key word here to change your perspective or your friend's perspective on the situation is to recognize that it's temporary.

99
00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:40.000
The pain and the suffering I'm in right now are temporary.

100
00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:56.000
If I reworded this question with adding that it's temporary in there, here's how it would sound. Why would I surrender myself to someone who will help me and is with me at all times, but isn't going to help me yet?

101
00:56:56.000 --> 00:56:58.000
I think the answer is obvious.

102
00:56:58.000 --> 00:57:18.000
The only hope I have for the chronic issues, but also for the coming issues. Because even if you get healed of this physical suffering you're in right now, you will one day still face the detriment of your own body. And finally, death. That terrifying moment, that terrifying season, in many cases, in most cases, probably, you're going to face that regardless.

103
00:57:18.000 --> 00:58:17.000
Then you're going to be like, I need help. Like I've never needed help before. And it is in death that we find we have the resurrection of Christ, we have eternal life. We've got the very presence of God for all eternity. I mean, you could say to your friend, look, when you have been in heaven for 50,000 years in the presence of God, in glory and peace and joy, you're going to look back at this time in your life and you're going to say, the suffering I went through isn't even worth being compared to the glory I experience now. And that's what Paul said in one corinthians, the sufferings of this present time. He didn't say they'll go away. He said they're not worthy to be compared to the glory that is coming. Our joy, our happiness, and anybody who's gone through a long period of hard time that ended and then got better. You know what it's like when that weight is lifted? Well, that weight will be lifted. I would say your friend is focused on getting healed, focused on feeling better.

104
00:58:17.000 --> 00:58:55.000
Jesus is the only solution for that. It's just a question of timing. God is working in our pain, in our suffering. He is working in our hardship. He's working through it, in our character, in the lives of people around us, and in ways that we can't even determine. God is at work and he'll end it. He'll wipe every tear away, and he'll bring us in his glorious presence. This is the promise of the gospel. Why would you surrender yourself to someone like that? Why would you not? There could be no other reasonable choice. Eddie 1356 has a question. Why does God require belief for forgiveness? Why can't God simply forgive our sins as Jesus died for all and not attach belief to that.

105
00:58:55.000 --> 00:59:08.000
Um, uh, so Jesus dying for you is not a non personal event.

106
00:59:08.000 --> 00:59:14.000
This treats it like it is, though, right? Like Jesus is just dying to make my life better.

107
00:59:14.000 --> 00:59:21.000
So if you got. If you want to make my life better, just make it better. Don't come with strings attached.

108
00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:41.000
Let me offer this, ah, another way. Um, I proposed to my wife. And when I proposed, part of that was me saying, I will provide, not solely because she works too, but I will pool all my resources together with you for the rest of our lives. Everything I own, you own too.

109
00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:51.000
And now, what if she turned to me and said, if you want to give me all your resources for the rest of your life, why don't you just give it to me without requiring me to marry you?

110
00:59:51.000 --> 01:00:10.000
But you see that what this does is, without meaning to, it's hugely insulting to the very institution of marriage. It's hugely insulting to the offer of relationship that I've given. And it makes the marriage offer sound like a burden when it's actually the biggest, most, uh, it's the biggest gift I could ever give anybody is to say, hey, I want to marry you.

111
01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:14.000
I want to be joined to you forever.

112
01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:40.000
The way the question is worded, it frames things in a way that loads these sort of presuppositions, as though God's saying, believe in me. Know me for eternity. Love me. I love you. We relationally join together forever. You'll be in my presence forever. I'll give you eternal life. That all the relational aspects of that are like an insult that God is forcing upon people because he requires belief for forgiveness.

113
01:00:40.000 --> 01:01:22.000
But God isn't just forgiving you. He's joining you to himself the way he forgives you. Jesus, he takes your sin on himself, and he gives you his righteousness. This is relational. This isn't just about wiping the slate clean. It's deeper than that. It's bigger than that. Uh, I wish I had better words to describe it. What Jesus does for you is he comes in your place. Relationally, he represents you on the cross. He dies your death, he rises from the dead, gives you his life, takes your sins, gives you his righteousness. When you trust in him, he enters into your life. God, through his holy spirit, indwells you, regenerates you, restores you, spiritually speaking, makes you into a new person, and that person is tied to him forever.

114
01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:54.000
What you're asking for is ultimately not requiring belief. Is like saying, why doesn't God just give everyone their own little heaven apart from God, for all eternity, where they could just do whatever they want, live however they want, and just have all of the blessings of their own pleasures, but without any obligations to the creator of the universe who made them for himself. It insults the offer of forgiveness to ask the question. I'm not insulting you, okay? Look, every question is welcome here. Every questioner is welcome here.

115
01:01:54.000 --> 01:02:14.000
But that doesn't mean every question is like wise. Okay? And this question, while these are my favorite questions because they clear up a lot of confusion that I think is out there, this question, why does God require belief for forgiveness? Is like saying, why does Mike require marriage to join his bank account to his wife?

116
01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:38.000
Right? You get what I mean? Because it's so intricately connected that how could you not? What sort of forgiveness does God give that doesn't require? This belief comes with the, the forgiveness comes with Jesus, with who he is being joined. Ultimately, to you, it's a beautiful, wonderful thing. Um.

117
01:02:38.000 --> 01:03:24.000
Yeah. So only a cosmic, um. What's the term? The term nowadays is, uh, main player syndrome. Is that the term I've heard recently where they used to talk about people who, um. Main character syndrome. That's it. Main character syndrome. People who tend to look around the world. Uh, it's not an official syndrome, I don't think. It's just something people say on the Internet. Right? They look around the world and they tend to treat everybody like npcs and like everybody else exists and non player characters in a video game just to sort of bring me pleasure and make me happy. And that's treating God like the NPC and you're the main character. Um. But that's a distortion of reality ultimately.

