WEBVTT

1
00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:29.000
Welcome to the Friday, uh, Q and A. I'm Mike Winger, and my goal here is to help you learn to think biblically about everything. Answering your questions from the live chat, which are being loaded in right now. Ten of them. But we have a special guest today that I would like to share with you guys. Hold on. I've changed up my, uh, setup a bit. And so this is, I'm going to do it like this. Use this little camera here. Give me a second.

2
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:37.000
All right, here's me. This is my little tiny home studio. Here's our little guest.

3
00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:40.000
Hey, Mika.

4
00:00:40.000 --> 00:01:01.000
So anyway, just thought I'd start off with a rare cat cam moment for us today. We haven't had a cat cam moment in a very long time. For those who are new, you wouldn't know that. Uh, if my cat happens to join us, then I. I will shamelessly put them on screen to annoy the. Not the dog people. Dog people are great. The hate cat people.

5
00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:44.000
Okay, so the first question for today, onto more important things, it comes in, um, anonymously, but this one is, how can a just God hold people accountable for their beliefs if those beliefs are influenced by cultural, social and psychological factors beyond their control? This is a moral challenge to the idea that God can hold anybody accountable for the things that they believe. I think that, um, before I answer the question, I just want to unpack, like, understand it, the logic. Okay, I don't. Not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I just want to make sure we understand the logic clearly. So you have three kinds of factors that influence your beliefs according to this question. Cultural, social, and psychological.

6
00:01:44.000 --> 00:04:48.000
I don't know what the difference is between cultural and social. Um, whatever, however you parse that out. Uh, yeah, so, yeah, you have, you have, you have here nature and nurture being described. So this is what, you know, when I was. You guys don't know this about me, but when I was in high school, I was part of an rop program. You would work on campus at this preschool they had in the school. And so I'd be working and doing preschool. So I was, you know, helping assist a teacher, uh, along with a bunch of other students, helping assist them with these preschool students. And they would also do early childhood, you know, training stuff. And they talked about nature and nurture. Nature versus nurture. That's what the cultural and psychological, or social and psychological or getting at. There's the environment around you, and then there's sort of the way you're chemically wired. And those are the two things that are influencing you effectively. I don't doubt those two things influence you, but the bottom line is the logic of this first question is to say that means God can't judge you. Um, and I'm not saying that the questioner believes this. They just. They're trying to answer the challenge. They're asking about it. I'm not accusing them of anything here. Um, um. Does that mean you have zero accountability? The fact that you have cultural things, you know, kids that are raised in fatherless homes, for instance, are way more likely to have low grades, lower education over the course of their lifetime. Um, um, to end up in prison, to be, uh, more of a negative influence and factor in society and to end up just doing bad stuff, like the. Just, just the fact of you not having your dad in the home with you, right, as I did, not growing up, it radically increases the chances that you're going to be doing these criminal behaviors and stuff. Isn't that interesting? So can we really say it's anybody's fault? Right. They've got the genetics they're born with, they've got the environment they're raised in. There's, there's people who, um, in some cases have sexual proclivities that are, that are against God's will, against God's design. But you can trace at least some of that back to the way that they were treated as a child, maybe mistreated as a child in at least some cases, that is definitely true. So can there be any real accountability there? And. But that's, that's where we get maybe two major issues. Um, um, with, with this logic that this is, therefore God cannot judge you. The first one is, do we really believe nobody's accountable for anything? Because this is, this is the rational conclusion. If you sort of draw this out to its logical conclusion, the idea is that if you are influenced by society and culture and your psychology, your chemical makeup of your brain, then therefore God can't judge you. Well, then that means for the same reasons, society couldn't judge you. You couldn't even. Maybe you don't like my answer, but you couldn't judge my answer. Because I can't help it. I'm raised in a particular environment that ended up making me be a guy that does christian content on YouTube. Like, I can't help it, you can't judge me for that. Nobody can judge anyone for anything. So there's zero accountability for anybody. So murderers, alcoholics, thieves, um, whatever the issue is, pedophiles like, you couldn't judge them. And there are now this. You might think, Mike, you're really blowing out of proportion. But I'm not.

7
00:04:48.000 --> 00:05:02.000
There are many people out there who, because of the nature nurture worldview, you might call it, believing that these are the only factors in a person's life, how they're born and the environment around them.

8
00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:35.000
They believe that nobody's really accountable for anything. So then, um, you treat people differently. You're certainly nice to people, but you're nice in a way that's naive and gullible. I think, because you're not being honest, that you didn't have to do that bad thing and you did it anyways. This could be a very dangerous thing if you draw it out to its logical conclusion. It's also very unbiblical. Certainly God holds people accountable. Certainly the Lord does call people to task for the decisions they make, for the choices that they make. He calls them do this, don't do that, and then makes them accountable for the thing that they do.

9
00:05:35.000 --> 00:06:19.000
But why is that? Um, well, for one reason, I think there's other factors than nature and nurture. This was something that stood out to me. Having a christian worldview when I was in these preschool type training classes where they talked about early childhood development was one of the courses I ended up taking. And the discussion of nature versus nurture, as if it tells the whole story of a human, that's the mistake. Yes, there's nature, yes, there's nurture. But there's also a broader, bigger story going on, more things happening in the life of a person. The Bible affirms this, certainly. Let me give you some examples. In Romans chapter two, we learn about the conscience, the person's conscience. Let me pull, uh, this up on your guys screen.

