WEBVTT

1
00:00:08.000 --> 00:02:37.000
Let's talk about cults soberly. So, uh, I'm Mike Winger. I'm here to answer your questions about the bible. Try to help you learn to think biblically about everything. Does not mean I have the answers. It means the bible does, which is good news. Um, the first question we have to deal with today is about cults. While I take nine, uh, questions from the live chat, I come with one prepared every week on, on Fridays at 01:00 p.m. pacific time or California time. And that is right now. The question coming in is from meganator, who says, what makes a cult? I grew up in a church that took many hard stances on issues that led our elders to act in unbiblical ways. Most would say it was a cult. Where is the line drawn and this issue? Uh, now, quickly, you might start just explaining here's what a cult is. But I think we have to start by realizing, I'm sorry, this is kind of complicated. The word cult has gotten a little complicated, and more so in the last 1015 years than it was even before that for people. There are multiple definitions of the term. And here's what I'm going to do. Let me just walk you through what I did today on Twitter. Okay? I went on to Twitter or x, and I asked people, what is a cult? That was my tweet. Let me, uh, my post. Let me show you guys right here, and let's walk through their answers to show you how confused people are on this topic and why, I think it's worth being careful how we talk about it. So I asked, uh, when you use the term cult, what do you think it means? Now, I posted my question this way on x because I wanted, and I'm on x a lot. I try to post there frequently just because of the, um, likelihood of freedom, uh, of speech being more durable on that platform. At any rate, the reason why I said why when you use the term cold is because I wasn't asking them to give me a dictionary definition. I wanted them to look into their own lives and say, hey, when I've used the term, what do I mean by it? I got a lot of answers. So we're going to walk through some of those answers and we'll just think about them. So, here's one of them. This comes from James Anderson, who said, someone who has been influenced heavily and unquestioningly follows the beliefs dictated by leadership. Drink the Kool aid, etcetera, or, uh, etcetera. I know I said etcetera. I think I do that maybe you do that too. This idea of these qualifications, someone who's influenced heavily and unquestionably follows leadership, that could be, that could be me following Jesus.

2
00:02:37.000 --> 00:03:21.000
When you say unquestionably followed, you mean, uh, I don't challenge the authority of Jesus. Now, I have asked questions. Do I have good reason to believe in Jesus? Do I have solid evidence to support my faith, to believe that Jesus has the authority he has? Um, and yes, I think that there's good evidential reasons, experiential reasons, there's all sorts of things there, but I would unquestionably follow him. In fact, Jesus himself calls us to lay down our lives and take up our cross, deny ourselves and follow him. To call him Lord. The lordship of Christ is at the center of Christianity. And that is, uh, what, by this definition? Now, I don't think James would apply it that way. Maybe he would. I don't know, James, but somebody could take that definition and apply it to Christianity because you're following Jesus.

3
00:03:21.000 --> 00:04:05.000
Hmm hm. And all of a sudden it gets difficult to define what a cult is because some people define cult as a controlling group, right? A, uh, controlling and harm group. Others define cult will look at other definitions people give as something that is sociologically, uh, unique. It doesn't really fit in the society in which it exists, which doesn't mean it's true or false. It just doesn't fit the. In the surrounding culture. Okay, then early Christianity would have been a cult by that definition. Later on, it would have turned into a religion and not a cult. Others would define it merely as any religious group with a system and organized ritual. Okay, so all religions, almost, almost every religion, that is a cult. That's how, uh, people who study history talk about it. When they talk about cults, they talk about in a non pejorative way.

4
00:04:05.000 --> 00:05:53.000
Others will define it as simply an unhealthy group that negatively influences and hurts people. In which case you could have a true christian religion, but the pastor's abusive. The pastors are manipulative. They've distorted certain things, not essentials, but secondary issues. And you go, that's a cult. Others will say, no, no, it's only if it's a Christian. A group that pretends to be christian, but is not really christian because their theology is different. So Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, christian science, other things where they say, we're christian, but they're not really. All these different definitions are floating around. And because of social media nowadays, they've all kind of joined together to make the word cult into, like, kind of a sloppy term. And so let's look at another definition we were given. This was by american crusader, who said, I barely use the term, and I don't use it as much as I used to because I used to use it frequently inside of the church setting. Inside of the setting of me just talking to other christians. And so it was easy to use the word. Now that I'm doing stuff mostly online or largely online. Um, I mean, I'm involved in my local fellowship and everything, but. But that I'm doing stuff here online, I realized that the term means such different things to different people. I avoid it, but when I do, I'm talking about anyone obsessively, obsessively fixated on a person, typically a celebrity over God. Okay, so this is like an unhealthy fixation. Of course. I. You would think maybe I have that towards Jesus. I don't think american crusader is gonna think that. But you see how the definitions can be kind of like. Huh, huh. Where do you draw the line? Here's another one. Two more, actually. Uh, the data lord said teachings opposed to the apostles creed. So there we go. Ah. A group that claims to be christian but is not would fit that, but also, um, any pagan group in the world out there as opposed to the apostles Creed. So basically, the data lord's definition would describe anything that's not christian as a cult.

5
00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:57.000
I think a better term for that would simply be false religion.

6
00:05:57.000 --> 00:06:36.000
You can use the term of false religion then. Um, you've got Matthew Middleburgh, who, uh, is an apologist, the son of Mark Middleburgh. I know Matthew a little bit. Seems like a great guy. Uh, he says, I actually tried to define it for a friend at dinner last night. I think I said that a cult is a religious group that claims to be part of another group, but its teachings contradict with the core doctrine of the other group. So this Matthew's definition expands a little bit and says, hey, it's not just a group that claims to be Christian. That's not. It's a group that claims to be part of sort of a grounded, like, well known religion that isn't really part of it. It's not real.

7
00:06:36.000 --> 00:07:37.000
You're not really, uh, connected to the core foundational truths of that thing. There are some who will define, say, christianity. Um, Bart Airman does this. He's. Well, those of you who know him already know Bart Ehrman does this. Right. He's a non believer who's written plenty of things that have done harm. I think to, uh, people's faith and to people's ability to think about christianity. At any rate, Bart, uh, Ehrman defines Christian as anybody claiming to be christian. And so as he looks at ancient documents from the first, 2nd, 3rd century, and there are these total heretical groups that are bringing in total, like, beliefs that Jesus didn't have, the apostles didn't have, that are definitely not christian. He'll be like, that's a christian group. That would be such a broad definition of christian. It's almost like gender identity stuff where people go, hey, if you claim to be a woman or a zim or a zur, then that's just what you are, because all you have to do is say it. There's no actual foundational reality undergirding these claims. That's a crazy way to think and live.

8
00:07:37.000 --> 00:07:50.000
Um, so, yeah, you could say, hey, any group that says you're part of this larger religion, that isn't really part of it, you're being deceptive, could define that as being a cult. I think that could be a fair definition. So let's look at another one.

9
00:07:50.000 --> 00:10:08.000
Ivy Road says a sect of a religion, usually Christianity in the west, that is outside the bounds of orthodoxy, usually embracing some sort of ancient heresy, very similar to, uh, Matthew, uh, Middleburgh's definition or others. But in this case, Ivy Rhodes. What they're. They're sort of doing is really zeroing in, I think, what Walter Martin defined as. I can't. I was gonna show you the book, but I'm using it to hold up my lights that I haven't got a stand for yet. Um, the, um, um, Walter Martin defying occult is that, like, they claim to follow the teachings of the Bible, but they really don't. And so Islam in that sense, would that be a cult? Borderline. Um, but let's say Hinduism is not a cult, although it would be a false religion by that definition. But it gets more complicated, guys. Daniel Cody Deschon says, I'm a religion major who put a lot of thought into this, and I believe it should be used only to refer to religious groups whose culture can't coexist with the rest of society. That's why their signature move is up. Since the signature move is up and moving to some isolated community or shunning d converts. This is a sociological idea here. Okay? Imagine for a second that you were just taking a survival of the fittest assessment of religions and you didn't know what's true, or at least because of your discipline, religion as a study, you sort of have to hang your, my religious beliefs hat at the door and sort of pretend, methodologically pretend that you don't have any faith and don't have any beliefs about God. So you look and you go, how do I define cult? Well, I can't define it as not adhering to what I believe to be true beliefs about God. Um, I'll define it as, sociologically, as those fringe groups that don't survive in the greater society in which they exist. So Christianity is not a cult by that definition, because it didn't make it. It survived, it went through. But like, the heaven's Gate group is a cult because it was like this flash in the pan, weird, segregational and then eventually suicidal group. Jim Jones. Um, other groups as well, where they up and take off. This is almost, this, uh, is helpful sociologically. I don't think it's helpful in a practical way for people living their lives, that definition. I think if your writing works on that kind of thing, maybe it helps, but for normal people, it doesn't really help them much.

