WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:02:05.000
Welcome to ten questions with Mike Winger. I'm here to answer your Bible questions, tough questions about the Bible, the first of which up today, is from Shani Sebastian Malorgio. I'm sure I mispronounced that. I'm sorry. Does Exodus 21 22 really condone abortion? That's. Let's remember this part of the question because we'll come back to it after we analyze the. The verse. Does it condone abortion? I've seen multiple commentaries and translations. Shannon, he says, and it does really seem like abortion is accepted as the baby's life appears to be less valuable. Um, let's dig into this. So, Exodus 21 22 looks like this. When men strive together. Now, this is, of course, the law, right? So there's, like, these case laws given. Hey, if this event happens, here's how you handle it. Legally, under the Old Testament law, under the mosaic system, when men strive together and hit a pregnant woman. So these two guys fighting, and one of them, it seems, accidentally hits a woman who's pregnant so that her children come out, but there is no harm. The one who hit her shall surely be fined, as, uh, the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay, as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And that's the two verses. That's the section right there. Now, some go, well, how's that about abortion? Well, take a look at this. In the revised version, when men strive together and hurt a woman with trials so that there is a miscarriage, yet if there's no harm, that follows. If nothing else happens, then, hey, there's a fine. According to the woman's husband says, hey, I want this much money or this much remuneration. Maybe it's like, sheep and stuff like that. And then the, um, judges, the local judges also agree to that, and then he has to pay that amount. So there are those who say, hey, look, this is clear evidence that in the scripture, abortion is not that big of a deal. I think they're going way, way beyond, even if their interpretation is correct. Um, so let's just start with what I said first. Uh, does it really condone abortion?

2
00:02:05.000 --> 00:07:17.000
This is not an abortion. Let's just get that out of the way. If there was a miscarriage here, it was an accident. Like, two guys are fist fighting, they're brawling it out, and the brawl spills over into a woman, where she gets hit. She gives birth and the baby has died. And then if the miscarriage interpretation is held, then there's a fine applied to the man who did it. You might say this means that a baby's life is less valuable, but that's an interpretation, not something that's clear in the text. This is like going a whole step beyond, because even if you take the miscarriage view, which I do not, and I'll explain several reasons why, and you shouldn't either. In my view, the RSV and the NRSV got this wrong. I believe, as most modern translations go the other way. Um, but even if you take the miscarriage view, it doesn't hearsay that a baby is therefore not a person or not really alive or not worth as much as an adult human. It says that the fine associated with this event is less. Now, is it possible that if you take these wrong interpretations, is it possible that there's a lower penalty when there's a miscarriage for a reason other than that the baby doesn't matter and that you could just abort babies whenever you want? Yes, there's a reason, which is that the instances of stillbirths were a lot higher then than they are now. And so it's possible. I'm just throwing this out as a possibility. It's possible that what's happening is, oh, yeah, if there's a miscarriage, you have a fine, but it's not an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life kind of thing. There's just a fine. Maybe that's because the judges never know whether that baby would have made it into this world in the first place. So you're sort of hedging your bets, saying, uh, we had something that was alive, but that was about to travel through, probably alive. We don't even know for sure. Uh, in the womb, that was about to travel through a very difficult, possibly dangerous course of events leading to birth. And there was some uncertainty there. So we won't punish all of the people equally. Um, in addition, it was accidental. It was like a manslaughter type situation. It was unintentional. Whereas abortion is always, always intentional. What happens when someone dies and it's intentional? In the Bible, an unjustified killing in the Bible is always treated the same way, um, which is with a death penalty. But there are several problems with the miscarriage view. Let me walk you through some of them and see if I can convince you guys of this. I even saw, ah, some. There are scholars who argue for these positions that seem like just such far reaching things. They're serious scholars. They're all very serious about their views. But here's the things that I think are being left out of this discussion, um, sometimes. So, first off, life for a life that we see in the passage. Let me go here to, um, the ESV. But you'll get this. In most modern translations, you'll get something just like this. The phrase life for life, if there is harm, which would seem to be referring to this child dying, in my view, then you pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This is strange language to use if you're saying, and a baby dies, but if there is harm, pay life for life. This implies that the situation prior in verse 21, or verse 22, rather the verse before that. The situation prior doesn't involve the loss of a life, because this is the situation in which there is the loss of a life, or, uh, the loss of an eye or the loss of a tooth. Yet the baby that comes out is very likely going to have an eye, an ear. There are the loss of these things. So, logically, it's strange to see this in the text. It should be written differently. If you're trying to be clear that there was a miscarriage, um, that's just one small issue. There's a lot more. But let me just cut to what I would say is the center of the issue. This is like the hub of the debate, which is the word that the RSV translates as miscarriage. Is that a proper translation? Here's the RSV again. Miscarriage. Well, in the Hebrew, that's two words. It's two words. Children and come out. Okay, children and come out. No, these words do not refer to dead children coming out. Does not refer to dying. It's children come out. So miscarriage is very much a very specific interpretation of those terms. But that's, I think, a wrong interpretation. The ESV just translates it very straightforwardly. Children come out. That's how a lot of modern translations handle it. But let me talk more about these words individually. So the word children, the hebrew word that's used there, it could be children, because maybe she has twins and they want to include either of the children have an issue. Okay. So that there's no loopholes in the law right there. But, uh, the children term is used tons of times in the Old Testament, and it's used always of living, fully living human beings. In every other case that we see, every other case, fully living human beings. Like, up to, like, not just toddlers, but older than that. A ten year old could be called this. That's the word that's used. It's not fruit. Some translations say her fruit comes out. That's not what that word means anywhere else in the Bible in its many, many uses. It's just not what it means. Um, so that would imply that we're talking about a child in the same sort of qualitative sense as all the other children that the Bible talks about, which is, again, the pro life position. Because a pro life position is a solidly biblical position. It derives from the scripture. It's not just digging into the scripture for validation.