118
01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:37.000
Uh, Ebirm one says, I have a neighbor who can't get past this question. My dad had cancer and died. You, uh, that's the person asking the question, you had it and lived. Why does God think that's fair?

119
01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:46.000
Um, yeah, you can't really answer anybody this kind of question because it's so loaded with their own personal grief and their personal anguish.

120
01:03:46.000 --> 01:04:02.000
Um. I don't know. Especially like on the Internet, trying to answer someone's question like this, it can just be so difficult and challenging. You don't know them. You don't have that sort of social currency of an actual relationship with them where you can tell people some tough things.

121
01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:10.000
Um, but I would challenge the idea that it's fair that one person dies from cancer and the other one doesn't.

122
01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:44.000
The Bible doesn't actually say this, right? It doesn't say that everybody gets equal treatment and equal experiences. On earth, somebody dies as an infant, somebody else dies as an old man. Somebody lives, uh, a God loving life and dies at 22 with brain cancer. And somebody else lives a hedonistic, evil life where they're like part of a corporation that's oppressing people and taking advantage of people and lying to people to make themselves rich. And then they die at like 90 years old surrounded by their grandkids.

123
01:04:44.000 --> 01:05:03.000
Fairness isn't going to happen. That's not how it works. So when they're like, how is that fair? What they're really complaining about is, why isn't life fair? I guess maybe that's, maybe you guys can help me here. But what they really seem to be bothered by, let's step away from the example of my dad died of cancer, but you didn't. Let's just say, why isn't life fair?

124
01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:39.000
And then we have two problems. Uh, we have one, the issue that, um, life is not said to be fair, biblically speaking. Um, but God is going to make it fair eventually. Okay? That kind of solves the problem in my opinion here on Christianity, there isn't just life. There is an afterlife. And God is going to deal with all of the mess of justice and judgment and reward and all that. He's going to deal with that finally in the afterlife. That's one problem sort of addressed, is that the fairness comes in light of eternity and not just in light of your experiences in this life right now.

125
01:05:39.000 --> 01:06:05.000
Then there is the other side of the coin, which is that if God was to, and this is a hard pill to swallow, if God was to treat us fairly, we would probably all be going through much more hardship than we really are. Um, we live more in the realm of grace than we realize because of our continual sins that we tend to ignore. This is a biblical teaching. This is a christian view, is that mankind is greatly loved by God, but is also a real problem.

126
01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:28.000
We're made in the image of God, yet we are also really pretty stinking sinful. And we see both of these qualities and we tend to focus on one or the other, um, more often than not, a man. Sort of like the qualities, the positive qualities of man versus the negative. We tend to focus maybe on the positive more.

127
01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:40.000
I think that this is a hard pill to swallow to say, um, if I was treated according to my sins, God would have smitten me a long time ago, okay? I would have died a while back.

128
01:06:40.000 --> 01:07:23.000
It's just grace that extends us. Jesus put it this way. He says God makes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Now, we often think of rain as an analogy for sorrow and hardship. But in this text, rain is the farming community, a very good thing. God allows common blessings and life and air and food and water and friendship and fun and laughter and all these wonderful things we experience in life. He allows them to be experienced across the board to a bunch of people who may not deserve it. It is in the next stage when justice comes and God deals with those things. I don't know if that would really help your question, though.

129
01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:34.000
I just don't know if that would help this question. The neighbor's question. Your dad died of cancer. I'm sorry. The only hope I can give you for death is Jesus.

130
01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:37.000
I don't know how to fix, uh, your heart here.

131
01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:49.000
Many of you guys know this. My mother literally died of cancer. Let's see, it was a month and twelve days ago, right? So I understand.

132
01:07:49.000 --> 01:08:14.000
But the difference here is that I see Jesus as my hope. In that circumstance. I don't see God as the victimizer, the one who caused the problems, but as the solution bringer, the one who brings the solutions. I never expected on Christianity that my mom would never die of cancer. I expected on Christianity that God had a plan and a solution and a cure for the death that we will all eventually experience.

133
01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:27.000
That I can offer. I don't know how to fix anything else. Let's go to the next question. Anonymous question. Any advice for laypeople doing public ministry that are attacked by non believers on the basis of credentials?

134
01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:37.000
Laypeople doing public ministry that are attacked by non believers on the basis of credentials. I feel I'm capable of interpretation and ministry, despite never having been to seminary.

135
01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:43.000
Um hmm.

136
01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:46.000
Attacked. Hm. By non believers.

137
01:08:46.000 --> 01:09:09.000
But you see, I guess I don't know your situation well enough, so I'm going to have to make a few guesses. You say it's non believers attacking you on the basis of credentials. So I'm guessing you're dealing with apologetics. You're, uh, witnessing to non believers, because you're not in a church where it's believers who are saying, hey, uh, you can't really teach. You haven't really gone through the education that we think you should, but we're dealing with a non believer. So it's probably evangelism.

138
01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:35.000
But if you were doing evangelism, nobody would attack your credentials. Because who's like, what kind of credentials? Do you have to tell me the gospel? I don't see a non believer saying that. More likely, I'm guessing you're doing apologetics. So you're, like, offering a philosophical argument, a scientific argument, uh, science related argument. You're offering, um, prophetic evidence, and someone's just saying, like, well, who are you? Why would I believe what you say about history? You're not a historian.