10
00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:14.000
Israel Anderson says Christianity is a good example of a cult.

11
00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:27.000
Uh, well, maybe so. There are those who, again, if you're studying ancient history, as I've done, right, when you're looking at these things, if you're going to study the Bible, you end up studying history.

12
00:10:27.000 --> 00:11:37.000
They, these historians and scholars of religion will define the word cult as simply any system of religious worship. And it's not derogatory. By that definition, Christianity is a cult. Every religion is a cult. If you have a religion that doesn't have a cult thing going on, not a o cult, right, but a cult thing going on where there's like a system of religious worship or ritual, then you're not really much of a religion. You're not really a well developed or thought out religion. In that case. Um, so in that sense, yeah, Christianity would be an example of a cult. But really, Israel was just, he was just trying to dig at us, but let's be real. So here's another one. Caden Hooks says, it depends on the context. Either a really insular, controlling group or something that claims to be based off Christianity or the Abraham tradition, but deviates in a significant way. That definition is two definitions, right? The second one claims to be based off Christianity or the Abraham religion, but deviates. Well, that would, that would actually, um. Oh, I never moved my counter. Just realized it there. Now it's at one. I just, um, would say that that would include Islam then, because Islam claims to be connected to the Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible and God's revelation through Abraham.

13
00:11:37.000 --> 00:13:50.000
But it's not right. Like, it's a clear deception and distortion of those things. It's not factually connected to that, even though it's huge, even though it has survived in the society and it's a fit religion as far as having control and maintaining its existence, but not for being true and not for being connected to what it says it is. Then you've got, uh, modern Judaism. You gotta wonder. Uh, modern Judaism is rabbinic Judaism, okay. Rabbinic Judaism is very different than the stuff you read about in the Bible, the stuff that was going on when Jesus was alive, when there was still a temple. Rabbinic Judaism is an alteration of Judaism in light of two huge facts. One, the rejection of the messiah, Jesus. That's. That's big, because. Because real, true, true, full Judaism is going to be embracing the messiah of Judaism. Many, um, Jews will recognize that waiting upon and hoping for and looking to the messiah is a central tenet of their faith, and they have yet rejected the true messiah. Not all of them, right? But modern rabbinic Judaism has. There's many, many, many Jews who believe in Jesus. So that. So in that sense, they sometimes call this those complete Jews or full Jews, not converts from Judaism to Christianity, but rather they have full Judaism. I think that's accurate. Um, but then the other thing rabbinic Judaism has is the temple's gone, and therefore, the system of sacrifices is not doable, is not viable. And so what they do is they have a system of good works, for the most part, that replaces sacrifices, which is so ironic, because by removing Jesus from. As their. As their sacrifice, they now have no sacrifice. And they offer their good works, so they offer their righteousness to God. It's a terrible thing. But it's also so, like, mind blowing to me that it's consistent with the theology of the New Testament, uh, and the Old. It's like, hey, you guys are presenting your righteousness that Isaiah says are filthy rags, you know? But what you need is you need the righteous servant who will bear your sins and die for you, as it says in Isaiah 52 and 53. So by that definition, rabbinic Judaism would be cultish. By caden's definition, at least my understanding of it, maybe Caden would nuance it more and change it, and it wouldn't apply. Um, the first thing Cadence says, though, a really insular, controlling group, that is actually another thing.

14
00:13:50.000 --> 00:14:28.000
I tend to think of cults as deviating from the theology of Christianity. There's people in the past I have. I try not to use the term as much nowadays. Um, then there's people who look at it as basically a controlling group. This, I think, is the more popular term nowadays outside of, say, really committed christian circles. People tend to use the word culture for any group that's very controlling. So, um, my kid went to this church, and the church told them, told my kid, don't call me anymore. Don't talk to me anymore. They are a cult. Now, that's a very unhealthy, ungodly practice. If the church is telling your kid that, then you define them as a cult. That's one definition of the term cult.

15
00:14:28.000 --> 00:15:08.000
Lee Brainard says three things. One, error on fundamental doctrine as the person of Christ or hell. Two, source of authority outside the Bible. Three, domineering leadership structure. I share Lee's definition, although lots of people gave definitions, because Lee combines both of Caden's definitions into one. So not only have they got fundamental error in theology, they also have a hyper controlling, manipulative, domineering environment. Okay, let's look at two more, and then I'll conclude question one. It, uh, means nothing anymore. Kevin Nelson says you guys throw the word cult around just as much as the left labels everyone they disagree with. Nazis.

16
00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:10.000
Nazis.

17
00:15:10.000 --> 00:16:55.000
Uh, I'm just reading how he wrote it. I do typos too. Kevin, don't worry about it. It's no big deal. Us Mormons get labeled as cultists all the time by you guys, which is freaking ridiculous. He says, in reality, we are the most biblically accurate christian church out there. Yeah, um, depending on how you define cult, Mormonism is or isn't one. If you define it as any sort of religion with a system of, you know, ritual, then Mormonism is one that's not derogatory. Though. If you define it as, um, a hyper controlling group, Mormonism has at times been that. And there's branches of Mormonism that does do that, uh, especially the reformed and the ones who kind of go back to Joseph fielding and the polygamy stuff. Um, and of course, there's things like the way they handle money, and there's questions about that stuff too. But if you define it as a group pretending to be christian, that's not like, that's definitely Mormonism like that. Just these are. These are just facts. Not trying to hurt anybody's feelings, not trying to call you names. Mormonism is not a christian religion because it deviates from the identity of Christ and the work of Christ and the message of the gospel in very significant ways. And so it should not rightly be called Christian. This is why, when Mormonism began, Joseph Smith said all the abominable, all the denominations that were existent at the time were abominations to God and that their theology was wrong and that Mormonism was going to fix the theology. And so they came up with a new theology, with new stories about Jesus, with a new understanding of the gospel, with a new understanding of the identity and nature of God, the person of Jesus Christ. Like, he's my older brother, he's a spirit creature. Um, but he has not always been God. That's key. God has not always been God. There's a time when God was not God.

18
00:16:55.000 --> 00:17:08.000
That is, uh, monotheism is thrown out the door. Modern m Mormons will sometimes try to bend Mormon theology to fit that. But if Mormonism is true, then what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught is true.

19
00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:28.000
The polygamy, the polytheism, um, those things would have to be true. The revelations that they give that contradict the fundamental nature. Now, what often happens with Mormons, why you would feel so confident to say this? Um, I think it was Lee who was it that said this?

20
00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:38.000
This was Kevin. So I think why Kevin could feel so confident saying this is because Mormons are taught, no, we believe in salvation through grace alone, through faith alone.

21
00:17:38.000 --> 00:17:50.000
But they use those words, but they don't mean the same thing. We believe in Jesus. We believe he died and rose again for us. He died for my sins. But you don't see, when you say Jesus, you define Jesus different. When you say died for sin, you define sin different.

22
00:17:50.000 --> 00:18:29.000
When you say faith in Jesus, you're not talking about the same Jesus. Like, this is, uh. This is sad. It's sobering. I don't like it. I don't rejoice in it. But mormonism is not Christianity. Like, either I'm not Christianity or you're not Christianity because we have incompatible views. But it's not just me. Extend that to Christianity, literally, throughout all the centuries. This is why Joseph Smith called it the restored church of Jesus Christ, because they believed they were restoring something that had been lost, because they didn't identify themselves as. We're the same broad umbrella category as the rest of the other people calling themselves christians. Modern Mormons. Forget this.

23
00:18:29.000 --> 00:18:34.000
Um, for whatever reason, it's like a growth tactic, I think. I don't know.

24
00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:36.000
Um.

25
00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:48.000
So, yeah, tough stuff. Uh, and then the last one we'll look at is here, um, Doreen, who just says, it's groups that want to control you. And that leads me to. And, Doreen, I think that you're okay with calling it that.

26
00:18:48.000 --> 00:19:07.000
Here's. Here's what I get concerned with, with the question of a cult, which is what you're asking about here. Uh, let me see. Let me see. I want to get your name right. It was Megan Nader. Megan ador. Um, when a church group is trying to control you, you can call that wrong and unhealthy without labeling them a cult.

27
00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:33.000
When a group is, um, pretending to be christian, but they're not, you can just say they're a false. They're fake christian, they're a fake christian group, they're a different religion, they're not actually christian. Um, you can say they have a false gospel. You don't have to use the word cult. The word cult is just confusing nowadays. I'm going to suggest that people be thoughtful and careful how they use it, because it is just confusing all these different definitions.

28
00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:42.000
When it comes to the definition, to me, the squirrelliest definition is the control one. I was at a church that tried to control me.

29
00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:46.000
Maybe and maybe not.