3
00:07:17.000 --> 00:09:21.000
Then we have the term go out. So the children come out or go out. Uh, that's the second part of the term. This word's used over a thousand times in the Old Testament, go out. And it's never used of a miscarriage. Now, there's one example where it is used of something negative like this, and it's in numbers where a stillbirth is described as going out or coming out. That same term. And I saw one commentary say, hey, this is implication that the word can sometimes mean the death or the miscarriage of the baby. But that's a very clumsy. I'll give you the short version, a clumsy way of interpreting the text. It means simply come out. It doesn't mean that the baby came out dead. It was the word stillbirth that implied that the baby was dead in that verse. This is why in genesis and other times, Genesis 25, verses 25 and 26, Esau and Jacob both are described as coming out during their birth process, and they're both alive. Same hebrew word. Then in Genesis 38, verses 29 and 30, we have perez and zara. They both come out and they're what? Alive when they come out, when they're born. So that that word coming out just means coming out. Unless you have. Here's a good rule. For every verse you see in the scripture that relates to this, that would apply to all of them. I think if you have come out and you have child, unless it specifies the child is dead, you should not assume the child is dead. The only verse that does that specifies in numbers that the child is dead. Still birth. There are actual words for miscarriage in Hebrew, and they're not used in this passage. This is not the word for miscarriage, right? That's not what's being used here. So this is to say that the NRSV seems to be very wrong here. Um, and I'm not sure what pro choice individuals want to get from this. Know your original question Shani was saying, hey, does exodus, this verse really condone abortion? Even if it happened, it wouldn't be saying abortion is okay, because if a baby's accidentally killed, here's what you do, and it's negative. There's a fine. It doesn't say you can therefore deliberately kill as long as you're going to pay a little fine. That's a high handed sin. That's a different category of issue in the scripture.

4
00:09:21.000 --> 00:09:39.000
So, yeah, um, all that to say, this has nothing to do with those things. Ah. Those who want to suggest that this would imply that the child is not really a person because it's a lesser value. They're assuming a ton. The, uh, text itself actually uses the same term for children in the womb and out of the womb.

5
00:09:39.000 --> 00:11:07.000
Right. And the child comes out, it's still a child. It's still using the same word to describe them. So that semantic game doesn't look like it would work either. There's other ways we can talk about this, and I'll link some videos below that. I've talked about abortion and the bible a couple of times, and I'll link that down below after this video. And we're going to go to question number two. But let me tell you guys how this is going, because there's two things that have changed in this q and a. First off, good news, we're going to go weekly. I'm going to go at least just about every week. Every Friday. I can manage. I will be here answering your guys questions, um, instead of every other week, how I had been. The bad news is, and maybe good for some, I'm only going to do ten questions per stream. This, uh, is going to sort of streamline it for us. Uh, no pun intended. And I think, well, let's just experiment. We'll see how it goes. Maybe I'll do it two or three times. Maybe I'll do it 100 times. We'll see how it goes. So this is ten questions with Mike Winger starting now. And question number two is from Olivia Price, who says, is being in a long term dating relationship wise, and how long should you wait for someone to make the decision to marry you or not? I should mention real quick, before I forget, this, um, this video is pre recorded because I'm taking these ten questions from ten I didn't answer last week. Long story short, the other videos will all be live. You have to show up live for the Q and A, put your questions in the live chat after it starts, but at the beginning. And we can try to tackle them, then. All right. Olivia Price, is being in a long term dating relationship wise, and how long should you wait for someone to make a decision to marry you or, um.

6
00:11:07.000 --> 00:11:33.000
You know, there's different ways I can answer questions. Right. And my heart's desire is to help you learn how to think biblically about everything. And I can try to give you some sort of Mike's wisdom from my gut on these things. But before I do any of that, I want to say, does scripture clearly answer your question? Is there anywhere where the Bible says, here's how long you can be in a dating relationship?

7
00:11:33.000 --> 00:12:20.000
No. Um, it doesn't say anywhere. This sort of thing, as far as I know. The closest thing I see to it is maybe the song of Solomon, where there's this incredible, passionate desire for these two to be together. Um, and then repeated warnings. The only thing that's repeated over and over again, really, in the sense of a lesson to learn, is don't stir up love until it pleases. And there's this sense of, um, hey, the desire for a man and woman to be together in marriage and in all the things that accompany that is so strong, but it's even times a million when you start stirring it up. So a dating relationship could stir that up, or it might not, depending on how they go about that dating relationship.

8
00:12:20.000 --> 00:13:47.000
So this would just be a wisdom thing. I wouldn't put a rule on other christians. I would say, be cautious, at least how much you stir things up before you're married, because it will become more and more difficult to remain godly and remain pure. The longer you wait, you just have more opportunities to stir things up. But life has a wild variety of scenarios and situations, and for some people, they started dating at a relatively young age, but then they weren't really ready to get married and be on their own for a while. And I wouldn't fault them for that. Exactly. But my counsel now, moving away from that clear scripture stuff to my just personal counsel would be, um, that you're balancing these two things. One is, this is totally my personal opinion here. One is the fear that if I don't start dating this person, I can't lock them down and they're going to end up with somebody else later on. If I wait till I'm ready to be on my own and move out and support a family kind of thing, then this person I'm interested in may already be in a relationship. So I kind of want to lock them into, uh, at least a courtship thing or a dating thing so that I'm like, hey, wait for me. I'm saying wait for me. Um, that's a legitimate fear. I understand that. Uh, but then on the other side there is the fact that the longer you do this, the longer you wait, the longer you drag it out. It implies less seriousness about the relationship and it implies more opportunity for problems to arise, problems of which I'm sure you understand.

9
00:13:47.000 --> 00:14:25.000
So I would say maybe try to balance those things. Um, maybe you can get married earlier than you thought, maybe you can wait a little longer than you thought. Uh, maybe you can find that middle ground somewhere. But uh, I wouldn't put a, ah, rule on it for somebody. Um, my rule for myself personally was, and I'm glad I did this, was that I didn't date until I was reasonably close to being able to provide for marriage. Um, ah, and that worked well for me personally, but I'll pass that on as wisdom in my own opinion and not some clear teaching of scripture.

10
00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:39.000
Isman has a question, says, hey Mike, would God create psychedelics since they lead so many astray? Oh, why would God create psychedelics? I'll read it again. So, hey Mike from Isaman, why would God create psychedelics since they lead so many astray?

11
00:14:39.000 --> 00:15:20.000
I guess the implication of the question is, um, one of two things that come to my mind. One is uh, hey, God shouldn't have made these, you just shouldn't have done this if it was going to lead people astray. And the other one is the druggie side of things, where you get druggies who always, they'll read like every weed got made and they think that means pot because they don't understand English or Hebrew for that matter. Um, or, uh, they want to say like, God made psychedelics, and therefore everything God made is good. So that means I can do whatever I want with anything God made. And I think that what we have to realize is that if you pull psychedelics out as an example of something God made and you say, well, why would you do that?