139
01:09:35.000 --> 01:10:34.000
Um, I think that in that case, you just have to stay focused on the argument. This is what's called an ad hominem attack. Look it up. Ad hominem. H-O-M-I-N-E-M. Hominem. An ad hominem attack is when somebody goes after the man. Ad hominem to the man. Right. They attack the person, the individual, rather than their argument. Now, I get this in my series on women in ministry. I'm not a scholar, guys. I'm not pretending to be. I'm doing work that I hope is solid. But you have to judge me based on my work if you want to judge me, Mike Winger, based on my credentials, that is, my schooling and my degrees, they're going to be lacking. I did two years at the school of ministry, Calvary, Costa Mesa. That's not the Bible college. For those familiar with that. It's not. It's a different program. It's patterned after a seminary. We did do things like Greek, actually greek and stuff like that, but it was not an accredited seminary. So I don't go around telling people I have my master's or something like that, because I don't.

140
01:10:34.000 --> 01:11:00.000
My work has to be judged based upon the quality of the work itself. If someone says, but Mike isn't actually a legitimate scholar in that area, I can only agree with them and then say, but I didn't. This is the important bit. I didn't base my arguments, say, my women in ministry series. I didn't base it off of my credentials. So attacking my credentials changes absolutely nothing. What you have to do is look at the arguments themselves.

141
01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:11.000
The only people who'd be convinced by this argument against you, well, you lack a degree in this field, is people who think, I'll just believe anyone who has a degree in that field.

142
01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:17.000
Or maybe they have a different rule. I'll only believe a subset of people.

143
01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:38.000
Right. Those people have to, a, have a degree in that field, and b, then I'll consider their arguments. I will literally ignore everyone who doesn't have that degree. If that's them, then guess what? Your evangelism is not for that person. You just move on. Don't defend yourself. Just say, hey, you've attacked me, but you haven't dealt with my arguments. That's the thing. You've come at me for my credentials. You have not dealt with my arguments.

144
01:11:38.000 --> 01:12:03.000
Um, the things I'm saying to you are based upon these reasons which have nothing to do with my credentials. And, um, some people will hear you and some people won't. There's, uh, plenty of people who, in response to my women in ministry series, have really highlighted. Mike doesn't have a degree in this and that. And I'm like, and that works for some people. Guess what? I'm not for those people. I'm not going to help them. I'll move on, help somebody else.

145
01:12:03.000 --> 01:13:13.000
Number twelve, D. W. Conley says, can the devil interpret what a non believer may be thinking or what's on their mind? Can he understand what a person is thinking? So my short answer on this, because it's getting late, there, is, um, that Satan can probably guess what's on people's minds pretty well. The, um, older I get, the more I can read people's minds. Read people's faces, rather. I can't read people's minds. I can read people's faces, facial expressions, their attitude, it's not foolproof. And I try not to rely on it too much. Um, but I'm better at it than I was, right? And so especially younger people who tend to project and hide that stuff less good than older people. And, um, they sigh, they make these expressions, they do certain things. Now, I imagine a demon doesn't have many barriers. Satan doesn't have many barriers to when he can observe a person, an individual. He, uh, only sees probably one at a time, right, or one location at a time. But if he's able to watch you and see what you're doing and track you, then he can kind of see, because the patterns that people go in, he can predict what people are sort of thinking or going through. That's my understanding of it.

146
01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:31.000
I don't think he can pull thoughts out of our head in that sense, but I do think he can put thoughts in our head. And that's not to say that I don't want to go too far with it, but we know that scripture says Satan put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus, put it into his heart.

147
01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:40.000
We know that Satan works, um, in people's lives. He's sort of the puppet master of the world and the worldly.

148
01:13:40.000 --> 01:14:02.000
And so there's something there, these fiery darts from the enemy that ephesians talks about that we extinguish with the shield of faith. I think that those may be thoughts that are being projected into our minds, ideas. Now, that might be like, how's that? That's like mind control. I don't think it's like mind control. Think of it this way. Right now I'm talking to you. I'm literally putting ideas into your head.

149
01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:57.000
Um, right now I'm putting into your head the idea that by talking to you, I'm putting ideas into your head. So I'm doing it right now. I think Satan has some method of doing that as well. Satan, of course, individually, is probably not harassing any of you who are watching my video. Um, he's just one being. He's not omnipresent or anything, but doesn't mean that some demonic attack isn't coming or that at some low point, when the enemy detects that you're at your low point, boom, this idea comes into your mind that you're like, where did that come from? Why did I think of that? And then you hold up that shield of faith and you fight that battle. Just like when, um, you're walking in the store and you see some inappropriate magazine in front of you and you think, I was just given, where did that come from? I know where it came from. Came from this magazine. Right. But I'm going to look away. I'm not going to sit and dwell on that thing. Uh, same kind of thing. You're just going to move away from that thought, move on to something better.

150
01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:21.000
Uh, George Stones says, how can you prove that parts of the bible weren't written after the events took place? Like prophecies, as well as historical accounts of God's providence, histories written by the winners of battles. Okay, that feels like eight questions all at once. Um, how can I prove that parts of the bible weren't written after the events took place?

151
01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:31.000
Um, the answer there is. It's complicated. You need to look at each individual book of the Bible and analyze its manuscript history.

152
01:15:31.000 --> 01:16:14.000
That's a lot of work, right? What you can do is you could start with where there's some agreement among scholars on things and say, hey, let me start there. If I'm working to prove prophecy is from God, I don't need to prove every prophetic thing in the Bible happened. I just need to find at least some that seem pretty convincing. And so that's what I've done in my series, evidence for the Bible. I grabbed stuff that I could easily show. Like, there's agreement. This was written before the event took place. There's agreement on that. It's like, it's not even really a debate. And then use those examples to show that prophecy was actually fulfilled in scripture. I would recommend doing that. Um, if you're doing evangelism, in that sense, proving parts of the Bible weren't written after the events, let me give you some examples.