30
00:19:46.000 --> 00:20:31.000
Sometimes people exaggerate the hurt they've experienced at church, and then they turn and they go, they're a cult. And then they become. They become the transgressor against that group of people because they're exaggerating the harms that they've done, making them evil and horrible and terrible. Sometimes we do this to parents. When we grow up, we get to be in our twenties, and then we start thinking of all the things we're disappointed in our parents for. Then you get to your thirties and forties and you get more reasonable, and you go, okay, they made some mistakes, but boy, did I exaggerate. We want to be careful that we don't do that. On the flip side, there are hyper controlling, abusive, horrible churches that are like, run from those people, run from those guys. And so I don't want to make excuses for them. I just want to suggest the word cult is being used by everybody, and so it gets to be a little bit chaotic.

31
00:20:31.000 --> 00:20:36.000
Um, I don't know how to answer your question. What makes something a cult? Let me just say this.

32
00:20:36.000 --> 00:22:11.000
If a leader is trying to take more authority over your life than they have, you as. As a. As a. As a human being, have the responsibility to say no to a leader who tries to overly control you, that's okay, right? When, uh, uh, when Saul tried to kill Jonathan or to kill, uh, uh, David. David fled, and he ran from that. He would not submit to that. That's okay. You can flee. You can do what you gotta do. There if they're trying to tell you, for instance, a pastor tries to tell you whether you can buy a house or not, who you can get married to. Some guy. I've heard about this. A pastor who, you know their names. I won't tell you because I can't validate. The story is true, and maybe it's true. I just. I don't want to say it if I can't. But let's say that this story is true. The story I heard, without naming names, a pastor went to this person's daughter and told them the person I talked to was the father and told the daughter, God's, um, calling you to marry this person. And it was just out of the blue, it was kind of weird. And maybe the person, they were trying to make sure that the daughter stayed in that church, that local church, by assigning them a spouse that was within the church to keep them from leaving when they got married to someone else, I don't know. But this is the thing where the father goes, this was wrong, and this really messed up my family. It caused a lot of headache and heartache for us because this was not something that was of the lord. That's a huge example of, like, manipulative, domineering control amongst a pastor who might actually be a real Christian who just has major issues. It's okay to defend yourself there, to say, I reject that. I'm not going to listen to that. I'm not going to submit to that. And maybe even to get your family and say, this is not a healthy place for us to be.

33
00:22:11.000 --> 00:22:31.000
You've got to. You've got to. We live in a world with all kinds of weird scenarios. You've got to be able to respond to them in a godly way, protect your family. Um. Um. You know, Paul wrote to Corinth. They were not a cult, but they were a church with all kinds of issues, and they had major problems. They even have problems after that we know about in history. Um. So use wisdom.

34
00:22:31.000 --> 00:24:26.000
I just say this as you start thinking, uh, here's my one cautionary thing. As you start thinking about groups and leaders that are too controlling, we can become narcissists so fast where we start to worry about, they've hurt me this way and they insulted me this way, and they try to control me that way. And then we start feeling like everybody who comes in Sabring's correction says, hey, brother, I want to talk to you about your drinking. I think it's gotten out of control. And then you're like, colt, look, this guy's trying to control my life. Or someone says, hey, you know, uh, you're in your marriage. Like, I could see that there's some struggles here. Can we talk? And we have some counseling and maybe help you out. I want to pray with you, brother. Or maybe someone just says, hey, I want to give you accountability in your life and help disciple you. And you think, control, control. And what happens is some people who've been hurt by religious leaders, or maybe they're perceived hurts, maybe they're real hurts, or very frequently it's both, right? Real hurts and perceived hurts mixed. What they end up doing is they isolate. They say, you know what? No one gets to control me ever again. And then they won't submit, as the Bible calls us to, in a godly way, to our elders and to the leaders that we have over us. Because anybody stepping into any realm of control in your life, even healthy controls, even godly leadership, it is seen as something I can't accept, I can't embrace. And I've seen it over and over again, because I've dealt with lots of people who've come out of cults and weird groups, and whether they're controlling cults or they're non christian groups, and oftentimes they can never settle down into a healthy environment. You know what it's like? It's like a woman who is abused and truly hurt by a spouse, and then she leaves him, and divorce, uh, goes through, and maybe he sleeps with other people, or it was a justified divorce under those things I've talked about in my marriage and divorce series. Um, um. And so then there's a divorce that happens, and then she's like, I'm never getting married again.

35
00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:35.000
I'm never. The second that a husband tells her something that feels at all like it's infringing upon her total control of every aspect of her life.

36
00:24:35.000 --> 00:24:45.000
It's considered the same as the extreme abuse that she experienced before. This is something I think we have to watch out for. So, Megan Ador, I'd encourage you to watch out for that, too.

37
00:24:45.000 --> 00:25:32.000
You may well be like, I, uh, want to submit to godly leaders, and that then you probably don't have to worry about this, because if you have that heart, I want to submit to godly leadership, then you don't need to worry about this. But if you have the heart that's like, I'm scared of yielding to anybody in any way, then that's you're going to lead yourself into harm because you can become your own abuser. And, and leaning into your own sins and causing lots of harm. So I, in a pastoral sense, like, I want to just encourage you with that. Everybody listening, think about that. We must be protected from cults, but we also have to be protected from our own rogue spirituality. It goes both ways. All right, let's go to question number two. And this one's coming in from. Well, it's an anonymous question. And by the way, we've got all ten questions loaded up. So those of you who've submitted questions like, we've already got all ten. Um, okay, anonymous question.

38
00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:45.000
Any advice for a member of a church with a male lead elder pastoring alongside ordained female elders who often teach on Sundays, is there warrant to the idea that they are under his headship?

39
00:25:45.000 --> 00:26:27.000
This is a very confusing question for me. I'm gonna read it again. Okay, so any advice for a male, a, uh, member of a church with a male lead elder pastoring alongside ordained female elders? So he's like the lead pastor, and they're like, I'm going to use the term pastor interchangeably with elder. So he's like the lead pastor. And they're, they're also on staff pastors or ordained pastors that serve, but they're under him somehow. Like, he's the senior pastor. And they're, they're like, they're like associate pastors. Um, they often teach on Sundays. Okay. So they're, they're not just doing other ministries. They're teaching for the adults. They're doing, um, fully what the Bible talks about is eldering ministry or pastoral ministry. Is there warrant to the idea that they are under his headship?

40
00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:59.000
Okay, here, let me, let me take a stab at it and fill in a blank that I've got. As I read your question, some people say, um, yes, the Bible dictates these differences between male and female roles, as I've talked about in my extensive series on women in ministry. And they say, but that's okay because he's the covering, this one pastor who's over the other women, that presents a covering on them so that they are not violating one timothy two, where Paul says, I don't allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in submission.

41
00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:34.000
And they say, see, we've got it covered because he's the leader. He's the head. He's the covering over her. Um, I'll say a few things on this. A husband's the head of his wife. An elder is not the head of the other elders. Like that. These, these are category like confusion going on. If another, like that woman, those women who were elders who were ordained, they're married, most likely to other men than that guy, and he's going to come and claim he's their head. That's not the biblical teaching. The husband is not some other guy. That's weird. This is like hijacking categories.

42
00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:43.000
The biblical injunction too. We're going to actually look at it. Okay, so let me, um, bring up software here. First, Timothy two.

43
00:27:43.000 --> 00:28:03.000
I'm going to start in verse eleven here it says, and I want to show that this passage does not work, uh, with the idea that a male elder can be over other female elders who were basically, they're all pastors, they're all the biblical concept of an elder. That, that doesn't work with this passage and I'll explain why after I read it.

44
00:28:03.000 --> 00:29:14.000
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. Rather, she is to remain quiet. And then it goes on and gives reasons because of creation. Um, and this is right before he then gives the qualifications for an elder in one Timothy three, which are required to be a guy. Um, people will punch the sky all day long on this, but those elder requirements seem as though they have to be referring to a guy for a number of reasons, which are usually ignored by people who've addressed even my own work on this. They, um, just talk about other things. Um, this doesn't work because the, the thing is not, I don't allow women to teach or exercise authority without a man as her head. That's not the teaching. It's, I don't allow a woman, period, whether she has a head or not, or whatever, to teach or exercise authority over a man. I think this is specifically talking about the kind of ministry that happens on like the elder does for the congregation. I think school teachers and other environments and women being theologians or even teaching at a Bible college and stuff like that. Like, I'm not talking about that. I don't have a problem with those things.

45
00:29:14.000 --> 00:29:26.000
And um, I've dealt with this in great detail in my series. I'll link it below women in ministry. It's like, I don't remember how many hours. It's like 40 something hours of content or something like that. 30 something hours. It's some ridiculous amount.

46
00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:30.000
Um, you're welcome. If you want to dig deep, you can dig deep there.