12
00:15:20.000 --> 00:15:51.000
Um, and you can do this with lots of things God's made, um, porcupines or something, um, or viruses or things like that. But if you then look at them not individually but as like the part of the tapestry of everything God made, then he made a system, not just individual items, but a whole system. Like psychedelics work the way they do because chemistry is what chemistry is, right? Because carbon interacts in this way and all of these things are all totally integrated together.

13
00:15:51.000 --> 00:16:50.000
It's part of a system. And when God hands us this earth with all of its chemicals and all of its plants and vegetables and everything. We have incredible variety of things we can do, and some of it is life saving and good. And sometimes those poisonous and dangerous elements can be used in pieces to do something medically wonderful. They can also be abused like drugs. But I don't think the problem is in the psychedelics so much. Um, they're obviously a problem for lots of people, but the problem, of course, starts with the person who's ingesting them, who's playing games with drugs, and we absolutely are part of, you guys see this? We're part of a drug culture now. Like, drug culture is the normal culture. There's not a subculture of drug users. It's much more normal now. And the normalcy of it rises up more and more all the time because of social media. Social media helps normalize odd behaviors, it seems. That's my impression of things. Um, that it normalizes strangeness and fringe stuff, because fringe stuff gets viral, and then viral gets well known, and then well known gets normalized.

14
00:16:50.000 --> 00:19:26.000
Um, the future does not look pretty in that regard. But the nature of God making psychedelics, m it'd be kind of like saying, uh, let me get another example. Uh, why did God make alcohol? Alcohol is something people can enjoy or they can sin with, and the sin is really serious, and it's extremely destructive, and it really ruins lives. But it's not that alcohol ruined lives, right? Like, here's this guy going about his life, and then alcohol, like, just some animated giant bottle of alcohol comes in and knocks him over and takes over his home and ruins his marriage. Alcohol itself, it doesn't have will. It doesn't have causal powers in this man's life. This person drank and continued to drink and abuse this thing, and then that ruined their life. But we do this thing where we blame the alcohol entirely. Instead of realizing that it was a piece of the self destruction of this man, we got to blame the people. Even when we say, yes, this is addictive behavior. Yes, this is really hard to quit. Yes, my heart goes out to you and breaks for the person struggling. But the nature of our rebellion in regards to substance abuse and sin is that it is sin. It is rebellion against God, ultimately. And ultimately, that person is responsible for quitting. And there are many who feel that, um, they're offering compassion. And my heart goes out. Like, I understand this compulsion to say, I want to show compassion, and part of my showing compassion is saying, it's not their fault. But when you remove all the fault from the abuser of the substance, say psychedelics. When you remove all the fault from them, you also remove their ability and their capacities, and you imprison them in that addiction. You're basically saying you're hopeless. So I'm saying I understand addiction. Uh, I understand the nature of how hard it is now and how it's way worse now than it was the first time you had some. But I also understand that you still have some agency here, and I want to encourage that and stoke that, because what others would say is, mike, you're condemning this person, but I think I'm offering them hope. And it's not just me, not just my wisdom here, my ideas. Scripture says, no temptation has overtaken you except what is common to man. But God is faithful. He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you're able. And yes, you feel tempted beyond your ability all the time. That's the normal state of humans. I think we often feel that way. I couldn't help it. I couldn't help it. But hypothetically, if someone walked into your room and just held a gun to your head and was like, don't you dare take another drink of that, I will shoot you. I will shoot your family. If they did that, you would be like, oh, I'm not going to drink that right now, that's for sure.

15
00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:30.000
Meaning that you did have some free will there, right?

16
00:19:30.000 --> 00:19:33.000
You just keep making that same choice.

17
00:19:33.000 --> 00:20:02.000
Anyway, this is getting a bit beyond your question. Um, I think there's some loaded things in asking the question, why did God create psychedelics? I would say part of it's the tapestry of creation, that all those things exist. Another part of it is the ability for man to have free will. Another part of it is that there are actually some good things, even in the bad things that we see. Another part of it is that God works good through even the difficulties and the evils that exist in the world, and the nature of the fall and all those elements, to me, feel like a pretty good explanation for all that.

18
00:20:02.000 --> 00:20:28.000
Question number four. Jordan Francis says, hey, Pastor Mike. Just wanted to say thank you for all your work. Really have been blessed. Great, Jordan. That means, uh, the world to me. I mean, to think that I get to do this stuff online. Those of you who are thinking about doing online ministry, um, go for it. As long as just get your ego out of the way. Don't let it get back in the way. Um, make sure that you're doing it to serve others and not to pump yourself up or lift yourself up or anything like that.

19
00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:39.000
But I encourage more people to get involved in online ministry, and I'm glad that more have. There's so many more christian channels now than there were like, eight years ago online, on YouTube and on other places. And it's exciting to see.

20
00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:49.000
Okay, so Jordan's question, um, how would you respond to the phrase too little spirit, too much bible? Would love to know how to respond.

21
00:20:49.000 --> 00:20:53.000
Too little spirit, too much bible.

22
00:20:53.000 --> 00:21:14.000
Um. Um, the bible is, is the inspired words from who inspired the scripture? Well, let's look, because this is super relevant to this phrase, all right.

23
00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:49.000
All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. All scripture is breathed out by God. God breathed. Okay. This is a reference to the Holy Spirit. Clearly, unequivocally, this is the Holy Spirit inspired scripture. So imagine if you said too much listening. Let's say it was about me, a relationship with Mike, right? And you said too much listening to Mike, not enough Mike.

24
00:21:49.000 --> 00:22:07.000
Um, that doesn't make any sense. Like, you're going to know me better by not listening to me anymore. So I want more of God, but I don't want what God has said. I want more of God's spirit, but I don't want the things the Holy Spirit has said.

25
00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:18.000
These people who say this would never shut down someone saying, the Lord, just show me something. I have a word to share with you from the Holy Spirit. They would never, ever shut it down and be like, no.

26
00:22:18.000 --> 00:22:35.000
Too much of what is inspired speech from the spirit. We want more of the spirit. Not that it makes no sense whatsoever. So here's a good question. What could the possible motive be for somebody saying too little spirit, too much Bible?