153
01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:31.000
Um, Daniel has some specific stuff about, uh, the timing of Jesus's coming. Okay. And it's a very challenging stuff to talk about. The math and all this other stuff that gets into it. I have a video on it. Did my best. You guys can check it out. Uh, on Daniel, chapter nine.

154
01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:40.000
But the dating of Daniel is a debate. So in that individual book, I made a whole case for the dating of Daniel.

155
01:16:40.000 --> 01:17:00.000
Right. Then there's the Ezekiel prophecies. Well, the dating of Ezekiel is not really a debate. So in that one, the Ezekiel prophecies, in that same evidence for the Bible series, which I will link below for anybody who wants to check it out. Um, I go through the Ezekiel stuff and there's not really so much debate on that, on the timing of Ezekiel. And so then that seems like an easier one.

156
01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:28.000
In either case, though, the entire Old Testament was definitely written before the life of Jesus, and so any fulfillment that Jesus did that is found anywhere in the Old Testament. That was all written long before Christ for sure. There's no debate on that whatsoever. Sometimes you don't need to show that it was written when the Bible indicates it was written. You just need to show it was written before Jesus, because that's the prophecies you're focusing on. So the answer is, it's complicated. Um, but for the sake of evangelism, you don't need to prove everything.

157
01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:35.000
You're just trying to find good examples to demonstrate the truth of Christianity.

158
01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:47.000
Babs vacation says, what proof? Away from science there is a God. Oh, man, I do not understand this. What proof? Away from science there is a God?

159
01:17:47.000 --> 01:18:14.000
Either. You mean apart from scientific proof, how do I know there's a God? Or you mean, what scientific proof is there that there's a God? I'm not sure which one. Um, let's say, what scientific proof is there that there's a God? Okay, this is my fallible human being. My best thoughts, uh, for you here, um, scientific proof that there's a God.

160
01:18:14.000 --> 01:19:26.000
Um, the evidence for, um, the finitude of time, of past time in the universe. That's pretty strong evidence. Scientific evidence that is part of an argument for God's existence. So that is, there was a lot of people back in the day, like 19 hundreds, and even before that, who they basically thought the universe was eternal. This was like a popular scientific view. The universe was just eternal. And Einstein famously even fudged some numbers on his theory of relativity because he was trying to bend towards that, the universe being eternal. And there was another guy, Hubble. You guys have heard of him. Hubble, the Hubble telescope, who observed the red shift. And this long story short, the red shift was just showing us that the universe was, in fact, expanding. You keep doing math, you keep crunching numbers, you keep doing research, and they come to find the universe used to be not only smaller, but smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller. Until you eventually have to say, it just had a beginning point. It just exploded into existence. Right? This is just well established stuff, scientifically.

161
01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:33.000
Scientists did not initially like this very much. Did you know that? They were actually very bothered by this initially.

162
01:19:33.000 --> 01:20:04.000
Um, sorry, I've just got a muter notification because they're driving me nuts. There we go. Um, one of the reasons why they were not all scientists, some scientists were bothered by this is because the implication of a none eternal universe is that it had a beginning, and therefore it must have had some sort of cause. And the most obvious cause would be God. And there's a whole argument that can be made for that. But that's scientific evidence that can be used in an argument for God's existence. That is, the universe had a beginning, therefore God.

163
01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:40.000
Now, you pull it out and you explain it in more detail. You make a case for it all. But that's really strong evidence. Then there's things like the teleological argument, the argument from the design of the universe. This isn't how old the universe is, or that it had a beginning, but rather that it's highly designed. Now, science can help us establish how thoroughly designed the universe is. And then you can use this as evidence for God. So that the teleological argument, which comes in sort of two different broad strokes, one is describing, um, biology.

164
01:20:40.000 --> 01:21:20.000
The design within biology implies intentionality, implies an intelligent designer, right? God. Or you could look at it not from biology, but from sort of the cosmos. The design within the cosmos, that is, the constants and quantities of creation itself, that you've got in the universe a certain amount of gravity, a, uh, certain sort of power of gravity. You've got the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, and you've got dark matter and whatever that is. And you've got all these different things that if they weren't balanced perfectly on just a razor's edge, there simply wouldn't be any space for any intelligent life in the universe, because you have to have planets and water, and you have to have physics functioning a certain way.

165
01:21:20.000 --> 01:22:22.000
And it doesn't just conveniently function if you tweaked these numbers. If you just randomly spun a dial and set all the constants and quantities, you would never arrive at an actual functional universe the way we have now, where there could be intelligent life. So there's a scientific foundation for an argument for God's existence. Um, there's other stuff, too, like math. Um, there's an argument from math. Now, that's a philosophical argument, but science can help us to highlight how much math is embedded in the universe, so to speak. So there we go. There's some scientific evidence for God that I think is powerful. Um, good stuff. Number 15, pyromaniac one two nine says, do you honestly think the Bible couldn't have been more clear about important moral issues where the church has been very wrong, treatment of gays, et cetera. What does that say about authorship? Yeah, um, I wonder what you mean by treatment of gays.

166
01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:59.000
That would be a super interesting thing to explore. What you mean by that? Because I would agree and disagree with that. Because modern treatment of gays, where you are endorsing and supporting that lifestyle and saying, yeah, go for it, a sinful and harmful lifestyle that hurts you and hurts those around you, that's obviously a bad treatment, but that is our current modern culture. But, um, then stoning and persecuting and picking on people in a cruel, bully fashion is also wrong, and that is totally in the past. And could the Bible have been more clear about that?

167
01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:06.000
Okay, I have two answers to the question. One is, yeah, the Bible could always be more clear. Pick any topic in the world, right?