47
00:29:30.000 --> 00:30:04.000
But if in the scenario that you give me here, um, there's a senior male leader who has other females who are also considered elders or pastors. And it's like they're going to teach and exercise authority over men as long as they have another guy that's even higher up slightly than them. That's not the formula. This is not what Paul suggests. It doesn't at all skid around. I don't permit a woman to teach her to exercise authority over a man. I think that we have to just go with scripture on this. And I get the impulses, I get the impulses to say, but, Mike, you don't understand. They're gifted or they're the only people that are stepping up.

48
00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:39.000
Theres a number of reasons to try to push back on that. Right. I can say, hey, theyre gifted, but theyre exercising those gifts in ways in which God has not called them to. How about give them other ways to do it that would honor the Lord more because hes called them to. How about, Mike, theres nobody else that will step up and ill say, well, it might be that in your church, you have not cultivated enough of the men, and this is why the women are filling the gap. And then by putting women in these roles, youre going to propagate that even more for the next generation, so theres even less men involved, that you're actually causing a long term harm by doing what you think is a short term good. That may well be the case, but here's the bottom line. Maybe that maybe none of that's accurate.

49
00:30:39.000 --> 00:31:41.000
Scripture tells us how to run the church. It's Jesus's church. It's not mine. I don't have to like it. I should like it, but I don't have to like it to just do it and say, God, this is what you've called us to do. Our culture is just, um, so opposed to these things, violently opposed to these things, that it makes it very difficult for christians to sometimes sober up to the point where we say, I don't care what you think. I'm going to honor the Lord and you're going to think I'm weird, and that's okay. This is going to be the right thing to do because God says to do it and just to be okay with that. Um, yeah, so there's my thoughts on that. God give you wisdom. If that's your church and that's your environment and you're struggling with that and you're trying to figure out how to draw lines. You want to show respect even to a woman who's up there teaching and not be disruptive or be belligerent, but you want to also try to honor God's word and try to push forward an understanding of biblical truth and deciding what to do. Do I stay? Do I go? All those things are very challenging things.

50
00:31:41.000 --> 00:31:43.000
All right, question number three.

51
00:31:43.000 --> 00:31:50.000
Dawn in acts. Asks about acts 1730, try to say, asks about acts.

52
00:31:50.000 --> 00:32:28.000
It was just hard for me. Uh, what does Paul mean by God overlooking the times of ignorance? Was he more lenient toward idolatry before the time of Christ? Or did he stop trying to save the idolaters of that time? What does that mean? Let's look at this passage. This is stuff that I find exciting. I think some people would find it annoying. Why are you asking about these things? I like it. Okay, I'm done. I'm glad you asked. Let's dig in. Because I think if we ask hard questions of scripture and we do it with sobriety and humility. Sobriety that we're not making up weird stuff. Humility that we're willing to say, maybe I just don't know the answer. That's okay. I tried. Then there's a lot of good that can come out of it.

53
00:32:28.000 --> 00:32:46.000
All right. Acts 1730, the times of ignorance. God overlooked. But now he commands all people everywhere to repent because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed. And of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.

54
00:32:46.000 --> 00:36:28.000
That's powerful stuff. I love this stuff. I'm going to back up, okay. Because we're going to dig in deeper. This is Paul witnessing to the Gentiles. And he's witnessing at a place called the Areopagus. And here's, like a gathering of a bunch of religious people. They're not christian, okay? They're religious. Pagan religion was the norm. Everybody worshiped these different gods. And Paul stands in the midst of where they're all there promoting and arguing about their different philosophies and which God's better and which God they worship and all this. So Paul in verse 22, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, he says, and look at how he reaches out to the Gentiles. I'm going to point out some things because they're just really neat men of Athens. I perceive that in every way. You are very religious. This is not an insult. The Bible does not use the word religious as an insult. Christians are religious. There is good religion, there's bad religion, there's true religion, there's false religion. But religious itself is not an insult. Paul is complimenting them that there is this sort of spiritual care and awareness. It's distorted, it's messed up. But he starts off with building a bridge to them. Those who are like, you have a religious spirit. You're religious. Like, this is, this is. You're weird is when you say things like this because you don't understand. I think the Bible's actual treatment of these things. Um, anyway, this is something I had to learn, right? Because I used to say, when I was like a kid, I was a kid, I was probably even in my twenties saying it. Um, and it was reading the Bible that got me to stop. But I would say, I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. The problem is you have religion, and I have a relationship with Jesus. That was it. You have a religion, I have relationship. They're like, wait a minute. No, no. You have a religion without a relationship. I have religion that has a real relationship with God, but we both have religion. Let's be, let's be reasonable, all right? Verse 23. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription. Now, this is why he says, you guys are very religious. This is the reason he goes, you have an altar that says, to the unknown God, hey, hey, there's some God. We're sure there's more out there that we don't know. There's some God out there that we might be missing. When these guys would travel, they go to some island and they'd be like, ooh, hi. Nice to meet you. What's your God here? Oh, we worship the God of shibiboladibilido. And they go, well, we'll worship him too. We'll get a shrine to him. You guys can come to the Areopagus, and we'll have a little altar there, and you guys can worship shibiboladibilido, or whatever fake name I made up. So they have this to the unknown God. Paul's going to use this as a bridge to witness. He says, what therefore you worship is unknown. This I proclaim to you, right? Because they have sort of unwittingly said, hey, there's a God. There's a God out there we don't know. And Paul's like, guess what? Let me tell you about the God you don't know. And then he tells him about the only God, the God who made the world and everything in it, being lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by bait and by man, nor is he served by human hands, even though the temple was there as a, as a way for the jews to worship. It wasn't like it was literally where God lived. Cause he like needed a dwelling place to live. It was rather for relationships so he could be amongst. Amongst his people. God is beyond all things. He transcends space and time. Or at least space. Time is confusing to me. Nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything. Since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. Now, is God served by human hands? Yes. But is he served by human hands as though he needed anything? No, we don't. You don't give God a sacrifice. Cause he's hungry. You do so to deal with the sins of your. Of yourself or others. And to deal with purity and things like that. Ultimately, to picture Jesus Christ. So he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. There's nothing needed to sustain God. This is kind of the doctrine of divine asseity. That God made everything and needs nothing.

55
00:36:28.000 --> 00:38:24.000
Mind blowing theology stuff here in his preaching to them. But he didn't use the phrase divine aseity. He's just. He says it in more normal language. And, uh, he made from one man, every nation of mankind. To live on all the face of the earth, having determined, allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place. And this is like the anti sort of racism verse. One of them, anyways, from one man, every nation of mankind has been made. We all. We all share in his image, um, that they should seek God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. So the idea is that God wanted people to know him, but they didn't seek him. They didn't actually follow him. Romans one talks about this more. They rejected the knowledge of God. They worshiped idols and the idolatry, the fact that there's Areopagus, it's a stark thing. He's surrounded by idols, none of them to the true God. And one that just says, hey, this is for whichever God we're missing. And so Paul sees them and he knows you guys are worshiping everything but God. Let me tell you about the true God. Let me tell you about the one that you have rejected, who made you, who created you. And he wants you to seek God and feel your way toward him and find him. Yet he's not actually far from each of us. For in him we live and move and have our being. Paul actually quoting, quoting probably a poet, a secular poet here, um, a guy named epimenides. And so Paul quotes them because he's going to use everything, even his knowledge of their beliefs, that he doesn't agree with. He'll pull out pieces to try to point them and direct them to Christ. Kind of building a bridge, as even some of your own poets have said, for we indeed are his offspring. This, uh, at least the footnote here, I don't remember this off the top of my head. The footnote here says, uh, from Aras Iratus's poem, phenomena, phenomena. Anyway, not that you cared that much. Uh, we are indeed his offspring. So this is actually something Paul affirms. Everybody is God's offspring does not mean we're his children.

56
00:38:24.000 --> 00:39:01.000
Paul speaking in the sense of creation. He created the earth and the heavens. He created mankind from one man. We are all his offspring. His creation doesn't make, we have to be adopted to become his children. Relationally, that's an important theological thing. All right, giving you more than you asked for. But it's awesome stuff. In scripture. We ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone or an image formed by the art and imagination of man. Right? You were supposed to feel towards God. You were created by God. And then you went and took stuff that God made. You shoved it together and go, here's a God, here's a God, here's a God.

57
00:39:01.000 --> 00:39:15.000
God isn't those things. He's not even like those things. He's completely separate from creation. And so what are the times of ignorance? It's idolatry and paganism. What does it mean that God is overlooked? I think the answer ultimately is in the next verse.

58
00:39:15.000 --> 00:39:18.000
There's a day he'll judge the world in righteousness.

59
00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:37.000
Why he's overlooked the, um. He's overlooking. To answer your question more directly, don, he's, um, not quote, uh, did he stop trying to save the idolaters of that time? No. No. He was always hoping they would feel towards him and find him. Right? And wanting them to be saved and to know the truth and the knowledge of God.