10
00:06:19.000 --> 00:08:41.000
Romans 214 for, uh, when gentiles. These are people who, according to Romans, do not have the law. So not reading a Bible to get this, by nature, do the things in the law. These, although not having the law, are a law to themselves. So in the nature nurture situation, you don't just talk about proclivities. I, by nature am selfish and want to steal things. Okay. I did that as a very young, um, but also by nature, I'm aware that that's wrong. Right. It is wired into me to have an awareness, whether I get a calloused conscience and stop feeling it or whatever. But it is wired into me to have an awareness of right and wrong. This is why in societies, broadly speaking, you get very similar morals. And someone here will push back and say, no, you don't, Mike. No, you don't, um. You have, in India, people who believe it's wrong to eat a cow. And in other countries, they think that what they're doing in India is evil because a child is starving. You know, kill the cow, feed the kid. And so these are not the same morals? Well, no, there's just a distortion in the middle of it. They're basically similar morals. So there's a value of life in India. There's a belief in reincarnation. They think that cow might be your grandma or whatever. And so then they're like, yeah, you can't do that because that is effectively the same as a human life. Okay. Yeah, well, you don't just kill humans to feed them to other people. So there's a lie about reincarnation, a lie about the nature of the cow, but the basic human value of saying you don't just kill people and eat them, that would be the same. So that, you know, theft and things like that. There's a lot of cultural similarities. Then you have cultural inconsistencies, like with abortion in the US, we, um, do value human life, but we find ways of believing that babies aren't either. They're not humans. We call them clumps of cells or parts of their mother's bodies. Um. Um, we. We just try to, like, sort of not look behind the door of what it is we're getting rid of when we. When we end a pregnancy. Right. We're. We're not. We're not going to look and think about that carefully. We'll try to use dehumanizing terms like zygote or embryo or fetus, even though these describe humans at early stages of life, just like baby or adolescent or, um. Um, juvenile. These are all just words to describe people. Imagine killing someone and then going, but we're. It's not. It's not a human, it's a juvenile.

11
00:08:41.000 --> 00:09:12.000
You know, there's the irrationality there, but underneath it, there is a shared value with us fighting against our consciences. It's interesting how that works. Um, so verse 15 in romans two says, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness and between themselves, their thoughts accusing or else excusing them. So there's an awareness that we have of what's right, what's wrong. We're not perfect. Our moral compass, kind of like compasses, they never really point true north, right. They point to magnetic northern. Um. I like this analogy with human conscience.

12
00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:41.000
My conscience points generally towards what's good and right, generally in many ways. But it's off the, uh, magnetic pole of my worldliness, so to speak, pulls me off of true north, off of true holiness and goodness. So that even, even though God's wired me with right and wrong, I usually have a slightly distorted version of that. So, for instance, when I was a kid, I found a wallet on the ground. And I thought, if I take the money but return the wallet, I'm a good person.

13
00:09:41.000 --> 00:10:07.000
And it was, this is, this is, I'm not quite true north. It's like I, I don't. This isn't stealing. Taking the money is like a finder's fee. This is what I thought as a very young person. Um, morally, later, as I get my conscience corrected from magnetic or worldly north to true north, I go, yeah, that was incorrect. That was wrong. This was just something that, um, I told myself to feel better about. Theft. That's inappropriate.

14
00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:30.000
Anyway, the issue of conscience is there as part of our nature. It's in your nature that you have a conscience. It can be distorted, but it is there. So that people who are doing wrong things, you don't just go, well, they're wired to do it. You can also look at them and say they know they shouldn't. It's kind of a big deal. So God can judge people for you desire, but you know you shouldn't. That's the nature of every bad thing I've ever done.

15
00:10:30.000 --> 00:11:26.000
Um, except for rare occasions where I did something wrong and didn't know it was wrong, didn't, didn't have some awareness that it was wrong. So conscience is there, but there's also creation. Creation is part of the conscience is in my nature, but creation is in the nurture or the environment around you. It's not just society that you're raised with. It's not just other humans that you're raised with. So if you're hindu, you're raised in a hindu culture, therefore you're automatically hindu. No ifs, ands or buts about it, as though human culture was the only thing influencing you. No. You're born into a universe and a world that God made, and that universe has an influence on you. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Romans chapter one, verse 19, says that what may be known of God is manifest in them. That's us. That's every human is talking about. For God has shown it to them. Wait, I have knowledge that God has shown me.

16
00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:31.000
God has revealed something to me through the environment around me.

17
00:11:31.000 --> 00:11:57.000
Part of my, uh, nurture. For since the creation of the world. His invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, uh, so that they are without excuse. So people don't have an excuse for those. When I was new to side note here, when I was new to the faith, I always thought, uh, uh, well, I wasn't that new. I was probably like 18.

18
00:11:57.000 --> 00:14:00.000
Um, and I, um, was getting more serious about theology and understanding these things. And I thought God had meant trinity. Uh, outside the Bible, the word godhead is often used to refer to the trinity. In the new King James version, the term is used here, yet in the text itself, just, um, for the sake of clarity, because I prefer truth and clarity. It actually, it's not a special word that means trinity. So the verse here says, um, where I just lost my spot here. Um, verse 20. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. So divine nature is probably more accurate than Godhead here, because when you see Godhead, you think Trinity is being taught explicitly in the passage, the Trinity is a biblical doctrine. 100% affirmative. I have a video I'll link below defending the doctrine of the trinity against, uh, cult accusations. Or maybe I should say for those who don't know the meaning of that word and how it's varieties, Jehovah's Witness claims, um, that I'll link below. But Romans chapter one here is showing us that I have an internal. Let me leave it on your screen. I have an internal awareness, uh, that is provided through external revelation. So creation itself is showing me that God exists. You look around and this is honestly for a lot of people who believe in God. They, they look around and they don't know philosophical arguments for it. They just look around and they go, it's just obvious God exists. Like, it's just obvious that God exists. And this can be offensive to people who go, no, it's not obvious, but I actually agree with, with the one who has no philosophical training, who hasn't read any books about it, and just looks around and goes, yeah, there's obviously a creator. We didn't just pop into this world through nothing. There's a creator. And someone say, well, but I believe in, um, the theory of evolution, including abiogenesis. And you're like, so you think that this whole Rube Goldberg machine of the universe just happened to produce life naturally without it being designed that way? That doesn't seem rational to me.