168
01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:28.000
Like, thou shalt not murder. Proper interpretation there, that translation, thou shalt not murder. Could it be more clear? I guess, like, nobody is allowed to murder, right? That's more clear. Because then the vow would apply to everybody. Even though I've argued we're not under the tank. I'm just saying you could make that even more clear.

169
01:23:28.000 --> 01:23:35.000
That would actually change, uh, my understanding of the 10 grams. But you could make things more clear.

170
01:23:35.000 --> 01:25:16.000
Uh, there's tons of ways I could make anything I've said today I could make it more clear. And here's the trick. After I've made it more clear, guess what I could do? I could make it more clear. And after I've made it more clear again, guess what I could still do? I could probably make it more clear. And after I've made it clear again, what could I do then? I could still make it more clear. You can literally always make things more clear. I mean, hypothetically at least. And so the answer to that question is like, uh, yeah, the Bible could have been more clear about important moral issues, but how is that relevant? Was the Bible actually clear enough to begin with? That's the better question, I think, because it gets out with the implication of the question, was the bible clear enough? Well, yes. Uh, I think it was clear enough on important moral issues. I think people don't listen to the Bible. People don't care about the Bible. People even quote the Bible to misuse the Bible. Like, um, the people who would quote the Bible, let's kill gay people because of whatever the Bible says in the Old Testament. They're not actually going to be reading through all of the scripture, caring about, like, are they going to stone everybody that the Old Testament says to stone? Are they going to read the New Testament which tells us we're not under the law? Are they going to look at the examples of the New Testament which shows that we're not supposed to do that? Are they going to talk about how Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world? He's not taking the Old Testament law and spreading it out to all nations. The whole book of acts, which gets into a detailed examination of a complex treatment and application of Old Testament law to New Testament Christians, we're ignoring all of that. The Bible could have been more clear for the casual, disinterested reader who just wants to rip verses out of context.

171
01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:59.000
Uh, this might sound like I'm being defensive. Um, in a sense, I am not of myself, but of scripture. The Bible's so good, okay? Like, nobody paying careful attention to scripture is going to walk away thinking, ooh, I know what I should do. Uh, whenever I see somebody who's gay, I should mock and ridicule them and make their life miserable. Nobody's reading scriptures and saying this with Jesus, who walked around, all the compassion he gave to a world full of sinners, the invitation of the gospel that goes out to all people, calling them what they are, sinners, but inviting them into a new life in Christ, that this is the heart of it all. Like, nobody's able to do that. Um, and pay attention to scripture.

172
01:25:59.000 --> 01:27:39.000
It's bonkers. So I think that the Bible is clear enough on those issues that this is not a good objection to scripture or Christianity. But I also think we have to acknowledge something else about scripture, and that is that the Bible was written not to you. It was written for you. Right? But it wasn't written to you. The Bible is not written to a 2023 audience in a 2023 setting. It was written not only to ancient people, but God. Ingenious. Wrote it in such a way that it was going to be for the Jew first, and then also for the Gentile. And that's really how it's written. It's written to the Jew first and also for the Gentile. And it was going to be applying into cultures across the world for generations, going throughout different whole seasons of time, like the industrial revolution and the tech era and all this other stuff, the information era, and it had to be for all of those areas. And so if the Bible had been written in a way that would be perfectly suited to a 2023 individual, it would have been far less suited to a first century individual, and less effective, and less people getting saved, and ultimately a ripple effect that would have hurt the cause of Christianity throughout time. If it had been written for a middle ages individual, for a reformed individual in the 15 hundreds who's dealing with the catholic, protestant, uh, stuff, it would have been less effective for those in earlier ages. The Bible was written for such a broad audience that you have to say not could it have been better for me in my current western culture, but would it have actually been better as a whole throughout time? And then I don't know how you would improve.

173
01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:51.000
Uh, Shauna Moen says, I'm so afraid. I'm sorry, Shauna. There is so many views about God. How can I be sure I'm following the correct ways? I claim to be christian, but there are too many different views.

174
01:27:51.000 --> 01:28:40.000
Shauna, I understand. Um, it can be very overwhelming. Um, whenever you research something, this applies to God, but it applies in religion and other stuff. Uh, there's this sort of confusion stage that you can hit where you sort of start reading. Oh, I go into the research, I'm thinking there's like two or three views on this issue, and then you research more and you realize, oh, there's like 20 views or 30 views or 80 or 100 views, and then you're just trying to wrap your head around them all, and then you read one, and then it's totally different than another, and you're confused by that. And you can get a point where you're confused, and you're more confused than you ever were, and then that can cause you to doubt.

175
01:28:40.000 --> 01:29:36.000
If you continue researching and, uh, you're patient with it, maybe it won't apply to you. But many people, you get past the confusion stage and it starts to make sense again, because at first, you're just learning about the variety of these different views. But if you keep learning them, you learn them enough to analyze them and evaluate them. And so you're not intimidated by simply the existence of all these views. You're actually at a point where you can figure out what's right and wrong about them. And right now it might feel like you're at the mercy of whoever you're listening to. Like, well, I listened to a Muslim, and all of a sudden I think Islam might be right. I listen to Mike and I think Christianity is probably true. And then look to some catholic guy and I'm thinking, like a Catholicism, it's probably right. And then I would look at some orthodox dude and then I talk to some new ager and I'm like, that's kind of appealing, too. And, um, it may or not be, may or may not be you, but you may be being persuaded by the personalities because you're lacking the foundation to actually evaluate the worldviews.

176
01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:40.000
Right?

177
01:29:40.000 --> 01:30:03.000
Let's say take Islam. Um, if Islam is true, what follows? If Islam is true, what proves that truth? And it's certainly not a charismatic Muslim that I met or a very nice, kind hearted muslim person that I met. Therefore, maybe Islam's true because certainly I can find kind hearted people in every different religious group. Uh, that's not a really good way to measure the reality.