60
00:39:37.000 --> 00:40:06.000
What he was doing is he was waiting and being long suffering, that he didn't judge them in their sins because he was going to in the future through Jesus. This is where scripture says, God is long suffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to eternal life. So that God's waiting and his overlooking of people's ignorance is that more people would be saved in the long run. Because he's not just looking at this one guy that deserves judgment. He has the whole timeline of creation, and he's like, yes, but his grandkids going to get saved.

61
00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:11.000
You see what I mean? God is long suffering, not willing that any should perish.

62
00:40:11.000 --> 00:40:28.000
Um, hope that answers that question. All right, I'll go to the next question. This is from Raymond link, who said, my wife and I are having difficulty ministering to her father, who doesn't seem to care about the topic of God at all. How do you help someone realize the importance of salvation?

63
00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:58.000
Um, Raymond, that is a deep, difficult issue, and I don't know that I'm any better at it than you are. I'm just being honest as a human. Okay, I'm sorry, the word of God, what sort of. Here's. Since I don't have a personal statement of, oh, here's the thing. I do. That always works. I don't have that. Um, I've found that I've pleaded with people, um, even people who were dying and knew they were dying, to care about God, and just to no avail. Sometimes, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it's like, you don't even have to try.

64
00:40:58.000 --> 00:41:41.000
They're on that page. So I don't have, like, a tactic I can share with you. What we can do is we can try to think in our heads. Think of scripture. Does the Bible anywhere give us tools or imply this tool is useful in, uh, raising people's awareness of God? And there are some things that happen in scripture, and some things you can do and some things you can't. So one of those you can't do is hardship. Hardship causes people to call upon the Lord. And God, even strategically brings hardship into people's lives as a way of getting them to turn to him. It doesn't always work, though. So in Isaiah, God talks to them and he says, look, the whole head is sick. The body, he's giving an analogy of their nation, like, your whole head's sick. Your body's all messed up. You're just beat up in every way.

65
00:41:41.000 --> 00:42:03.000
But when will you return to me? They weren't learning the lesson. They were going through hardship, but they still wouldn't turn to God. But there are other times, like in the book of judges, where it seems like they did do that. Like, they went through really low and difficult and dark times. And then it caused a revival because people finally, they tried everything they could to fix their situation, until finally they went, you know what? I guess we need God.

66
00:42:03.000 --> 00:42:18.000
And so hardship can sometimes bring out our seriousness, the seriousness with which we will look at God, with which we will consider our eternal lives. People are very, like, uh, often very, um.

67
00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:41.000
What's the word I'm looking for? Cavalier about their. About heaven and hell and about their eternal life. Um, I know I saw this. I don't know if it was legit because I think it was a screenshot. So I saw it was supposedly elon musk posting. Maybe he really did. I don't know. I don't, don't care. It's just an example, posting, um, that he was cool with the idea of going to hell because most, most people throughout time were going to be there anyways.

68
00:42:41.000 --> 00:43:05.000
And, um, I thought, this is kind of, it's clever because it's like meant to be sort of a moral indictment against the idea of hell. It's too exclusionary. If a bunch of people are there, then obviously something's wrong with it. Um, and I'm like, that's cute, until you go to hell. And then you're like, yeah, I was being really dumb. Um, that was a really foolish way to process where I spend eternity.

69
00:43:05.000 --> 00:43:26.000
It was literally the if all your friends jump off the Brooklyn bridge reasoning, but applied to eternity. And, and so I'm sure there's more he would say about that and questions he would have about that. But, but the reality that, um, people don't think very seriously about these things when they feel those things are far off.

70
00:43:26.000 --> 00:44:03.000
Hardship makes them feel close, pain makes them feel close. So it's one of the good things that come out of our hardship as we get more serious about life. Bethany, uh, Hamilton, the surfer who was, she was, had her arm taken, uh, off by a shark. Yeah, I think it was her arm was taken off by a shark. She was telling a story how this caused her to be serious about life and about Christianity, uh, and about God in a way she never was before and in a way that none of her friends were. So if I remember her story right, her friends generally didn't think deeply about God or deeply about Christianity or their christian commitments. And she suddenly started thinking real deep about that stuff because of this crazy experience that she had.

71
00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:43.000
And so God brought this wonderful good thing out of it. Now, how would you do this for Bethany if she hadn't had this experience? I don't know. I'm just saying hardship is something that God sometimes uses. One thing that also works is sometimes strangers coming into people's lives because they're sort of, they've tuned you out. Okay, so Jesus sort of talked about this, um, and the Bible, let me give an illustration of scripture. Um, God's people wouldn't. Well, okay. I said Jesus first. I'll mention that Jesus went to Nazareth and there, people would not listen. They, there would not be much healings there. There was no respect. Prophet has no honor in his own home, in his own people. That's what Jesus said.

72
00:44:43.000 --> 00:45:39.000
Sometimes you need somebody else to go and not you. You need to try to figure out who else can go and talk to this person, this loved one of mine, because they're not listening to me. And it is partly about me. I don't want to be offended by that. Let me be smart. Someone else needs to go. So I used to pray for my dad, um, because we had had conversation. He was the first one to try to talk me sort of down when I first started getting real serious about God. And, um, we didn't have a close relationship for many years, but now we doubt we do, but we didn't, and we didn't used to. And so I would pray God, send someone into his life, send people into his life, send someone into his life, and this would become a regular prayer. And God did do that, and it made a difference. So that's something you can do with Israel. God sends all these prophets and they don't listen. And then finally he says, all right, I'll speak to you with the, with the language of a foreign people. And so they get carried away to, like, Assyria and stuff, and Babylon, and they're hearing the foreign languages. There is something new and fresh about this, the way it's being communicated.

73
00:45:39.000 --> 00:46:11.000
Um, and there's, there's, there's maybe a parallel there. Maybe I'm being a bit allegorical, I admit. Um, so I wouldn't push it too far, but, but I thought that was interesting. There's another thing there in scripture, um, other than that, in scripture, um, a straightforward approach is more common in scripture than it is in our lives today. We tend to beat around the bush western culture. Okay. We tend to be very, very strategic and very slow and very beat around the bush.

74
00:46:11.000 --> 00:46:50.000
The biblical approach usually is pretty straightforward. People in scripture tend to just call it like it is and say it exactly as it is, you know, and if you haven't done that yet, if you haven't done that at any point, you might try that with your loved one, is just tell them. Try to create a moment where they can really listen to you and tell them straightforward, exactly how it is, you know, use true words, tell them the thing, the thing that you wish they knew and that you're trying to find some workaround way of telling them. Have you just tried telling them? That's also, I think, a biblical option that we tend to leave off the table. I hope some of that stuff helps. God give you wisdom. Take it all with.

75
00:46:50.000 --> 00:47:26.000
With a grain of salt in the sense that I'm just trying to pull from scripture things that may or may not apply to that exact scenario. Let's go to question number five. Caleb McMurtry has a question. Says, hi, Mike. Love your ministry. Thank you very much. Caleb, can you talk about your views on God's relationship to time? Oh, interesting. We brought this up in the first question briefly. Personally, I find the timeless God view incoherent and unbiblical. It seems he operates within time. Thanks. Yeah. Um, here's why it's a challenge, Caleb, so you've got. Okay, I don't understand this stuff that well. You know, who does? Um.

76
00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:49.000
Did I get rid of it? I just reorganized all my stuff. It's not here. I used to have it on my desk here. It was William Lane Craig's book, God in time. I was trying to wrap my head around it. Still over my head. Don't know if I agree with him on that conclusion, but he at least spent many years on that subject of God in time in his philosophical research. And he's a Christian. Um, so you could check it out. God in time by William link Craig. Relatively, uh, short book.

77
00:47:49.000 --> 00:48:21.000
I'm not endorsing it. For those who want to research. You might look into it. Okay, here's where the challenge is to me. Um, I do look at. There's a theory and b theory of time. Okay. This is for those who don't know, the idea is like, hey, is time, uh, the way we feel it is like it's a sequence of events. So the past is gone. That happened. It's not happening anymore. It's gone. I'm using clumsy, normal people language here, and I'm going to keep doing that. For those who are like, you're super into the careful terminology. That's fine. You take all day defining your terms, and I'll be done explaining all this long before you get there.

78
00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:38.000
But the, uh, the idea is like, yeah, so time happens in sequences, like moments. And each moment passes. That's gone, and the next moment comes. The future has not yet happened. It's not a reality. The past is not a current reality. It was at a moment and it moved on. Um, or we moved on, maybe.