27
00:22:35.000 --> 00:23:27.000
I think it happens when, I'll be as charitable as I can. Um, in my opinion, when I've heard this kind of thing, it happens when somebody is sort of in their flow. They're spiritually, they're a spiritual leader. They view themselves as either a spiritual leader or somebody who is spiritually in the know. Right? Like, they're like, I get it. I get it. I'm at that level of Christianity where I feel pretty confident about my spiritual discernment and about my spiritual wisdom and about my ability to kind of, like, figure out what God is doing. Um, and they're telling somebody something and they're counseling something, or they're declaring something, and someone else is like, hey, wait a minute. But doesn't the Bible say, but doesn't the Bible say, but doesn't the Bible say? And their style is getting cramped by people who keep quoting scriptures.

28
00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:49.000
That's one of the reasons why this kind of quote comes up. So how do they respond when they feel that their spirit ledness is being squelched, is being pushed down by other people who keep quoting Bible verses to challenge the things that they're saying? Well, they could say, hey, man, too little spirit, too much Bible.

29
00:23:49.000 --> 00:24:34.000
But if you say this, if you say the phrase too little spirit, too much Bible, I would say you have too little of both. You have definitely got too little of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't, you would never be in the spirit saying that sort of garbage. And you've definitely got not enough Bible because you deride not just yourself knowing the Bible, you deride other people knowing scripture. You know, when Jesus rebuked the sadducees, he never rebuked them for having too much bible. When he rebuked the Pharisees, he never rebuked them for having too much bible. He was like, hey, have you not read. He argued with scripture. He used scripture to correct his opponents. He says, how do you not know what the scriptures say? He would always appeal to the scripture because the Holy Spirit's not going to argue with himself, disagree with himself, or any of that garbage.

30
00:24:34.000 --> 00:25:26.000
This, um, kind of phrase, too little spirit, too much bible is said from someone who has too little of both. Uh, I think honest opinion, Jordan, doesn't mean you hate them, doesn't mean you mock them. Um, but you don't let them manipulate you and draw you away from scripture unto themselves so that they become your holy spirit. They're the one you listen to, because they're the ones that have the key to the spirit, and they don't want you to go to the Bible to correct them and to guide and direct them. This is super scary, actually, the more I think about it. Let's go to number five. High five. Expert says that's a good skill to have. My fiance came to the Lord after our relationship started, and I recently found out that she has been divorced twice. Uh, has she been forgiven, or should we call off the marriage? Okay, first off, I, um, answer a question like this with a lot of trepidation.

31
00:25:26.000 --> 00:27:08.000
Just, uh, personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that you are making this massive life decision. And it's being given to me as though what I'm about to say would make your decision for you. You can trust scripture, but trusting a stranger, hopefully, if you watch me enough to know you're just going to listen. You just had to write it quickly, and you'd listen to what I say and think about it and take it as someone's ideas and not just automatically do whatever Mike says. I just know far too little about your life. Um, so I say this with great trepidation, because I don't want you to take what I say and not filter it. You got to filter it through your life and say, hey, here's his counsel. Did he really understand my situation properly? Were there missing bits that he would have maybe answered differently? Or maybe he's just wrong? You really have to consider those things too big of an issue for you not to. So, on the other hand, um, because I agonize over these very questions, I spent a lot of time working on the topic of divorce and remarriage in the Bible. And hear me right, anybody. I'm not talking about marriage in the Bible. Lots of studies on marriage in the Bible. I've got videos on marriage, husband's role, wife's role. I've got all that stuff. But I did a study on divorce and remarriage specifically, and turned it into a three hour video where I go through all the scripture and I talk about all these debates, and I deal with tough questions, like the one that you've asked here. But in that video, I give you lots of details about how you measure and what steps do you take and how do you look at it. Um, I wouldn't take the direction that some pastors would, and they'd say, or some christians would, I should say, um, and they would say, well, that was before she was Christian. Right? She's Christian now. So if you're in Christ, you're a new creation. So those previous marriages don't count.

32
00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:58.000
I think that that is a wrong use of that scripture, a wrong use of that idea, and that it feels like it works if you apply it whenever you want to and you ignore it whenever you don't. Right. So, like, if somebody murders your son and then they become a Christian in the middle of the trial, do you have to drop the case or do you continue going through trial? You commit a murder, I'm going to go through trial. Yeah. You don't apply it there, probably, but you apply it when you want to. I think this is reckless and this is not a good idea, and it's not a fair use of scripture. So new creation doesn't mean, um, no longer bound to old wedding vows or something like that. But I have a somewhat complicated, but I think accurate answer on what to do in this kind of situation in that video series. I'll link it below. Excuse me. It's not a series. It's just one video, three hour video.

33
00:27:58.000 --> 00:28:59.000
And it has timestamps, so you can bounce around. So I'll link that below and you guys can check it out if you're interested, and I hope you find it very helpful. But the issue of your situation, um, what are some of the things I would juggle and please watch the video. Don't just take this short answer as the full answer, but, um, the things I would juggle are, um, the state of those two divorces. Okay. The first divorce, after that divorce, there was a remarriage. That, um, remarriage may have been wrong, depending on the circumstances, but at that point, that was the new marriage. And she should have been faithful in that marriage, should have stayed in that marriage, and honor God as much as possible in it the moment they got married. That would have broken the old marriage. Even if it was a wrong act of getting married, it would have broken the old marriage. And now we root for the new one. This is, I think, the only right answer for that question, and I give all the reasons for it, many reasons for it, in my video on divorce and remarriage. But now she stands divorced fiance. So what are the things that actually end an old marriage?

34
00:28:59.000 --> 00:29:36.000
Um, well, um, fornication or basically sleeping with somebody else that puts the nail in the coffin in an old marriage? I think not. Um, that there can't still be justification for getting back together, because there is. And there may be something to consider there. You may seriously need to consider going back to that old spouse and saying, hey, can we rebuild? I'm so sorry. That may be something to think about. Severe, um, abuse, significant abuse. Uh, that's a very broad category. Because abuse can take many forms. We caution against pretending there's abuse when it was just I was unhappy. I'm unhappy is not the same as abuse. But, um, that's a tough question to work through.