178
01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:11.000
If it's true, then it would be that Muhammad was a real prophet and the things that he said were really true.

179
01:30:11.000 --> 01:31:46.000
Well, what does Islam teach? And Islam is an easy one to rule out when you find out more about it. Islam has a different understanding of the nature of God than what scripture has in the Bible. It has a different understanding of the person and work of Jesus, who he was. He's just a prophet. He's not God in the flesh and his work. He did not die on the cross for your sins and rise again from the dead. Right? Not according to classic Islam. Some Muslims are starting to change their tune, but not classic Islam. Now you might hear me and think, well, Mike, you're just saying Islam is wrong because Christianity is right and it disagrees with. No, no, I'm just building the first point in a multi point case. Right? So Islam makes these claims about the person of God, the person of Jesus and the work of Jesus, but then it makes other claims. It claims that it is the inheritor of the entire work of God through Abraham, and that the Bible, in its original form, in its God inspired form, was right and accurate and true, and that it's a continuation. So it's trying to build on top of the Bible, but the Bible disagrees with Islam on these teachings. So how can it appeal to a text that tells it it's wrong? Wouldn't that be a defeater for Islam? So then they go, well, the Bible's been changed over. Like, they can never tell you what the Bible really says. They just know Islam is true. And the Bible, wherever it disagrees with Islam, that's where it was wrong, right? Was it Abraham? Was it Isaac? Islam is right. Every single copy of Genesis that you've ever had wrong.

180
01:31:46.000 --> 01:32:49.000
And then you start to see, oh, you're just trying to hijack somebody else's religion. That's all this is. This is just taking and borrowing from a belief system you don't actually hold to. Okay, so it's an imposter and Muhammad was an imposter. Okay. And if you learn more about these religions and more about it, you start to get more clarity on it. Um, but slow it down, your heart. Don't panic over these things. If there's one thing you can agree on, I hope that it's that you trust the Bible and you trust scripture and start building your foundation from the basics. There's a God, there's one God who made all things. Like that much is very clear in scripture. He sent his son Jesus, who took on human form, died on the cross for my sins, rose from the dead. That much I can feel really confident about. Because if you at least get scripture down as your authority, I hope you have that much, Shauna. Um, but yeah, the fear you have now, don't let it cripple you. Don't let it paralyze you. Continue seeking, continue. Don't let personalities pull you, even mine.

181
01:32:49.000 --> 01:33:11.000
Start, um, to see the logic and the biblical argumentation that these different religious groups are giving and work through that. I hope, man, I hope that helps you, Shauna. Mariel says, or is it Mariel says, uh, why is there so much suffering? If God is good, if he's almighty, why doesn't he stop all the bad things?

182
01:33:11.000 --> 01:33:34.000
Um, we're late in the day for me to answer this question. I'm going to give you a quick answer, but I'm going to link a video down below called, um, I don't forget what it's called, but it's about the problem of evil and suffering and I'm going to link it down below. It's a study I did a while back where I give you long answer, okay? So please, if this answer doesn't satisfy you. Go click that video when I put it down below and I'll give you the long answer along with any other links that I've talked about today.

183
01:33:34.000 --> 01:34:18.000
So if God is good, why doesn't he stop it? So there's an old argument that says, hey, if God's good, he would want to stop all the evil and suffering that's in the world, right? And then it's like, well, yeah, that seems legit. And then they say, well, if God is all powerful, then he'd be able to stop all the evil and suffering. And you go, well, yeah, I mean, he certainly is capable of it, right? If God exists, he certainly would be good enough to want to stop it and powerful enough to actually stop it. So then the response then the follow up is, well, then either God is not all good or God is not all powerful. So therefore the christian God cannot exist. Evil in the world proves that he doesn't.

184
01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:32.000
This makes the same mistake. I think that an earlier perspective, uh, that I was dealing with makes, which is to treat the present as if it is eternity and to ignore eternity completely.

185
01:34:32.000 --> 01:35:59.000
If you add the word yet into this formula, it all makes sense. On christian theology, if God is good, he'll want to stop evil. I agree. If he's powerful, he can stop evil, right? But he hasn't stopped it yet. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, uh, there must be a time where he will, he's going to. That's exactly what scripture teaches. This is actually what Christianity teaches, that because God is good, he will bring judgment into the world and he will judge all things and that it's going to happen in the future, because he's fully capable of doing it. So then the question is, why is there a delay? Not why is there evil in the world, but why is there a delay in God resolving the evil that's in the world? And the answers to this, again, I'll give you the long answer in the video, and I hope it helps. But the answers to this, uh, in my view, are one, God is working good things in the midst of all the pain and suffering. And I can attest to this in my own life. You can attest to it in yours. Many, not all. Many of the things you've been through, though you've benefited from, even the suffering, you found something good came out of that hardship. Not all. You can't always figure out what's going on. In fact, most of the time I probably can't, but at least some of the time I can. And that gives me some hope. That gives me some hope that I find some good comes out of it sometimes. Just teaching me humility, just teaching me to slow down and not be so arrogant, which is something, a lesson I always need to learn.

186
01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:12.000
Um, those things are healthy. God is working good through the hardship, and that's what scripture teaches us. It says, God works all things together for good to those who love him and are called according to his purpose. Romans 828. Beautiful verse.