79
00:48:38.000 --> 00:49:29.000
Okay. That's the theory of time that I hold, too. I think that's what is called b theory of time. Then there's, uh, a theory of time. And I always get the a and b mixed up. But the other theory of time is that time is sort of happening all at the same moment. M and words break down here when you talk about time, but all the things that are happening have happened or will happen simply sort of are real right now, are real. All the words fail me, fail me here, because what do I say instead of right now? But everything is sort of, um, immediate. And the theory of time that I think makes more sense. And, um, even though it's not currently the most popular amongst people who argue about this stuff, is the b theory of time real past or, uh, the past happened and it's no longer real. The future will happen is not yet real.

80
00:49:29.000 --> 00:49:38.000
That being said, okay, so when God created the universe, there was the beginning of time.

81
00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:57.000
God did not simply exist in time forever and then create the universe at some specific point. I think there's a bunch of weird contradictions that don't make sense there because it's my opinion, okay. I'm not placing this burden upon every christian to agree with me. You're asking me how I process this. So the beginning of creation is the beginning of time.

82
00:49:57.000 --> 00:50:17.000
And then God is, um, what they call sans time or without time. God is simply existent eternally or timelessly existent. And then he creates heaven and earth, and he, uh, creates in the moment of the first moment of time.

83
00:50:17.000 --> 00:51:02.000
So God would have had to have been timeless apart from creation. He couldn't have existed in time before. Time and time and space seem like they're perfectly tied together. Like, you get one, you get the other. And so, yeah, God had this timeless thing. Now some say, okay, now that we're in creation, now that days and weeks and months are ticking by, God is still outside of time, and he sort of dips into time. And now's where your theory of time comes into it. And I admit it's over my head. Some of you are listening, going, Mike, you're talking past your understanding. Of course I am. I admit that most people are on this issue, though we should grant that. Um, so some would say God is outside of time, and he's sort of like, almost like dipping his fingers into time at different points.

84
00:51:02.000 --> 00:51:51.000
That could be consistent with the idea that all of time is sort of happening, um, immediately, and he's sort of sticking his fingers all across time. Others, um, would say that he's actually, um, as time progresses, and it really is like a clock, he can kind of step into it and out of it. Others would say he's like, outside of time and in time, both. Okay, I'm open to that idea. Personally, I think that one seems like it makes a little more sense, because as you read scripture, like you say, it seems as though God is literally experiencing time. And I don't think it's just anthropomorphic language. Um, I think there is some anthropomorphic language there. But God responds and reacts to people in time. Certainly Jesus existed in time, moment to moment to moment, when he was literally indwelling, uh, in human form, I should say.

85
00:51:51.000 --> 00:51:56.000
So. God seems to be acting in the moment.

86
00:51:56.000 --> 00:52:40.000
There's a now and there's a past and there's a future, all in relation to God as he's interacting with humankind, the way the prophets speak. But more than that, it just seems assumed, again, this could be someone saying, well, God is just sort of accommodating our understanding of things. You know, it's a little too complicated for him to sort of explain constantly how he's outside of time, um, and not really experiencing time, but people will then say, oh, but this brings up other issues. If God's experiencing time, are you suggesting God changes and all that? And I'll say, look, I don't need to answer all those questions to be able to at least acknowledge this piece of the puzzle. God seems to be experiencing time. So the two. I know I'm rambling, you guys. I apologize. I don't. I don't have this all worked out as well as I should, um, to talk about it. But.

87
00:52:40.000 --> 00:53:15.000
But the. The two things that seem. That I'm open to, uh, God is simultaneously. And you got to use that word in some very flexible way here. He. Simultaneously outside of time and within time. In the same sense that the Holy Spirit is present, um, and yet also transcendent in creation, but beyond or transcendent of creation, that God will, uh, be present in the person of Jesus, yet he cannot even be held by the heavens and the earth, and all the things that God has created cannot sustain or cannot contain him.

88
00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:56.000
So all that seems to be true at the same time. So God could be both outside of and within time. Maybe. Maybe that works. I don't know. I'm playing with, with. With chemicals. I don't understand here. Another option, and this is what William Lynn Craig suggests, is that God is. Was outside of time. Um, sands or without creation. You want. You're tempted to say before creation, but it's not technically before, but it's sans or like God exists. Creation does not exist. That is a timeless state. God is outside of time. The moment the universe is created, the moment God makes the world. Now, he enters into time, and he actually does exist within time, not outside of time, but simply within it.

89
00:53:56.000 --> 00:55:00.000
I don't lean towards that view. I would think he's both out and in, but I do not understand the implications of this stuff. It goes beyond my head. And so I hold it very loosely. And I would not base my theology on it. I would just say, ah, this seems like it works. Let me not argue with anybody about it. Um, where you want to do is you say, personally, I find the timeless God view incoherent and unbiblical. It seems he operates within time. I think that whatever view you have, you should be able to harmonize it with scripture in the sense that what the scripture seems to say, it can still say. So if you want to say God is perfectly outside of time, you still going to say, but it's okay for me to talk about it like he's in time and act like he's, uh, working in time and moments are going by and he's involved in those moments. Otherwise, if your view can't say that, then you are actually seeming to contradict scripture. So I'm kind of with you on that, Caleb. Sorry, guys, for that weird, confusing ramble. Let's go to trippy penguins question. It says, uh, what are your thoughts on election being about service and blessing rather than salvation?

90
00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:06.000
For example, Judas was chosen by Jesus to serve. To serve him, but obviously wasn't saved.

91
00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:27.000
Um, yeah, I think that we should not make the phrase election, um, one dimensional in scripture. Let me. Here's my response to you. I don't think. I wouldn't. I wouldn't accept either of your options here. Tribute payment, personally. So one option is election is either about service and blessing, or it's about salvation.

92
00:55:27.000 --> 00:56:05.000
I don't think it's an either or. I think romans nine is interesting because it's talking about, um, Jacob and Esau. But Jacob and Esau are not elect unto salvation and damnation, but rather, Jacob is elect to be like, the son of the promise. Esau is not. That doesn't mean he's, uh, unelector. So this is not about salvation. But then there's other things in acts where it talks about, um, those, uh, who are effectively elect, who were predetermined that they are saved. And so then these guys are elected to salvation. It seems, at least in that one verse.

93
00:56:05.000 --> 00:57:05.000
There's other times where Cyrus, uh, is my elect or chosen vessel. And that was. That was yet to something. So what is going on here? How do I define election in scripture? Well, you have two different things. You have the doctrine of election. That's not a word. That's a doctrine. Then you have the word election or elect or chosen. The word is just like the english word. I can elect a president. I can elect the school board person. I can elect or choose to get a hamburger for lunch. I can choose for anything. It's a super broad category. It could apply to all kinds of things. Only context will tell you what the scripture is referring to. So when God chose Israel, he was not saying, only Jews will get saved. Only Israel can be saved. Yet they were his chosen nation. This doesn't mean they were the only ones to be saved, but they were chosen for certain purposes. But then when you're in Christ, when who he God calls us and we're electing Christ, that is definitely related to salvation.

94
00:57:05.000 --> 00:57:12.000
You just have to look at the context. Don't have a, uh, m one broad label you put on election.

95
00:57:12.000 --> 00:58:03.000
We do this a lot in theology. It took me years to figure this out. We have a doctrine, election or salvation, what it means to be saved. And we define the doctrine, and then we go read the Bible, and every time we see that word salvation or save or electricity or whatever, we then, or justified, every time we see that word, we read the doctrine into the text. When that doctrine is not a dictionary definition of that term. I know that sounds a little weird, but, for instance, the Bible frequently uses the word saved to not talk about salvation, the doctrine. You just have to read the text in context, like it's normal language a lot of the time, and then you'll do better off. My opinion on that. I know it's a massive debate, and, um. Yeah, so Judas was chosen by Jesus to be one of the. One of the twelve. But chosen to be one of the twelve is not the same as eternal life.

96
00:58:03.000 --> 00:58:08.000
Um, not in Judas's case. It certainly didn't. Didn't one didn't correlate to the other.

97
00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:23.000
Number seven, Christian Tweed says, could the mark of the beast being on the forehead or right hand symbolize something that dominates the mind or actions of those who submit to it, instead of a literal mark on the body, as many assume?

98
00:58:23.000 --> 00:58:32.000
Um, it's tough to say, um, because the mark is specifically related to. Well, let me. Let me back up.

99
00:58:32.000 --> 00:58:38.000
Um, there's an angel that goes about in revelation putting a mark on all of God's people.

100
00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:58.000
I'm so open to that not being a physical, literal mark, but something that sort of like an angel could see or something, you know, that there's something that marks us in that sense, spiritually. That, uh, angel puts this mark on all of them. It doesn't, it doesn't require. Maybe it's true, but it doesn't require that that's a visible mark. So then wouldn't I then say the mark of the beast doesn't have to be visible?

101
00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:04.000
Sort of. But it has to be practical. There's an application of the mark because without the mark, you cannot buy or sell.