19
00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:44.000
You could say, oh, but I believe in string theories. There's these strings. Or I believe in a multiverse theory. Yet none of those things really make sense. Apart from believing in a creator God. You still, what you're doing is you're creating an explanation that requires another explanation. God is his own explanation because of his divine aseity. I'm getting into the theological weeds here with these terms, but God is a legitimate stopping point for the creation of all things that are intelligently designed by him, that are made for his glory. Whereas strings or multiverses or abiogenesis are not good stopping points because they require explanations in themselves. But I'm cool with just random farmer looking out in the field going, yeah, I don't think this just happened.

20
00:14:44.000 --> 00:15:23.000
And then saying, yeah, there's like, there's a big, massive creator God. And you go, well, that could be any God. No, it can't. Most of the gods of paganism are already crossed off the list because they do not account for being a stopping point for creation. Right? Because their nature is very different than the monotheistic deity, and they, um, aren't even being, they're not even claiming credit for the, for the creation of the universe in the way that God is, according to scripture. So that, yeah, God is a stopping point, but lowercase gods are not. I'm saying a lot of things quickly here because I want to move forward in this answer. The bottom line is this.

21
00:15:23.000 --> 00:15:52.000
People have two things that we've ignored when we talk about this. Why God can't judge me, because I can't help the way I am, is you have a conscience that's internal to you, showing you right and wrong, so that even if your culture is wrong, you might have a chance of being right. You also have creation telling you that God is real. So even if your culture is worshipping idols and pagan gods, there is another message you're getting from, uh, creation that's telling you about the one true God.

22
00:15:52.000 --> 00:16:33.000
That's accountability right there. Then you have other things, like the Holy Spirit. Um, and even in the book of Genesis, you might think the Holy Spirit only works for christians. Or maybe the Holy Spirit is only active, um, trying to bring conviction of sin or awareness of God to people in the New Testament after, say, Pentecost. But that's not the case. Um, there's a significant thing happening at Pentecost and thereafter, but God was not abstinent from the work of the Holy Spirit and the lives of people before that. So Genesis six three, God's about to flood the world. He says, my spirit shall not abide in man forever. For his flesh shall be.

23
00:16:33.000 --> 00:17:02.000
For he is flesh. His day shall be 120 years. What is this? My spirit will not abide in man forever. Let me share with you guys in a couple different translations so you can think about it. Here's that one's the ESP. Here's new king James. My spirit shall not strive with man forever. That's another one, the, uh, Niv. My, uh, spirit will not contend with humans forever. So then you get from the ESV. The Niv, you get this idea. I'm sorry, the new king James and the Niv, you get this idea that there's a.

24
00:17:02.000 --> 00:17:22.000
There's a, um, pressing of the Holy Spirit to, like, fix people's bad behaviors. Meaning that even if culture is pressing in on you, God may be calling you out from that. And you can steer your heart, you can turn from him, but that provides accountability. That provides real accountability before God, there's more.

25
00:17:22.000 --> 00:17:46.000
Free will is something I absolutely believe in. And if you choose not to, um, that is your choice. But free will is an option. That or is a thing that we need to factor in two people. If we just say to somebody, well, you're a serial killer because of the way you were raised and because of the environment you experience in your genetics, and therefore you have no control over it.

26
00:17:46.000 --> 00:18:07.000
If we say of an alcoholic, you're an alcoholic because you have the alcoholic gene, even though we don't know what we're talking about when we say that, or because of the environment you were raised in, you know, that sort of thing, your genetics, your nature and nurture. We're also saying to these people that there is no hope for reform in their lives. We're telling them they have no free will.

27
00:18:07.000 --> 00:18:51.000
That is, in one sense, a comforting excuse so they don't have to feel bad about their actions anymore. But it is also enabling them to self destructive and other people destructive behaviors that they absolutely don't have to do. Look at every former alcoholic. Look at every person who's tempted to kill people as a kind of a blood lust. They want to commit murders and be a serial killer. Some people are really tempted with that. It's a big, serious issue for their lives. And yet they say no. And they refuse to feed fantasies, and they won't watch content that feeds that sort of vision in their mind and stirs it up. And they try to build healthy relationships to replace this sort of craving for the satanic craving for death. They, um, they fight against that for every person who fights against those temptations, who I applaud.

28
00:18:51.000 --> 00:19:56.000
They are a proof that this other person probably has some choices to make, too. So, yeah, I don't want to provide people with the hopelessness of the false comfort of telling them that their sins are not their choices. It's very comforting, but it's also totally hopeless. Totally hopeless and enabling, um, in the worst kind of way. So the. The next thing I mentioned, though, so a free will. I have internal awareness of God's laws. Uh, I have external awareness of God. I have the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives. I have all that. Plus, there's more. Judgment is measured. Here's a cool biblical thing that, um, this is the kind of stuff I think a lot of people miss out on. Um, if you're at a church that doesn't teach verse by verse, when I say verse by verse, I don't mean they do, like, one verse a Sunday. I mean, they don't teach books of the bible consecutively where you read every. Every verse in the book and you talk about what it's teaching in each section, each paragraph or each section at least. Um, I think people miss this kind of stuff.