187
01:36:12.000 --> 01:37:44.000
God also is bringing people to salvation as he allows this world to carry on generation after generation. People get saved. If God had stopped all the evil 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, I wouldn't be here today, and I wouldn't have trust and faith in Christ, and I have scars. But I've also got the beautiful things that God has done through it all. We also know there's a few other things. We also know that God is going to bring such blessings in our future that they will outstripe any suffering we've been through now so that we will, in the end, say, hey, this was worth it. In fact, there are, uh, philosophers who argue that the only way in which God, uh, could create a perfect world is if he created two worlds. First, he creates a world or a reality where suffering is allowed because so much good comes through suffering. Heroes and stories of redemption and lessons learned and the punishment of wickedness. All these things come from an environment where suffering is allowed. So God would have to create a world to allow that first, then create a second world where now everything is perfect. But we've get all the lessons and all the benefits, all the blessings that we've got through the pain and the suffering we had. And so this is, uh, actually one of the. Some philosophers will argue this, that God would have to make two worlds, one that had flaws and then one that was perfect. Um, in order to have a perfect world, then the final thing is to realize that if God stopped all the evil that's out there, Mariel, then God would have to stop you and me. I do bad things.

188
01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:56.000
Uh, I say God stopped the evil, but what I really want him to stop is everything. I don't like. I don't really want him to stop all the evil, because then that includes me.

189
01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:58.000
So that's a problem.

190
01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:07.000
I mean, uh, if God stopped the evil, then how many people that are watching this right now, who've given their life to Christ, whose lives have been transformed, you, would have been stopped a long time ago.

191
01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:53.000
God is long suffering. Scripture tells us, according the bible to you here he's long suffering, meaning he waits to bring judgment to stop evil. He's long suffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to life, come to faith in christ, come to trust in jesus and get saved. One of the reason God delays is so more people get saved and they can be brought into that eternal glory. These are some of the reasons I hope that at least it takes the edge off of the problem of evil and suffering for you. And I will link the video below where I get into more details. I hope you will, uh, think about that answer. Caleb hammond says, define faith. Trust. If someone intellectually knows that God exists but doesn't know how to trust in him, how would you counsel them?

192
01:38:53.000 --> 01:39:17.000
Um, well, faith and trust, as distinguished from, say, intellectual belief, mere intellectual belief would involve, ah, a sense of commitment. Um, faith and trust. Biblically speaking, they seem to always have a sense of commitment. Right? Personal commitment. I am committed to that thing. And so that's where I have an intellectual belief in God versus I am committed to God.

193
01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:20.000
That's where that faith comes in.

194
01:39:20.000 --> 01:40:06.000
Um, some define faith as belief without evidence. That is not a biblical definition. The bible argues against that definition. Um, and no, quoting hebrews eleven at me doesn't change that. The bible argues against that definition. I will link another video down below on why you should not define faith as belief without evidence. Even christians, if you've done this, hey, that's what faith is, man. It's belief. When you don't have any evidence, I know your heart was good, but if you say that in the presence of the non believer who's saying, show me some evidence, and you go, well, that's what faith is. Believe without evidence, that's a destructive thing and it's not biblical. And evidence is. One of the things that distinguishes christianity from every other religion is that we actually do have evidence. So when we say those things, we're disagreeing with scripture and we're hurting our evangelism.

195
01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:56.000
Um, at any rate, it's trust and faith and trust here are a sense of commitment. They involve a sense of commitment, not only belief, but belief with a self investment. Yes, I'm committed to that. Um, you said doesn't know how to trust God. What would you counsel them? I think that when we conduct our lives based on the things that we say we believe, then we see and we're stepping out in acts of faith and that's a positive thing. So I would encourage the person to step out in acts of faith if this is what they're trying to do. You're a non, um, believer man, but I guess I am a believer. I believe there is a God, but what do I do? How do I do the faith in God thing? I would say in your heart, first you simply choose to say, I trust and rely on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For me, that's huge.

196
01:40:56.000 --> 01:41:14.000
But then you start taking steps of faith, like actually pray, because you're committing yourself to this belief in God. When you actually stop and pray, your acts of worship, reading the Bible and then changing your life based on the things that you read. Because faith produces works, right?

197
01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:56.000
This trust you say you have, live it out, live it out. That'd be my counsel. There's got to be some pretty obvious ways that immediately come to that person's mind when you say this. Yeah, this is what I would need to do. Stop doing this, start doing that kind of thing. Go for it. Number, um, 19. This is from Carolyn Dobson Dodson, who says if the Israelites had flocks and herds, why did they complain that they had no meat? They didn't have the law of Moses yet on what not to eat. Um, I guess I'd need to reread the passage to remind myself of exactly what flocks and herds they had available at the time when they were complaining about not having meat. Um, why were they not?

198
01:41:56.000 --> 01:42:03.000
I guess I don't know the answer to your question. Um, were the flocks and herds mostly for sacrifices?

199
01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:17.000
Was there some reason why they weren't eating them in the desert at the time? Was it less about the flocks and herds they had and more about complaining about the manna that they did have that God was providing for?

200
01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:49.000
Um, flocks. How many animals did they have available at the time? I don't know the answer to those questions off the top of my head, but those are the things that I would be juggling and thinking about and asking questions about. And then I would very closely reread the passage where they complained about not having meat and just closely try to pick up on the clues what was going on there. Um, I wish I could give you a better answer, Carolyn. That's where I would start. Uh, Jose Burgos says, ricky Gervais says that if all scientific knowledge and religion were erased, science would eventually be rediscovered, but not God. Thoughts?

201
01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:56.000
Um, several thoughts on that. Uh, the first thought is, and what does that prove?