102
00:59:04.000 --> 00:59:42.000
Okay, so it has to be something outwardly visible enough that you can't buy or sell. Does it have to then physically be a mark on the hand or the forehead? Could it metaphorically be something like a gesture that one makes, a statement that one makes that declares your allegiance to the beast and that if you will not do like. So in, um, going back to the first century, you had a pinch, you had to take a pinch of incense and you had to burn it to Caesar as an act of loyalty to Caesar as lord. That was a spiritual declaration, not just a political one. They were combined, but it was spiritual. So christians would not pinch the incense to Caesar and it caused them all manner of persecution.

103
00:59:42.000 --> 00:59:47.000
Um, that you could even say that that's like the right hand doing something.

104
00:59:47.000 --> 01:00:14.000
It is. It's a loose. It's very loose. Okay. But you could at least get the idea that the right hand does something that then allows you to prove your allegiance to the regime or whatever, that then lets you buy and sell things. It could also be a physical mark. It could also be something that was under the skin. It could. It could be a number of things. I just don't know. Um, I'm. I'm more open than a lot of people on that. In that respect.

105
01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:40.000
In that respect, I'm just more like, yeah, maybe it's. That could be this other thing, but it would have to be something that allows us to buy or sell, which means it can't just be this sort of invisible, pure metaphor thing. It has to be something that can be demonstrated in front of people. You're purchasing stuff from water is really amazing. Alright, question number eight.

106
01:00:40.000 --> 01:01:19.000
Um, midnight 791 says, did ancient Israelites believe in the concept of a multi personal God? By multi personal God, I mean a concept similar to the Trinity where there's one God made up of multiple persons. The, ah, answer is, like, complicated. Um, in a sense, no, they did not. Um, let me see if I can find a verse for you that I do not remember where it is. Um, yeah. Okay, here it is. Genesis, 1924.

107
01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:47.000
But there's this. Okay, so they did not have like a doctrine of the trinity or something like that. But there's these moments in scripture that are like, what is going on there? Um, here's one of them. It says, and keep in mind, Lord, here, capital l o r d, when it's in all caps like that. It's actually the divine name. So it's Yahweh. Okay, so then the Lord, or Yahweh, reigned on Sodom and Gomorrah, sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

108
01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:56.000
So the Lord reigned it from the Lord out of heaven.

109
01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:59.000
That's interesting.

110
01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:12.000
You know what else is interesting? When you back up and you're in Genesis, there you have the visitation of these three beings that come to see Abraham, and one of them appears to be God, specifically the angel of the Lord.

111
01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:16.000
Two of them go down to Sodom and Gomorrah. One of them does not.

112
01:02:16.000 --> 01:03:05.000
They go and they get lot out. And then the one that was left, the one that seemed to be identified as God, as the angel of the Lord, which I would say, you know, you find evidence that that is actually, uh, one of the persons of the, of the Trinity, then rains fire and brimstone from Yahweh out of heaven. This, this seems multi personal, yet there's one Yahweh, yet there seems to be this plurality that's going on there. Super interesting. What is that? That's Genesis, 1924. What is that? What is going on here? How really wild. Did, did ancient Jews look at that and go see God is multi personal? No, they didn't really do that. Um, but it's embedded in their text. There are things they didn't. Even Jesus says it. He's like, there's things that you guys don't get in the scriptures. Like, you read them, you think in them, you find eternal life. But these are they which are written of me.

113
01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:07.000
What I will say is this.

114
01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:23.000
The Old Testament, primarily, when it came to the nature of God, was attempting to close the door on anybody thinking that there were multiple gods. Primarily, the attempt is to stop people believing polytheism.

115
01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:42.000
Secondarily, it does leave the door open for the doctrine of the Trinity, because the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded on there's one God. Boom. This has been the big thing that goes against all the cultures of the time and area and all this other stuff up until more recently, because Christianity has had that big of an impact on the world.

116
01:03:42.000 --> 01:04:04.000
There's one God, three persons. God is like tripersonal, and you can debate on the meaning first and all this stuff. But basically we're like, hey, there's the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they have like some sort of relational thing going on between them, Father, son and spirit. The Father's God, the spirit is God, the Son is God. Yet there's only one God. So, uh, they're just the one God.

117
01:04:04.000 --> 01:05:47.000
Interesting, interesting stuff. So that is what the Old Testament does. Now when it says, like, the Lord your God is one, it is. There's maybe hints there because Elohim is plural, but it's not tied to plurality in the rest of the sentence. So it's not saying the Lord your God is ones or something, but it's still that there's something that's going on there. There's concepts where moments, um, where the angel of the Lord stuff shows up. And so there is a, put it this way, there is a puzzle, um, pieces or openings left in the Old Testament that are filled by the revelation of the Son as God the Son. There are prefaces or the beginnings, the shadows of the Old Testament, that when you trace that shadow, you realize this has been Jesus casting that shadow back upon the Old Testament. So I would not say the Old Testament teaches the trinity. And I do not think that the ancient Jews thought God is a plurality, if, uh, there were any. I'm just not aware of them. I haven't studied all the ancient jewish stuff. Maybe someone could chime in on that. But I don't need them to, because the Bible does give us progressive revelation, which means the New Testament revelation of the Trinity, of the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn't need to be repeating what the old Testament said for it to be true. It has to be consistent with what the Old Testament said for it to be true. You catch the difference? I learn new things about God as I keep reading more stuff that God has revealed. As long as the stuff that's new is consistent with the old, then there is that continuity. It can be new information as long as it's consistent with the old. And I think we have that in the doctrine of the Trinity. A, uh, lot more to study there. And interesting, really, really neat stuff.

118
01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:51.000
Um, but yeah, um, the groundwork is there.

119
01:05:51.000 --> 01:05:55.000
Then the revelation of Jesus Christ gives us more information.

120
01:05:55.000 --> 01:06:34.000
We also have things about where the spirit of God is discussed and the angel of the Lord content and stuff like that, where it's like, this is God, but he's not the same as Yahweh in every way. There's like some difference going on here. And the New Testament brings all that together. All right, let's go to question number nine. This is from Elijah, who says, hello, mike. What is Paul talking about in romans ten, verses six and seven, when he's speaking of Christ descending and ascending, the way he phrases things, it seems like it should be the other way around. Let's look at that. Romans ten, six.

121
01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:48.000
Um, but the righteousness based on faith says, do not say in your heart who will ascend into heaven. That is to bring Christ down, or who will descend into the abyss, that is to bring Christ up from the dead.

122
01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000
Um, it's been a while since I actually have a teaching through Romans.

123
01:06:52.000 --> 01:07:21.000
I'll link that down below, and hopefully I can remember enough off the top of my head because this took some work looking through all the different verses. When it says, do not say in your heart, it's quoting deuteronomy here. And the deuteronomy passage is about the law. Um, God has revealed a lot to them, and they're being told, don't act like someone, um, needs to ascend to heaven to get the knowledge of God and bring it back to us.

124
01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:41.000
Don't act like that. That's not the case. God has revealed himself to you. He met with Moses on the mountain. He gave you his law. You must receive and believe the things that have been declared. That it's kind of asking people to be bound to what God has revealed in the person of Jesus here as you apply it there. So don't say, like, who will ascend into heaven?

125
01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:48.000
Um, and then who will descend into the abyss would be a reference to, like, probably the graveyard.

126
01:07:48.000 --> 01:08:01.000
Okay. So the verse seven is a little bit easier, I think, to tackle who will descend into the abyss, that is, to ring Christ up from the dead. If you act like the problem of death is not solved in Jesus, then it's as though you're. You're.

127
01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:09.000
You're not raising Jesus from the dead. You're just like, you're denying the fact that he died for you.

128
01:08:09.000 --> 01:08:19.000
That that's what. That's how I would interpret verse seven. And then six. Do not say in your heart who will ascend into heaven. That is to bring Christ down.

129
01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:36.000
Um, the ascension of Christ could be what's being discussed here in the book of acts. We read about this. The ascension of Christ is actually a really big deal in scripture. It's referenced a bunch in the New Testament. It's like an important doctrine that it's important to the Bible, even though christians don't talk about it much.

130
01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:57.000
Um, it could be talking about the ascension of Christ bringing Christ down is acting like he didn't ascend after his resurrection. Ascend and get that affirmation of, like, this is the proof. So you have to understand how the ascension functions theologically. The ascension of Christ is like God saying, that's my messenger. That's my, uh, son.

131
01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:48.000
What he has said is the truth. What he has done was just and right and true. The resurrection kind of functions in a similar way. The resurrection is the affirmation of the purity and goodness and righteousness and godness of Jesus. Death could not keep him down because he has life in himself. And then the ascension being welcomed into the presence of the father is like a affirmation, a vindication of Jesus, vindicating then the entire message of the gospel. So he's saying to people, don't here act like, um. If you want to be saved, if you want the righteousness of faith, don't act like Jesus didn't fulfill the job and get affirmed by the Father as having died for your sins, risen again, received into heaven, giving the affirmation of the truthfulness of all that he has proclaimed, showing that he is God's final word for the salvation of mankind.