29
00:19:56.000 --> 00:20:27.000
Jesus tells a parable, but then he offers a principle from the parable. He says, the servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready. Um, hold on. Let me go back to the ESV for some consistency here. That servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will will receive a severe beating. Severe beating. Okay, this is an analogy, but still, there's punishment. You knew what you should have done. You didn't do it. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.

30
00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:30.000
This, to me, is super profound.

31
00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:58.000
Hypothetically, you stand before God. Someone, uh, else stands before God, and the person next to you is like, I totally knew what I should have done, and I didn't do it. And then he receives harsher judgment. Then you're able to go, I'm relieved because I can tell God I didn't even know what I was supposed to do. I did the wrong thing, but I did it sincerely. I did it. And I always want to drill this down. Sincerity is not as important as people think. It's not good enough. You can't just be sincere. You have to also be right.

32
00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:22.000
You can be sincere and deceived. Sincerity is not as. It's m necessary, but not sufficient to make somebody good, um, or their actions good. But the. The, um, um, the relief you feel when you see that they're being punished severely because they knew what they should have done it and did the wrong thing. You go, oh, I didn't even know I did wrong stuff, but I didn't know I did it with the best of intentions.

33
00:21:22.000 --> 00:21:29.000
Okay, so you'll receive a lesser punishment, the lesser beating, so to speak.

34
00:21:29.000 --> 00:22:09.000
This means something. This means that on God's method, uh, of judging people based upon the words of Jesus here, when you do what's wrong in ignorance, it doesn't mean you are guilt free, nor are you guiltless. You just have less guilt. You still have guilt. It's just less guilt. So you did something because you were a human agent, a free will agent, a moral agent, acting immorally. And maybe there's all sorts of other explanations and complications that are there, but yet you still did that thing. Bottom line, there's still some accountability for the thing that you did, and you're accountable for that.

35
00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:25.000
That's pretty significant to me. So, um, ignorantly doing evil is not a morally neutral act. You can't say oops and just get off the hook entirely. You still did the evil thing. So we're not all judged the same based upon the words of Jesus here, but we are all judged.

36
00:22:25.000 --> 00:22:38.000
We're judged. And I would extend this, and you could share other scriptures to support this. I would extend this out and say, look, God knows your psychology. He knows your genetic makeup. He knows that you may have unique challenges because of the way that you were born.

37
00:22:38.000 --> 00:23:35.000
May. I'm not here granting everybody who goes, well, I was born this way. And all of their beliefs cause people put way too much on their genetics. They blame everything on, oh, I blame my genetics. And then when they get older, um, um, they're gonna see their kids doing the same thing. They're like, oh, oh, now I realize I shouldn't have done that. But the, um, um, the blaming, everything on your genetics is bad, but there's still. God will factor in all of the unique ways in which you were born. Even though we're all tempted and in a sense, our temptation is not unique, but God will factor that in. God will factor in the culture and the lies that you were told or the environment you were raised in or the abuse you received as a kid. He will factor all of that in, but he will still call you to be accountable. For what? For how you are able to respond to those things through what your conscience, through the creation around you, revealing things to you through your free will, opportunities, through the work of the Holy Spirit ways that God himself was trying to shake you up and wake you up and redirect you, you will be accountable for all of that. God will have perfect judgment.

38
00:23:35.000 --> 00:23:41.000
The problem is, when we think perfect judgment means nice.

39
00:23:41.000 --> 00:23:47.000
Um, one thing I can't. There's a sense in which God is nice.

40
00:23:47.000 --> 00:24:08.000
Um, but there's a way we use the word nice when we're referring to people. Have you guys noticed this, where we say that person's nice and what we mean is, like, in sort of all circumstances, they're nice. Um, like, even in the situation where they were, say, I don't know, the judge of the universe, that that would be a nice judgment.

41
00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:43.000
But the Bible doesn't present judgment like it's nice. It presents judgment like, it's actually pretty harsh. God will discern exactly your level of accountability, and then he'll hold you fully accountable for that. The only escape is Jesus. Like, if. What if what happened to Jesus on the cross was nice, you could have a case for niceness and judgment, but it wasn't. Judgment is extreme. It is terrifying. It is fear, a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God. And some people at, uh, this point, because I know there's some atheists who watch my content. I'm grateful that you guys do, even though you disagree with me on this stuff.

42
00:24:43.000 --> 00:25:03.000
Not grateful because I want to increase my YouTube. I'm grateful because I think there might be a chance that you're going to even baby step your way towards Jesus Christ, whether you believe every single thing about God. I believe. I just hope that you do find the truth of Jesus Christ and the hope and the peace that there is. And. But some of the atheists watching, you'll. You'll be thinking, here's. Here we go. Here's where Mike tries to scare people.

43
00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:08.000
Try to understand this from the perspective of a Christian for a moment. Um. Um.

44
00:25:08.000 --> 00:26:07.000
It's one thing to manipulate people with fear, and it's something else to warn them about realistic dangers. So let's say that you have a friend who's starting to use heroin, and you start to warn them, and you show them pictures of heroin addicts and medical reports and show them what happens to the body. You are trying to scare him out of a bad behavior, but this is a healthy fear that you're trying to provoke in him an awareness. And in the same sense, telling people that God's judgment is harsh is extreme, but is perfectly righteous and right is a healthy thing for them to know because, uh, it will hopefully make you take it seriously and drive you to Christ. So I want to move on to the next question. I had some more. I was going to share about this, but I don't want to go on too long. Um, so I'll just say this in closing. Um, for the first question, there's. There's a temptation we can have to judge God. And I'd say, beware of that temptation. Read romans nine, verses 19 to 24. I'll read, um, a little part of it right now to you. Who were you, o man, to answer back to God.