35
00:29:36.000 --> 00:30:54.000
Then, um, there is things like abandonment, um, has the previous spouse gotten married or been sleeping around and stuff like that. These are all questions that I would juggle, but I got to point you to my full teaching on this topic, because the short answer just isn't enough, and you didn't give me enough details. So my full teaching will give you, hopefully, tools to ask these questions in more detail in your scenario. I'll link that down below. And anybody who wants to argue with me, I encourage you. Watch my teaching. Before you do so, you can hear the nuance and the thought. Most people that I've talked to, they approach this very one dimensionally. They kind of clumsily have blanket answers for all scenarios, and I don't think the bible does that. So here we go. Question six. Connie Wall says, why did God, knowing everything, give the law first and not go straight to grace with Jesus? Thank you, Mike. Connie, that's a fun question to ask. Um, so here's some of the reasons that we get, even in scripture, some of the reasons that we get. Um, so the law, according to Paul, in Galatians, the law was our schoolmaster, like a tutor, like someone who's educating you to lead us to Christ. He talks about this in Galatians as well as in Romans, that the law was this thing that would make humans aware of the fact that they desperately needed God's grace.

36
00:30:54.000 --> 00:30:57.000
How can I? Here's an example.

37
00:30:57.000 --> 00:31:38.000
My niece, uh, got a Christmas present once, many, many years ago. She's older now, um, but she had a Christmas present, and, uh, the gift was some sort of toy that you had to assemble. I don't even remember what it was anymore, but I remember starting to put it together and took about ten minutes to put it together. And she was very young, so she's impatient, like every little kid is. And she walked around the room and came back and said, is it ready yet? And I was like, no, I'm still working on it. Then she walked around the room and came back and, is it ready yet? I was like, no, you just got to be patient. And she wanted to do it. And she goes, I'll do it, I'll do it. And I thought, she's really passionate about this. She's excited about her toys. So I was like, okay, go ahead. And I thought, she'll learn by trying.

38
00:31:38.000 --> 00:32:13.000
Uh, I didn't need to tell her. I could just let her learn by trying. It was no harm. She would just try to put it together. So she tries. She sits there and goes, I just can't do it, and hands it back to me. Okay, you do it. She did not complain again. She didn't sigh again. She didn't walk around in circles asking me when it was going to be done. She just thought, oh, I get it. I can't do it. You can. So she let me do it. I put it together. A few minutes later, she's playing. The law is like that, because when God gives the law, he says, you want to try and be righteous? You want to try and be good. You want to try and commend your own goodness to me, like you're going to earn your way to heaven. You try it.

39
00:32:13.000 --> 00:33:55.000
The m law is the old testament saying, you try it. And Israel going, all right, we'll try it. And then they fail and fail and fail, until finally at the cross, it's like we hand it back and we go, okay, God, you do it. And Jesus, he comes and lives the law perfectly. He's the only sinless person. He does everything absolutely perfect, and then he dies on the cross for us. So one of the reasons for it is a lesson about the sinfulness of man and the righteousness of God that they really are. And it's an insurmountable difficulty. You are always sinner, and God is always perfectly holy and righteous, and only Jesus can bridge the gap. And that's beautiful to learn that lesson in a real world way. But there's other reasons, too. This is exciting. Okay, Connie, this is exciting stuff. Truly, truly mind blowing exciting stuff. No matter how well I describe it right now, I will not do justice to how glorious it is. So when the law was given, it didn't just give rules that men fail and then Jesus succeeds at, uh. Okay, that's part of it. It also gave this system of sacrifices, which are meant to be a picture of what Jesus will do for us. So you have, like, these five main sacrifices in the book of Leviticus, and they all picture Christ in different ways. It's amazing. It's beautiful. I'll link a video below explaining how these sacrifices represent Jesus. Then you've got this events like the Passover event, which is when Jesus shows up at Passover. You've got the day of atonement, which is such a great description of all the sins of Israel being put upon one being and that they would suffer, and that that being is going to die in their place so that they could be forgiven, that their sins will be taken as far from them, as east, as the west. So this, in other words, the Old Testament, provides an interpretation. Here's like point number two.

40
00:33:55.000 --> 00:34:50.000
First off, it shows the need for Christ. That was the law showing us our sin. Second, it shows us an interpretation of who Jesus is. That is when Jesus shows up. You can't just hijack Christianity and make it mean what you want. You're bound to all this Old Testament teaching. So it has to mean this. It gave a, uh, forced interpretation for what it means when Jesus goes to the cross. Isaiah 52 and 53 is one of the best explanations of what the cross means. Theologically like how you get saved. And this is only because the law was in place before Christ just showed up. So the law gives us the need for Christ. It gives us an interpretation of who he is. And another thing it gives us is prophetic, like, proof that Jesus is, in fact, the son of God, the messiah. This blows my mind. So if Jesus just showed up in the first century, rises again, we have the evidence for the resurrection. That's actually very powerful stuff, but that's all we've.

41
00:34:50.000 --> 00:36:07.000
We've, uh, things related to that, the testimony of the disciples and things like that. But that's all we've got. Add to that prophecy. That's what we have because of this law, because of these hundreds of years, and this expectation that was created through all these things is you have all kinds of prophecy, direct prophecies about who the messiah would be and what he would do, but also picture prophecies or prophetic pictures, like the day of atonement or like the Passover lamb. And I've got a video that talks about all the ways that the Passover pictures Christ. And that's only possible because of the laws that God gave Israel ahead of time. There's just so many ways. There's other stuff, too, but there's, like, three main ones. The interpretation of who Jesus is, the need for Jesus, that was one and two. And then the prophetic proof of Jesus, that's all accomplished in the law. I couldn't do justice to this topic in a short answer, but I will link some videos below related to this, including my Jesus in the Old Testament series, my favorite series I've ever done. If you guys haven't watched it yet, I plug it all the time. One day you'll check it out. All right, let's go to number seven. Joseph Bayes says. Hi, Mike. Does one corinthians six apply to restraining orders? A boy in a christian household was harassing my sister, and my parents were told it was wrong for them filing a restraining order.

42
00:36:07.000 --> 00:37:13.000
All right, so first corinthians six, I believe, is the passage that talks about, um, don't go to law against believers. Yeah, lawsuits against believers. Here, uh, when one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare to go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more than matters pertaining to this life. So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you? Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded, but you yourselves wrong and defraud even your own brothers? Um, okay, so this is an important passage, um, that relates to dealing with law before christians. So let's ask a few questions about it.

43
00:37:13.000 --> 00:37:25.000
What kinds of situations is Paul talking about? Is he talking about every time any Christian goes before law about any issue?