132
01:09:48.000 --> 01:10:14.000
You want to be righteous by faith. You just. You trust in Christ. That's what you do. Just like you had to obey the words of Moses, now you need to follow the truth of Christ. I hope that that helps. I'll link my romans ten. Study below and we'll see. It's been years since I taught it, and I'm going, like, there's other stuff there, but maybe there'll be something interesting. All right, um, question number ten.

133
01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:29.000
Grace Walton says, hi, Mike. My pastor posed this question, and I appreciate hearing your thoughts. According to scripture, if the disciples you make, if the disciple you make doesn't make a disciple, have you really made a disciple?

134
01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:51.000
Okay, I'm going to read that. Here's the quote. Here's a quote from Grace's pastor, um, who may be a wonderful guy. We're just analyzing the quote. We're not making a whole assessment of his ministry or anything like that. For those who might kind of pull that too far. Okay, so the pastor says, according to scripture, if the disciple you make doesn't make a disciple, have you really made a disciple?

135
01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:57.000
What scripture is? The first question I would ask the guy is, what scripture is that?

136
01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:10.000
Um, maybe. Is it Matthew 28? Let's look at Matthew 28.

137
01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:17.000
Jesus says, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.

138
01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:28.000
Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always to the end of the age.

139
01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:42.000
So when you make a disciple, you teach them to observe all that Jesus commanded them. Well, one of the things, here's the logic. I'm just guessing. I have to guess what your pastor would do with this. One of the things that Jesus said for the disciples to do was to go and make disciples.

140
01:11:42.000 --> 01:12:02.000
So if you're to teach the disciples to do everything Jesus commands, and one of his commands is go make disciples, then if you. If the person you're discipling doesn't go and do that, then are they really a disciple? My answer is yes, they are. Um, now, it's possible to say you're a Christian and you're really not. You're not really following Jesus.

141
01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:10.000
Not, um, successfully converting people to Christ and then discipling them and teaching them is not one of those standards.

142
01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:48.000
We're talking about things like, you have open and unrepentant sin in your life. You actually reject maybe some of the central tenets of the gospel. These are things that put in question whether your claim to be a Christian is real or not, but whether or not you've personally converted people and made disciples out of them, it does not question your actual salvation. And even if you take the Matthew 20, uh, eight passage, it doesn't work that way. He says you're going to make disciples, right? And you're going to teach them to observe all that I've commanded you. It does not say in order to count as a disciple, you have to do every single thing Jesus commanded.

143
01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:53.000
I'm walking on thin ice here to a lot of people. Okay?

144
01:12:53.000 --> 01:13:24.000
There are clear things in scripture. I want to follow the boundaries scripture gives us. There are clear things in scripture where Paul is like, hey, fornication, adultery, uh, gluttony, um, uh, which is probably an extreme form of gluttony. Not just somebody who overeats occasionally, but, um, uh, there's a list of things given in one corinthians six, homosexuality, abusers of themselves, of mankind, or whatever you want to call it. There's these different things that Paul's like. People who practice this stuff, they are not saved. They're not going to inherit the kingdom.

145
01:13:24.000 --> 01:14:33.000
If you look at somebody who is in a regular habitual lifestyle of unrepentant sin, there's a good reason to doubt whether they're saved. But if you look at their life, and you go, well, are you doing everything Jesus told you to do? Because if you're not doing everything Jesus told you to do, if you aren't succeeding in every area, then you're not really a Christian. That seems to be the standard that your pastor is using. He's only applying it to making disciples. But the standard would seem to have to be you through everything, or you're not really a Christian. I get the zeal. The pastor's probably like, I just want to encourage people to make disciples. There are so many lazy christians, there's so many christians out, uh, that I know that don't even care. They don't care if their neighbors are saved. They don't care if their loved ones are saved, at least by their example. They don't care. They make zero effort to be involved in serving the lord in their lives. They look at the pastor, and I get this many years as a pastor, 14, I say 13 sometimes. I think it was actually 1414 years as a pastor. Um, but I've seen people where they look at the pastor and it's, as they look at you and they're going, ministry is what you do, pastor. I come and consume you, prepare the table and I partake.

146
01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:55.000
And then they go, you know, Monday through Saturday, and nothing. At least in the mind of the person who's laboring hard and serving the Lord, at least you think you are. It can be easy to imagine that's the case. And so you're just trying to say anything you can to stir them up, anything you can to get them to be serious about making disciples, to care about their coworkers salvation, and not just think, boy, I wish my pastor would talk to you.

147
01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:58.000
You're right there, man, you're right there.

148
01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:34.000
Um, and the truth is that pastors, the more you're in ministry, the less you end up talking to people in the world, because ministry is to christians when it's that kind of thing for the most part. Right? Some people are evangelists. Uh, unless you're an evangelist or missionary. Even when you're a missionary, it can happen. Most of the interaction you have is with other believers. So really, the spreading of the gospel depends on normal people in the pew. 100% true. The spreading of the gospel depends on normal. It depends on you talking to people in your circles that you meet, that you encounter.

149
01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:43.000
It absolutely depends on that. But I'm not going to say that if you don't make, actively make disciples, you're not actually a Christian.

150
01:15:43.000 --> 01:16:03.000
Um, I think that's going too far. I think that that's. That's not one of the standards that scripture says. Like, here's a list of things Paul's like, don't you know that people who don't convert and disciple others aren't actually christian? Like, where does Paul say that? Where does Peter say that? Where. Where is this anywhere in the text? I don't see it. Um. Um.

151
01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:06.000
There's more that can be said about that. Um, um.

152
01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:48.000
When Jesus says, teach them all that I commanded you to observe all that I commanded you, um, does, um, that mean that everybody has to go into all nations? And some people have taken it that way. They're like, uh, everybody has to literally travel off. I'll put on your screen, leave wherever you live and go to some other nation, because go make disciples of all nations is right there in the passage. So if that's the case, don't I have to leave where I live in California? You don't have to leave. And wherever you are, maybe you're in Texas, uh, right now, don't you? Maybe you could come to California. I'll go to Texas. And that way we're both going into all the world and someone maybe in the Philippines. You're in the Philippines. You come out here and all go out, right?

153
01:16:48.000 --> 01:17:14.000
I've eaten Filipino food. I've been to the Philippines. Right? We were out there, you know, in the area where they speak Visayan, which I could never figure out what to do with that. So then you come out here, you learn English, I'll go out there, I'll learn Visayan, and then we'll both be far less effective as missionaries because we're in these cultures we don't understand, in languages we don't know. So then you just start, like, randomly making people. But you see, what we're doing is we're recklessly applying Jesus words.

154
01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:16.000
That's my point here.

155
01:17:16.000 --> 01:18:37.000
Yes, we're all called to go out. The church as a whole has an evangelism, um, mandate, but in individual lives, it plays out in different ways. Not everybody's called to pick up and go to a new nation, but the church is called to go into all the nations as a. As a group. Not everybody's called to be an evangelist, but the church is called to evangelize, but we are all called to be witnesses of Christ and share. Um, and that's something that you should do, not because you're under threat of losing your salvation, but because of heaven and hell, because you care about people and because you love God and it's so weird. Um, Hebrews writes about christians who have not yet resisted unto bloodshed, that they have sin and temptations, uh, in their lives, that they have not resisted to the point of bloodshed. And it's almost like this moment happens when you get persecuted to the point where you literally physically suffer, where someone's literally beating you and you will not compromise your faith. All of a sudden, your battle against sin feels small compared to that. And you're like, uh, here I am, like, oh, I can't resist this sin. Oh, I just can't handle it. And yet there's someone else, like, being tortured and told, I'll stop if you just reject Jesus.

156
01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:47.000
I just think we all the posh western world needs to raise its commitment to Jesus Christ and say, look, we haven't even resisted unto bloodshed.

157
01:18:47.000 --> 01:19:02.000
There's your final word for today. All right, let's, uh. Let's pray. Um. Father God, we ask that you give us the wisdom and the grace, um, to apply scripture to ourselves and to help others with a speck in their eyes to get the plank out of ours first, of course.

158
01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:15.000
We pray that in the chaotic and combative world that we live in, we would be ambassadors who are invitational trying to bring people towards Christ, but also unafraid of conflict.

159
01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:49.000
We pray that you'd help us know when to stand strong and when to speak soft, and that you'd help us, Father, please. To have, um, such a commitment to obedience to Jesus that we resist, even to the shedding of our own blood, even to the pain and the hardship that might come. So that just casting off, ah, a little petty sin that has been plaguing us forever, we realize, like, we just had to stop. It just wasn't that big of a thing. In Jesus name, amen. Amen.

160
01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:55.000
That's all.