45
00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:15.000
That is not an insult. That isn't. That is an awareness thing. Who do you think you are? You are literally judging God.

46
00:26:15.000 --> 00:26:37.000
If you ever shake your fist at God, if you ever tell God, I think you made a mistake here, you did something wrong here. Without the awareness that you are just this tiny little human. And your awareness is very small, and your intellect is quite small compared to God's, and your moral capacity is less than his. Your sense of righteousness and justice and goodness is all just a little bit off, and his is perfect.

47
00:26:37.000 --> 00:27:21.000
And you're not in the position he is as the. As the ruler of all things to then turn to him and tell him how to do his job. It's just wrong. It's wrong. I want to understand God. I want to ask, um, questions about God, but I'm never in a position to judge God. It simply is not a position that I ever occupy. Read the book of Job. If this is you, if you really feel this way, read job. You'll find throughout job that you find many things that are complaints about God that you feel are very justified. If you're the kind of person who feels that you can sort of judge God by the time you get to the end of job, I hope that last bit m either it'll offend you or it'll make total sense, and you'll go, yeah. When job says, I repent in dust and ashes, I'm, uh. And let me paraphrase, I'm a stupid man. I've said some stupid stuff.

48
00:27:21.000 --> 00:27:35.000
Now I see you're. You aren't just God, you are God. And he backs off of all that stuff, rightly. So. Don't shake your fist at God before it's too late.

49
00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:53.000
There's also a temptation to deny judgment. I will share two verses for you guys on this because I think it's pretty important when the Bible tells us, don't be deceived about something. I, like, highlight those verses in my head here. It says, do not be deceived. God is not mocked for whatever one sows, that he will also reap.

50
00:27:53.000 --> 00:28:05.000
This is about reaping in judgment as well. This is like, this is. The danger is you'll be deceived. There's a temptation in humankind to try to tell ourselves that we will not be held accountable for our sins.

51
00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:39.000
In Christ, you might say, but Mike, isn't that what you believe? No, no. In Christ, Jesus is held accountable for my sins. Even as a Christian, every time I sin, I've, in a sense, added, in a sense, careful here. I've, in a sense, added to the burden of the cross that my Lord had to bear. For me, there's accountability for every sin, but, um, beware the temptation to pretend there is not. In one. Corinthians six nine, we get the same thing. Don't be deceived. Do not be deceived. Right. The unrighteous are not going to inherit the kingdom of God.

52
00:28:39.000 --> 00:28:48.000
There's a temptation to push away God's wrath and judgment, but the problem is you can only push it out of your head. You cannot push it out of reality.

53
00:28:48.000 --> 00:28:52.000
All right, let's go to question number two.

54
00:28:52.000 --> 00:29:12.000
I got it right here. Okay, this comes in from Mb M, who says, hey, Mike, is it accurate when people say hell is simply the absence of God? The absence of God, for example, Jesus is the water of life, so there's no water in hell. We rest in Christ, so there's no rest in hell.

55
00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:57.000
Um, is it accurate? I, um, think that. No, I don't think it's accurate in and of itself, depending on how somebody then unpacks it. Like, you could unpack a definition of what you mean by that and then attach it to the title. You know, there's the absence of God in hell. Um, but, um, there's a few problems with it, which is just trying to understand hell is challenging. Trying to then put it into your own words is even, like, more challenging. Um, there's descriptions of hell, of what it's like to be in hell, though. Um, the pictorial descriptions we have of, like, lake of fire and things like that, I, um, do think are more metaphorical.

56
00:29:57.000 --> 00:30:19.000
That doesn't mean that there isn't a literal experience that corresponds to the metaphor lake of fire. Um, but I don't think I have to, like, imagine an actual lake that is somehow of fire, is made of fire, but that is also darkness. Like. Like, that's confusing to my brain. I think that these are ultimately are metaphorical.

57
00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:34.000
Um, but usually when people say that they think the hell is metaphorical, that what they mean is hell itself is a metaphor. No. No, it's not. No, the lake of fire is a metaphor. But if you're going to use this descriptor, it's going to correspond to some real life situation that is really bad.

58
00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:56.000
Um, the statement that it's the absence of God is partly, I think, because, um, the concept of hell is really offensive to people. And so we're trying to find ways of explaining it to people that helps them feel better about it.

59
00:30:56.000 --> 00:31:40.000
Um, that's a two edged sword, in my opinion, and I could be wrong here, guys. Okay. This is my two cent. I think it's a two edged sword, in my opinion, because the bad side is you might actually downgrade someone's understanding of hell to the point where it takes away the harshness of it to the degree where they're not actually having a biblical understanding of God's judgment on others. But there's a positive to this. The positive to this is that rather than taking things as, say, metaphors, some people have taken them as literal. And so then you have these literal descriptions. I remember when I was in youth ministry, like, I just started going to church, and the. The youth pastor said, have you ever burned your pinky?

60
00:31:40.000 --> 00:32:04.000
And I was like, yeah. Oh, gosh, I've been burned and I hate. And when you're like a little kid, that stuff hurts way more than when you're an adult. Have you noticed that, like, your nerves are closer to the surface of your skin or something? I don't know what it is, man, but it feels like it hurt way more when I was a kid. But, yeah, I was like, oh, I burned. Yeah, you get burned. It just keeps burning and burning after it's over. Anyway, now imagine that burning on your. Just your pinky. Imagine that over your whole body.