44
00:37:25.000 --> 00:37:28.000
Is that what he's talking about?

45
00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:30.000
Let's go extreme here.

46
00:37:30.000 --> 00:38:05.000
Um, somebody breaks into your home and they injure and hurt your family. Maybe somebody dies, maybe they kill somebody. But then you find out, in the course of you going to the court to accuse them and they're going to press charges, you find out that they're a Christian. Now, uh, maybe they're not a good Christian. Maybe you're like, boy, how is this possible? Maybe you got saved yesterday, I don't know. But they're a Christian. Let's just say, hypothetically they're a Christian. Does that mean you can't press charges because it says here not to do lawsuits?

47
00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:09.000
That's a pretty extreme thing. Is that what Paul's talking about?

48
00:38:09.000 --> 00:38:38.000
Or do you just say, well, if they do something really bad, I just say they're not really christians. This is what I think a lot of people would do. I just proclaim they're not Christians and then I can take them to court. But you don't just get to decide who isn't a Christian and then take them to court based upon how badly they hurt you. Oh, well, you stole $100 from me. Okay, you're a Christian, but you did, uh, a Ponzi scheme and took me for $300,000, and you're claiming you were innocent and that you're really a Christian.

49
00:38:38.000 --> 00:38:42.000
I say you're not a Christian now because now I really want to take you to court.

50
00:38:42.000 --> 00:39:52.000
I think that's incorrect. I think that Paul is probably here talking about, um, I'm guessing here, right? But lesser offenses lawsuits at the time were relatively common. Actually looked into this a while ago. Lawsuits at the time were relatively common and the courts were known to be corrupt. And it was particularly the wealthy who would sue those who had less money. That was more often the case, because it was costly to use the court system, to use influence and power in the system. And so this was well known as a thing. Um. This is why when James writes, he says, he talks about the rich, and he goes like, these are the ones taking you to court. And it's a weird thing to say, the rich people are the ones suing you. It was more often the more influential suing, the less influential. Whereas, say, in the US, we have it both ways. We have rich people who abuse the court system to oppress others. We still have that happening, but we also have poor people who try to do get rich quick schemes using the court system. Right. Like walking in front of a car and be like, oh, my hip. Um. And that happens too. So they didn't have that so much back then. Um, I don't know who you are, but don't call me.

51
00:39:52.000 --> 00:39:54.000
Um.

52
00:39:54.000 --> 00:39:57.000
The simple application here then would be, um.

53
00:39:57.000 --> 00:41:09.000
I think Paul is talking in general, general, like types of lawsuits and people going to court for each other, for wrongs and even being defrauded. But he's not talking about, let's say, violent crimes or let's say, um, ensuring the protection of loved ones for the future, which would apply to a restraining order, by the way. Restraining order is not I want to sue you for money. It is, I'm trying to stop you from doing something actively. You're causing some harm and protection needs to be brought. This seems to be a different category than what Paul's dealing with in this passage, so I would at least be open to it. But if you take this passage and apply it to this restraining order issue, which I might, depending on whether they go to my church, whether they're willing to submit to the leadership, then I'd prefer to go to church. So I'm going to go and say, hey, let's say this does apply. Step one, go to the leaders of your church and say, I need to bring this person to you or the parents of the kid and say, we have to go and meet with the elders of the church because we're going to follow first corinthians six. And if they refuse that, and if they go, I will not submit to the leaders. I will not submit to the elders. I don't care what anybody says. You may still have to go to law. Depending on the scenario, it's preferable to what it says here.

54
00:41:09.000 --> 00:42:04.000
Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? That is definitely an option, and it's preferable depending on the scenario. But to say that the scenario doesn't matter at all would be to put something in Paul's mouth that I don't think he's trying to say. I don't think the Holy Spirit's trying to say. Even if someone tries to murder you and they're sending you death threats and they're like, I'm going to be there next Tuesday, I'm going to kill you. And you're like, well, I could go to the law and have you arrested, but will you come with me to the local church and submit to their leadership? And they go, no, I'm coming next week to kill you. And you go, I guess I'll suffer wrong and be like, that is not, I think, what Paul's getting at, so, um, safety prevention of future issues is not the same as taking people to task for past issues. Um, there's a couple of things we need to take this passage with. Wisdom.

55
00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:18.000
That's where I sit on it now. I'm open to other thoughts and other people's opinions on that. I feel like I still have some pieces of that that I'm juggling, and I always do. When I read this passage, I always feel that way, that I know how to apply it in some obvious cases and in some other situations, I'm not quite sure.

56
00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:26.000
In a situation where they refuse to submit to leadership, um, and you feel that you do need to get this resolved. It's not about revenge.

57
00:42:26.000 --> 00:42:31.000
Then it's at least an open question whether you might go to court over that issue.

58
00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:34.000
I wouldn't criticize somebody.

59
00:42:34.000 --> 00:42:42.000
All right, number eight, Robin house says, why does the Bible say, we will give an account for every idle word if we will be forgiven?

60
00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:49.000
Um, that's, uh, um, an interesting question and thing to think about.

61
00:42:49.000 --> 00:42:56.000
So, christians know they're forgiven for their sins, but does that mean that my sins are without consequence?

62
00:42:56.000 --> 00:43:23.000
Um, I m don't think so. And I'm not talking about purgatory here. Okay, purgatory, classic, classic Catholicism would teach that purgatory is where you suffer for your sins. There are some who pretend that purgatory only means, oh, maybe you're suffering. Maybe they all of a sudden become agnostic. They don't know what purgatory is. Maybe it lasts 1 second, maybe it lasts 100 years. I don't know. Could be instantaneous.

63
00:43:23.000 --> 00:43:49.000
It's so funny, because I've heard catholic apologists argue purgatory. Um, you need purgatory because don't you know you need to be sanctified? Don't you know you're not ready for heaven yet. And people go, yeah, I'm definitely not ready yet. And they go, well, that's not going to happen in 5 seconds. Right. Then it's going to take time. Yeah. So purgatory. And then the same group of catholic apologists or other catholic apologists will sit down and go, purgatory. Maybe it lasts 1 second, I don't know.