202
01:42:56.000 --> 01:44:00.000
This is one of those like gotcha statements that you hear from people that doesn't actually mean much of anything because Christianity has never purported to be a religion that can be fully discovered through human investigation of natural causes. It's never purported to be that, so it proves nothing to say that you wouldn't discover it in the way you didn't initially discover it. That doesn't say that. Now. Would God be rediscovered if you could erase everyone's knowledge of God? Absolutely, God would be rediscovered. People would be out there theorizing about God's existence and arguing from a bunch of different reasons to believe God exists. And they've done this many times in many ways. But, uh, would the truth about, like, say, abraham be rediscovered Isaac, would scripture somehow come back together? No, not in this hypothetical where it was all just suddenly erased, not apart from a miraculous work of God, would it come together? The point is that this just doesn't prove anything. Ricky Gervais is just, uh, a silly gotcha statement.

203
01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:09.000
Now there's more I can say on this, which is that Science, it rose in human history.

204
01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:18.000
Not by default. It's not like humans were always going to come up with a scientific method and then start to push the boundaries of it and understand science better and better.

205
01:44:18.000 --> 01:44:52.000
It could have happened much, much longer in the past. It arose when it did, partly because Christianity provided an environment and a philosophy that science could be built upon. Now some might say science has no philosophy, and that's simply not true. You can literally go get your phd in the philosophy of science if you want. Science has a philosophy, and scientists and physicists who rip on philosophy, they are just fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of philosophy.

206
01:44:52.000 --> 01:45:06.000
And I'm not alone in saying this, okay? This is just talk to any philosophers out there, any of them, just pick one and they're going to tell you the same thing. Um, yeah, so science is based on certain philosophical principles that science doesn't give you.

207
01:45:06.000 --> 01:47:09.000
So it's based on the idea that we live in an orderly universe. Does science prove you live in an orderly universe? No, it relies on the idea that you do so that when you provide an experiment and you do it over and over again, that that proves that that's just how that thing happens, right? That this is how the universe functions by sort of order and design. Um, and if you might feel that the word design is too loaded, but let's just say order and, um, structure, um, and integrated systems, that is something that Christianity gives a strong support, gives strong support for. I don't look at mercury on Christianity and think that mercury is exhibiting control over people's fates and souls because of its position in the sky. No, Christianity debunks that and says, no, that's just something God made. God is the one in control. These are just his creations. The sun, the moon, the stars, they're just things God made. They're not deities. It's not a magical evaluation of the universe. Even in the Bible, when miracles happen, they're seen as miracles, not as normal happenings. Miracles, not as normal happenings. And so there's others. Uh, Tom Holland wrote a book on this. Uh, we're not on this specifically, but related to this about sort of the impact of Christianity in our world today. And so Ricky Gervais's statement is odd because science doesn't just arise in a vacuum. It came with philosophical presuppositions that were supplied by Christianity and an environment that Christianity very much helped push forward. Does that mean it's the only way science could come around? I'm not saying that. I'm just talking about what did happen in history. So here's the oddity of this statement is it's very powerful to people. If all scientific knowledge and religion were erased, science would eventually be rediscovered, but not religion, not God. It feels powerful, but it's completely powerless. You're not saying anything, and what you're saying is neglecting the actual history of how science came about.

208
01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:46.000
Um, yeah, it's ultimately meh, in my opinion. Uh, we get these kinds of questions. Christopher Hitchens asked a question. He was a popular know, um, name one thing that a christian moral act that a Christian can do, that an atheist cannot do. And he felt like he told others to ask this question. He asked it in all his debates and he felt like it was a real trump card. And even though you can answer the question that loving God is the moral thing, it was a silly question because it doesn't prove anything. What if atheists can do all the same moral things a Christian can? Like, what does that mean?

209
01:47:46.000 --> 01:48:22.000
We're not saying christians are superhumans with abilities and powers other humans don't have. We're not saying they have vocal capacities to say words others can't say, or physical capacities to move in ways others can't move, so that we have to. Like, it's just a weird question that confuses people. It reminds me of when Bilbo Baggins said something along the lines of like, I like less than half of you. I know half of you, less than half of you, half as well as I ought, and like less than half of you something. I don't even remember what he said. I still can't because it's just like, it's funny and it's a zinger, but it's hard to figure out what he even is saying.

210
01:48:22.000 --> 01:49:07.000
That's kind of the same thing with this particular statement, um, from Ricky Gervais. So I hope that this has helped. If you're a non believer, um, I know you see me, uh, up here like some guy on the Internet, and there's a lot of fakery on the Internet. I'm 100% genuine here. I really believe Christianity is true. I believe there's evidence for it, both from realms of like physics and science and stuff like that that can support this, as well as philosophy and fulfillment of scripture and the, uh, historical, ah, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, giving strong indication that that is the best explanation, uh, for what happened. I think that there's also the transformation in my own life.

211
01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:32.000
And I would want you to know the same hope and love and truth that there is in Jesus Christ that I have. I'm a fallible person. I'm as fallible as you, whether you consider that insulting or not. Um, but I do believe that Christianity is actually true, and I hope that something we've said here today points you in that direction. So thank you, guys. Let me close this in prayer.

212
01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:35.000
Lord, thank you so much for the truth.

213
01:49:35.000 --> 01:50:10.000
We pray that you'd help us to know it, to communicate it better. We pray for anybody who is watching this now or will watch it later, who might be, uh, a skeptic, that they would just be a little bit more open, um, to the truth of Christianity, that you answer their confusion, their sincere questions, their real challenges, that you point them towards the light of the gospel of Christ and your goodness. And we ask Lord for believers who are watching, who might be doubting, that they would be strengthened in their faith in Christ, that they would see that in their time of doubt, that they come out with stronger faith.

214
01:50:10.000 --> 01:51:00.000
And we ask Lord for, um, every believer that's listening, that we would just be, and myself included, that we would just be better and better at evangelism and sharing the truth of Christ and defending the gospel, and not just Internet quarrels, but actually evangelism, uh, through sharing the truth in Jesus name. Amen. Mhm.