61
00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:06.000
Now, that happens forever.

62
00:32:06.000 --> 00:33:52.000
And I thought. I thought, yeah, that's terrifying. But I don't think that that was what Jesus intended us to do, was to draw that illustration of literally. Now, imagine yourself burning all over your whole body forever. It does a few things with hell. It. It gives us, uh, a one note judgment. Everybody experiences the exact same thing in hell. I don't think that's true. I think we've measured judgment, like I talked about in question number one. It gives us a. Not a metaphor. Right. But a clear, physical, exact description of what a person is going to experience. And I don't think that scripture gives us that clarity. So there's a few problems with it there. Um, and discussing hell as, like, the absence of God is helpful because it gives you a contrast that hell isn't just its own thing. Hell is what hell is. The person who says, I don't want God. I do not want God. Yeah, I don't want hell, but I don't want heaven either. I don't want God. I don't want his presence. You get this with Hollywood movies, they always make a. Well, they used to. I don't know if they do it still, but in years past, they would make heaven in their movies. In their films, they would make heaven, but God was never present in that heaven. They would literally have heaven without God, because it's almost like the writer's spiritual rejection of God was being pushed into the script of the films. So they describe heaven and even show people in heaven interacting and heaven going to heaven, coming back. No, God. God is themselves something they just. They don't want. At least that was my impression off of that. Maybe there's other reasons. Um, but the advantage of this, of speaking of hell as being away from the presence of the Lord, that's actually directly from scripture. Maybe I can find it for you. It's in revelation.

63
00:33:52.000 --> 00:34:14.000
Did I type that right? Try to type as fast as I can when I'm on stream here. Um, so there is a description of hell as being, um, away from the presence of the Lord, and, oh, I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna be able to find it right now.

64
00:34:14.000 --> 00:35:33.000
Yeah, I'm not. Not searching very well for it. Um, anyway, I think it's revelation 19 or 20, and that that's a valid understanding to say. Yeah, an aspect of hell is you're out of God's presence. So that that's legit. It keeps us from, uh, making literal descriptions out of metaphors, describing one. A one note experience where everybody has the same thing in hell, or thinking of hell as merely punishment and not as you were, out of God's presence. So, yeah, there's a benefit that's there, but if you say that's all hell is, it's just no God's presence. It does some things. It removes the sense of punishment that's there in hell. Like, you're just sort of, like, floating or something. Um, and it also, um, was the other thing I was going to say. It can result in people then taking that as a theological rule. And this is what your question kind of did and saying, oh, so the rule is there's no God in hell, and therefore there's none of the God stuff in hell. And so you're creating, like, a theology about hell that seems like it's certainly not explicitly in scripture. Does that make sense? I want to think biblically about everything, so I'd rather gather all the statements about hell and pull them together and think through them and say, let me. Let this teach me. Uh, rather than come up with a principle that, yeah, it draws from one idea in scripture. No God in hell. And then.

65
00:35:33.000 --> 00:35:41.000
And then sort of drawing out all these philosophical implications. And now I'm constructing my philosophical version of hell instead of like a biblical understanding of it.

66
00:35:41.000 --> 00:35:46.000
All right, I feel like I'm rambling a bit on this question. Hope you guys have grace on me for that.

67
00:35:46.000 --> 00:36:01.000
I'm rambling a bit on this question. I will link a video below where I talk about hell in some more specific detail. And, um, I'll share that with you guys after the stream is over. I'll put it down there. Um, yeah, I have a video where I talk about this in some detail.

68
00:36:01.000 --> 00:36:13.000
There's another sense in which God is in hell. Um, psalms talks about this. Do I make my bed in the depths of sheol or in the grave or even in hell? You might say, depending on your translation there, there, uh, you are.

69
00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:31.000
And so you're not in God's manifest presence, but it's not as though God is. Um, his omnipresence doesn't happen in hell. But you're certainly not in fellowship with him. You're certainly not like, oh, thank you, God, for being with me. It's not that experience at all. There's been a rejection of God, and that rejection has been honored.

70
00:36:31.000 --> 00:36:55.000
Um, yeah, I get it. It's a struggle to describe hell to people for a couple reasons. One, um, they don't think their sin is that bad. And so any discussion of punishment of sin is always seen as offensive. And, uh, the thing they have to start seeing their sin is really bad. You don't need to downplay hell. You need to upplay how bad sin is and show people that.

71
00:36:55.000 --> 00:38:01.000
The other thing is that, uh, people are mad about it, so you sort of want to avoid discussing it. I remember talking to a Mormon guy I worked with, um, and we were talking about the gospel, and he started realizing that I was saying that there's a different gospel in his mormon church. And I actually didn't tell him what the Mormons believe. I asked him what he believed, and he was basically saying, I'm going to go to heaven because I'm a good person. That was his belief. And so I explained to him, well, nobody's good but God. And I gave him romans road kind of stuff. And then he goes, wait a minute. So you're saying if I died, I wouldn't go to, I'd go to hell? And I remember, I knew that this was bait. I knew it was bait. And so I said to him, well, I don't think you go to heaven because I was worried about offending him. Instead of getting him to think, I would just get him to feel angry. And sure enough, it happened. Anyways, he stops our conversation and turns to the. I was working in and out at the time. And he turns, this is me doing, uh, I think it was like about 2021. Anyway, he turns to the rest of the workers and shouts out to them, Mike says, I'm going to hell.