64
00:43:49.000 --> 00:44:58.000
So it's like, I don't know what they're doing, but classical catholic view of purgatory would be, and I know I'm on a tangent, but I think it's an interesting one would be that purgatory is where you're actually suffering to atone or to pay for your sins. Um, you haven't fully paid effectively. Um, you're suffering punishment for your sin. I don't think that's what this passage is talking about. Every idle word, you'll give account. I think every human being gives account for every idle word. Christians, non Christians, but we give account in different ways. So the Christian gives account under the blood of Christ. But there still is an accounting to be done. Let me give an example. I am a teacher. Teachers are judged more strictly the things I say. I'm very aware of this, okay? It makes me worried as I teach, as I share, makes me. I'm very self aware that I could be saying something wrong. I could lead someone astray. I could also lead them to truth. I could also say something wonderful. And all that is a possibility. Um, there's a time coming when I will face a judgment, but a judgment as a believer, not a judgment outside of Christ where I'm condemned for my sins, but a judgment in Christ where I'm washed of my guilt, but I'm still given some measure of accountability. What does it look like?

65
00:44:58.000 --> 00:46:07.000
One would simply be possibly an awareness of, like, uh, an accounting of, like, hey, if you've ever had this happen where you go before someone and you know, they don't reject you, you know, they love you, you know, they forgive you, but they still make you stand and be accountable for what you did, like, what you did was wrong, and they just tell you what you did was wrong, and that's a shameful, unpleasant thing to have to go through. How much more before God, how much more as you stand and have that sort of awareness of your past throughout your life? Um, I don't know if it's like, I wouldn't get into more descriptions of it. Where someone goes, well, there's going to be a screen, and everything you did is going to play before you. And I'm not getting into all that. I just think there's a sense of accountability there. But there's another element, which is this God wants to reward us for our works on this earth, not rewarding us with salvation. Right? I'm saved. I get heaven as a result purely of Jesus Christ. But God wants us to give us rewards in heaven as a result of the things that we're doing to serve him. Now, that reward itself is, um, only possible because we're fully cleansed and forgiven and given eternal life through Christ. That reward is, however, somewhat optional. And so an example of this is when the scripture talks about, um.

66
00:46:07.000 --> 00:46:37.000
Actually, ironically, it's a passage that a lot of people suggest. It refers to purgatory, um, but it doesn't. But each man's work will be tested. Scripture tells us. Let me find the passage here. Just a second. I have too many windows open. I need to close some things out it. So, um, first corinthians, chapter three has the following.

67
00:46:37.000 --> 00:47:23.000
Um. He uses an analogy to talk about we're God's workers, you're God's field, like a farming analogy. Um, and then a building analogy. No foundation can be can anyone laid? And that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. So you're laying the foundation of Christ. Ultimately, no other one can be laid. Otherwise, you're, uh, not in Christ. Now, if anyone builds on this foundation in their work, in ministry, their service to God, this relates to every word is accountable question. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear. See, some of these are good. Gold, silver, precious stones. Some of these are cheap wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear for the day, will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test each one's work. Of what sort it is.

68
00:47:23.000 --> 00:48:10.000
The things I do to serve the Lord, including the things I say out loud as a Christian, as a human, that will all stand before that final test for rewards. If what I did was in Christ and was proper and good, and to be burned up like the wood, hay and straw, if it was outside of Christ, if it was not good, including all those words, all those, um, idle words. So if anyone's work which he's built on, it endures, he'll receive a reward. Not the reward of heaven, not the reward of eternal life, but a reward in those in eternal life in heaven. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved. Yet so as through fire. Now, this is not saying it's not purgatory. I have a video on this, too. Why? This passage is not about purgatory. Um, yes, there's a fire. Um, but the stuff that he's done is being tested. He's not in the house.

69
00:48:10.000 --> 00:49:00.000
Kidding. It's rather, here's the house. Of all the things you've done in your life, all the works and all the words and everything, it's all going to be tested by fire. Some of it's burned up, some of it's brought with you as reward to heaven, and you survive either way. But it's as though you went through a fire and lost everything that you owned. Um, that would be the thing. The man is not burned. His stuff is. So this could give an example of how each word, and there's a degree of accountability for a Christian who's fully forgiven but still has a day of testing coming. I hope that that helps. Question number nine. Elizabeth Wells says in Matthew 1020, the spirit is the father's spirit. But elsewhere it says the spirit is that of Christ. How does this work with the oneness versus trinitarian view? Love your ministry. Thanks.

70
00:49:00.000 --> 00:52:15.000
Um, so the oneness view would hold that when you have the Holy Spirit referred to as the Father's spirit, and they're referred to as that of Christ, the spirit of Christ. I think the oneness view would hold that there is one God who shows himself in three different ways. Sometimes he appears as father, sometimes his son, sometimes his spirit, and that you can't have the Trinity. Because the Trinity, they'll say, is inherently contradictory. They usually try to rule it out. A, uh, priori is the term. They try to say. It just doesn't work. As a rule, you're not allowed to do the Trinity. Even if the Bible did say that, you're not allowed to believe that. That's not right. Um, but when you think about it, the Trinity accomplishes this better, because the spirit of the Father, there's the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I'm using that as, like, the third person of the Trinity. Well, the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are two different names for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Father are also two different names or ways of indicating the Holy Spirit, that one. Holy Spirit, spirit of the Father, Spirit of Christ. So we're indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which is also the Spirit of Christ, also the spirit of the Father. That works perfectly well with trinitarian theology. There's nothing conflicting there. This is why trinitarian theology exists, is because of ideas like this where you go, yeah, there's all these things there. Where oneness fails is when you get things like the baptism of Jesus, where you have the Father speaking from above, where he says, this is my son, whom m I well pleased. Then you have the Holy Spirit descending as a dove. Then you have the Son who's Present, who's being filled with the spirit so that you're like, wait a minute. If this is like a puppetry thing, it doesn't make any sense anymore. If this is like, sometimes he comes as father, sometimes his son, sometimes his spirit. Here it clearly seems to be indicating that the Father, the spirit and the Son are somehow three different persons. So the problem with oneness is that not that they can explain a phrase like Father, spirit, spirit of Christ, in a sense, they can explain that, uh, as well as I can. But that's not all the Bible says about Jesus. The Bible also shows that there are the Father, the Son and the Spirit, that the actual doctrine of the Trinity is in place through other things as well. I guess what I would say is there's nothing inherent about the phrase spirit of the Father and spirit of Christ. There's nothing inherent about that that pushes oneness theology at all. Like, it can be explained, uh, in a number of ways until you bring in other texts of scripture that rule out some of those other options. And then you go, okay, I was sort of forced into the Trinity and that's how I see the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is forced upon us by the pages of scripture. And some people, they really react negatively to the word trinity. Um, sometimes they've even thought about not using the term that much. But I think that would be a mistake. Um, I think it would. But because they react so negatively to the term that they no longer hear me when I'm talking about the concepts behind the term. Because the concepts are sort of irrefutably in the scriptures over and over again. You're forced into it.