72
00:38:01.000 --> 00:38:14.000
That summarizes why people want to say things like, it's just the absence of God. I'm just trying to avoid people freaking out on me, right? Because that's not helpful for my evangelism to them.

73
00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:26.000
But inevitably, if they poke long enough at your understanding of hell, those who have a low view of sin will be angry about the idea of hell. It's just going to happen. It's a worldview problem.

74
00:38:26.000 --> 00:38:41.000
Um, all right, question number three. Taylor E. Says, do you think churches should allow political sign up ballots for certain bills in the church? I had an older woman come up to me and asked me to sign. For context, it was about gas and electricity.

75
00:38:41.000 --> 00:39:23.000
Um, I guess that's an interesting question. Let me see. Um, it's tough, ah, having been a pastor for years, it's tough to make rules about what other people are allowed to do in your own congregation. I'm not going to weigh in on whether an individual congregant can just show up to church that day and they've got a little pamphlet or a, uh, little binder or something. They walk out to people they know and they go, hey, Jeff, would you sign this thing? Or, hey, Tom, would you sign this thing? I'm not going to weigh in on that. Like, they're not representing the church in that sense. I don't know, but let's say, can the church do it? Um, there was a bill that was being passed that was, um, pro life.

76
00:39:23.000 --> 00:42:27.000
And a church I was at years ago actually had like that support for that bill for you to sign to support it. Actually, in the, in the foyer. Foyer. However you guys want to, you can argue in the comments, is a foyer or foyer or foire or lobby. And at any rate, uh, they actually could sign it. And promoted it from the pulpit for you guys to sign this. I had no issue with that because I felt like that specific case was 100% just a christian commitment. Just us being christians, basically advocating for the unborn. They're the. They're defenseless. I think it's fine for churches to be very political on the topic of abortion, where I. What I don't know is how political they should be on all the other issues, because, let's just be real, I don't have my whole. My head all the way wrapped around, uh, politics, and so I'm not going to weigh in on that. So that my principle would be this, if the political action that the, uh, that the church is supporting is merely and purely an outgrowth of a christian commitment in real life, I see no problem with the church supporting that political action, because it's not political, it's just christian. So supporting pro life causes, that's 100% something I think churches should, should, and could and should do. But when you talk about, like, um, signing something related to, like, gas and electricity, I'm like, yeah, unless it is clearly a christian commitment expressed out here, where it's just a sort of a black and white topic, if it starts to move into the muddy ground, I don't want the church as much to take a stance on it and to be asking their congregation to be arguing or debating or fighting over these things, to not be able to disagree, um, that's a problem. Now when it comes to, like, say, transgender, uh, you know, lgbt stuff, like 100% churches should be, as christians, very much opposed to all of that stuff, right? To the ideology, to calling, uh, sexual perversions an identity. That's something, as a Christian, I should be absolutely opposed to. It's a twisting of God's design in human sexuality. Anything that promotes that as an identity, as a good and right identity, I have to oppose that as a Christian. Black and white issue, abortion, black and white issue. What about taxes? I mean, I have strong feelings about taxes, but, like, how can I put that as a. As a, you know, Jesus didn't do that. Uh, you know, the pay to Caesar, what a Caesar's, that sort of thing. Submit to government. These types of rules come in unless we're talking about such an extreme tax situation where it becomes a black and white issue. I know many of you think it is black and white. I disagree. The stuff I've seen on it, people go, all taxation is theft and stuff like that. I go, yeah, I don't. I don't think that that's that's not my christian commitment. Okay. I think that what you're doing is you have something else that you're calling your christian commitment. That is, you've gotten it from somewhere else. Um, being straight with y'all. Um, because you guys are having these conversations all over the place, so, you know, it's worth it. Worth talking about them openly here.

77
00:42:27.000 --> 00:43:03.000
Yeah. Unless it's a clear, black and white christian commitment. I don't want to push it from the pulpit as if it is, but if it is, then, yeah, you're not being political, you're just being christian. Um, I'm trying to think if I can give you biblical examples of this stuff. You don't have political activism like that in scripture, so it's difficult. Um, it's not like it's. The Bible's against it, either. You just don't have it because they don't have democratic nations or people are voting for things like, that's just nowhere in the Bible do you see this. Um.

78
00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:18.000
There are examples of political activism, in a sense. Nehemiah. Um, Ezra. Those are examples where there's a degree of political activism going on for the sake of Israel as a nation. Right.

79
00:43:18.000 --> 00:44:02.000
Um, in the New Testament, you don't really have. You sort of have, like, centurions are told to honor God if they come to Christ and not to abuse others or misuse their positions, all that sort of thing. But you're not given sort of. You just don't have a context where you could have that sort of political activism. But what you do have is christians who 100% hold fast to their biblical and christian commitments, no matter what the culture around them is committed to, they do it openly, and they do it in a way that even requires it of the congregation. Right. So you have the concept of excommunication for those who are compromising on those topics. Um, some of those might seem political. You do have, uh, John the Baptist, who openly rebukes herod for his immorality.

80
00:44:02.000 --> 00:44:05.000
We could probably use more of that.

81
00:44:05.000 --> 00:45:15.000
Um, I think that christians, especially now, feel like they shouldn't openly. Many of them feel like they shouldn't openly rebuke Donald Trump for his immorality because he's the alternative to the obviously ungodly agendas of Joe Biden. Am I being political, or am I being christian right now? Pro abortion, pro lgbt stuff that's obviously ungodly and anti Christian. Um, so I have to stand against that as a Christian. But then they're thinking, but then I can't, like John the Baptist called out herod and his ungodliness. I can't call out Trump and his pride, his manipulation of Christianity, of christians for his cause, yet while saying that still he's at least less harm than the alternative. I mean, yeah, I'm being political, but how can you not be somewhat as a Christian when you're just trying to apply your biblical principles to these categories? But I won't say more because I know this stuff is complicated, and I also know that, um, it's not an area that I focus on in traffic in. So I do want christians to talk more about these issues and I want christians speaking in the political realm. I just don't think that that's my skill. So I try not to do it too much so I don't mess anybody up.