71
00:52:15.000 --> 00:52:30.000
I hope that helps. Yeah. Matthew 1020, I don't think. And the spirit terminology, I don't think it's any kind of a challenge. Number ten, Megan Burridge has a question. Does the Bible actually talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus?

72
00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:36.000
Um, yes and no.

73
00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:49.000
Yes ish. I don't know. Let me walk you through how I would think about this. So imagine someone saying to a Christian, you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus.

74
00:52:49.000 --> 00:53:10.000
That would strike you as odd, right? We were just talking the last question of how scripture says the spirit of Christ is in you and you're going to tell me, I don't have a relationship when his spirit is in me. I'm indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, like, he will be with you and in you, that there's no relationship there.

75
00:53:10.000 --> 00:53:23.000
My spirit, which is quite relational, by the way, is actually joined sharing with the Holy Spirit. If that's not relational, what is it then?

76
00:53:23.000 --> 00:54:43.000
So there's that. There's also that. Scripture says that, um, this is. Of course, I use the phrase spirit of Christ so that we know that the way in which I relate to Jesus relationally is in a large way, through the Holy Spirit. Because the Father, Son and spirit are so interconnected in such a way that I don't always have words for it. But there's such an interconnectedness there, um, that I can be said to be having relationship with Jesus via the Holy Spirit. So that Jesus says, hey, when the Holy Spirit makes his home in you, right, that this is according to Jesus, the Father and the Son dwelling with you as well. Right. Um, now, again, we're going to get back into the oneness views. You can't reconcile the oneness views with the other texts of scripture. You need the Trinity to do that. At any rate, we also have other things where the spirit cries out with our spirits. Abba, Father, that's like, deeply relational, is it not? The Holy Spirit cries out with my spirit. Abba, Father, that is entire. Abba is like a very affectionate term for father, and it's right there being cried out from within through God's spirit and connected to my spirit, relationally, crying out, Abba Father, eternal life is what to know you and your only son. John 17. Jesus says, this is what eternal life means. It's knowing God and the father and his son.

77
00:54:43.000 --> 00:55:34.000
That's the meaning of that's relational. That knowledge is relational. It's not just, uh, being aware of. So, yeah, all that stuff. Um, we are the bride of Christ. How relational is that? It's entirely relational. I am collectively, right? We're the bride of Jesus Christ. This is a marriage supper of the lamb that is on its way. It's all so relational. So why do I say ish? Why do I say yes ish? Not just yes, yes. Because when some people say, I have a personal relationship with Jesus, what I think they mean is, um, some people, okay, just some. I think what they mean is my intuitions are from Jesus. Like my. I have this idea, that idea, like, that's probably Jesus talking to me all throughout the time. I talk to Jesus, he talks to me. And, um, I am always open to the Lord talking to me.

78
00:55:34.000 --> 00:56:05.000
But it's clear that amongst many of the churches that I've grown up with and the believers, I love and respect that in our circles that I've been in, right, evangelical circles, where there's not hyper charismatic, but definitely open to charismatic stuff, um, that there do tend to be a lot of individuals, not all, but a lot, who think that their internal monologue just is the Lord and that that's what it means to have a relationship with Jesus.

79
00:56:05.000 --> 00:56:24.000
Uh, that having a relationship with Jesus simply means receiving continual, regular messages from him throughout your day. That's the part I push back on. I go, wait a minute, I don't actually see that in scripture. Is it possible for God to speak to me? Yes. Am I open for it? Yes. Would I love it to happen all the time? Yes. Does that happen all the time? No. Uh, for me, no.

80
00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:56.000
And more importantly, is that what relationship with Jesus means? No, that is not what it means. It means the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, relationally connecting me, sealing me to God as his child, as his adopted son, that this is better than hearing whispers all day long. Um, and so I would just caution against thinking that relationship means hearing whispers all day long. That kind of thing. I know some would be offended by this.

81
00:56:56.000 --> 00:57:14.000
Maybe, um, you do. Maybe you hear from God on a very regular basis throughout the day. What am I actually saying? Am I saying you don't? No, I'm saying that's not what relationship means. And you shouldn't expect that of others in order for them to say they have a relationship with God. That's what I'm saying.

82
00:57:14.000 --> 00:59:21.000
The honest view I have about it is if someone's like, I hear from God all day long every day, is, I wonder, do you really? Like. I don't know. I mean, it's not typically how I see God working in people's lives. And the people I know who say that I have, over the years, grown to suspect that they have good intentions, but something's a little bit off. I'm just be honest. Um, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I'm just being straight. Yes, we actually have a personal relationship with Jesus. The Bible totally talks about it. Just doesn't mean always hearing whispers all day long kind of thing. That's, uh, totally up to God. And it's not a test of your relationship with God. How often you individually hear instructions from him on things. No, your relationship is solid if you never, ever hear that. Your relationship is 100% solid with the Holy Spirit. All right, well, this is it for the first, uh, well, second, I guess, ten questions with Mike. Um, I'll be doing this. So starting next Friday at 01:00 p.m. Pacific time, it'll be every Friday that I can. There's going to be some days where I can't for some reason or another, but most Fridays we'll be doing it. So we're back to a regular weekly schedule. That's the plan. Until something changes. Um, you can just check biblethinker.org if you ever want to see what the plan is. We always have, like, a little calendar thing up there that tells you if there's, like, a change in the weekly plans. All right, let's pray. Uh, lord, we thank you that we do get to hear your voice. There's times where you do speak to us, you give us direct information. I believe that's happened several times in my life, and I think that it's a beautiful, wonderful thing. But, um, may we not become christians who are so uncertain of our relationship with you that we feel like we need you to freshly speak to us all the time in order to confirm that you still love us, that you're still with us. May we believe your words that you are with us, that you will never forsake us. May we believe your words that, uh, we are, in fact, indwelt by the spirit. May we sense not you telling us when to go to the store, but you telling us, Abba, um, father, that we're relationally yours. In Jesus name, amen.