82
00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:25.000
All right, let's go to question number four. Um, guardafel says, or gardefel says. Hey, YouTube. Pastor mark.

83
00:45:25.000 --> 00:46:36.000
I don't call myself a pastor right now. If I'm ever serving in the local church in an elder position, officially I will call myself a pastor again. But, um, I don't call myself that. Even though technically ordained legally, there's legal ordination there, but I'm not operating under that. But I've got that experience, so hopefully I'm pastoral, if nothing else. Does Jesus call us slaves? Gardefell says, did Jesus call us slaves in John 1515? He says he does not, but in revelation 220, he seems to do so. Blessings from Germany. Yeah, you're right. Um, there's the fact that we're called slaves. In the Greek, there's a word, doulos servants, uh, which they would not have significantly distinguished. That, um, the bondservant of Christ is a term that you commonly see after Jesus makes the statement. In John 15, we see people calling themselves servants of Christ, bondservants of Christ. Um, he's our master. We can't serve two masters. There is that slave or servant language consistently there in scripture after this John 1515 statement. So how do we work through that? Here's John 15.

84
00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:40.000
Who you guys want see the cat? She's still over here chilling.

85
00:46:40.000 --> 00:46:44.000
There she is. There's Micah.

86
00:46:44.000 --> 00:46:47.000
A. Ah, little cat break.

87
00:46:47.000 --> 00:47:05.000
All right, um, so John 1515 says, no longer do I call you servants. For a servant does not know what his master is doing. But I've called you friends. For all that I've heard from my father, I've made known to you, no longer do I call you servants.

88
00:47:05.000 --> 00:47:08.000
Does that mean I'm not a servant of Christ?

89
00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:15.000
No, um, I am Christ's. Servant, but he's also my brother.

90
00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:35.000
Catch that? I meant to put that on your screen. I'm Christ's servant, but Christ is also my brother. Both of these things are true because they're both clearly taught in scripture. So this is not a rejection of we are the servants of Christ. Rather, he's saying, you're not merely my servants.

91
00:47:35.000 --> 00:47:42.000
You're not merely my servants, you are my friends.

92
00:47:42.000 --> 00:48:19.000
We have a relationship with God that goes beyond that of merely being a servant. We serve him, he's our Lord. But it's both. And now Jesus often does this. If you read him in the gospels, he often does this. He speaks in ways like this that are not always meant to be, like logic chopped. They're meant to be sort of, uh, not that you. You can't follow the logic of it, because if you harmonize, you bring all the things Jesus says together. You get the full picture of it. You won't get any, you won't make mistakes. But he'll say things like, turn, uh, the other cheek. Do not resist an evil man. But then there's times where he offers a certain kind of resistance to someone who's evil.

93
00:48:19.000 --> 00:49:12.000
He gets hit and he can respond. So why do you come out to me, um, with clubs and stuff like this? And he's answering back. He's giving a response to them. That is a rebuke. There are. There are things where he says, don't call someone a fool. And then Jesus will actually call people fools. Why? Because he's not trying to make this, like, we take what Jesus says and we turn it into this sort of universal law when it was meant to be a principle, uh, not a universal law. So turn the other cheek. That's a principle. You turn the other cheek. Does that mean you can never respond to, let's say, someone trying to attack your, your child or something like that, and you can't use violence to prevent them. I don't think so. I don't think it was meant to be this sort of, like, wooden universal rule that has no exceptions. Just like the Sabbath wasn't meant to be that either.

94
00:49:12.000 --> 00:49:21.000
Jesus, when he says, don't call anyone you fool, and then later he'll actually call somebody fool. Same word, right? Uh, he calls someone a fool. He calls the Pharisees blind fools.

95
00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:24.000
What's the difference? Well, they were fools.

96
00:49:24.000 --> 00:49:37.000
They really were. He was saying, don't, in your anger, call someone a fool. You have to supply some context there. But it's Jesus's own behavior that helps you realize you have to supply the context. So what's the context here?

97
00:49:37.000 --> 00:50:19.000
Yes, you're a servant of Christ. Yes, you are. He is Lord. Jesus is lord. Um, yes, that is true. But also you're not just a servant who lacks that friend status, who lacks that brotherhood status. You're in Christ as a beloved member of the body of Christ. But even though you're the body, Jesus is the what? The head. So there's a servant relationship, there's a friend relationship, there's a brother relationship, there's a body relationship, there's a head relationship. It's all true. At the same time, that's, I think, the right way to handle that. Uh, let's go to question number five. This is, uh, from Marissa. And just to let you guys know, we've got all ten questions. There's no more cues for today.

98
00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:27.000
Marissa says, why does Jesus switch from first person to third person when he's referring to himself as the son of man?

99
00:50:27.000 --> 00:51:05.000
I think that the answer here, ah, is pretty straightforward in my opinion. Um, Jesus often does this. He calls himself the son of man. And he'll be like, the son of man did not come to do this. He came to do that. The son of man. The son of man. It's his favorite title for himself, son of man. So if you go like, do a bible search for the phrase son of man, you'll find a bunch of it happening in Ezekiel, sometimes other places, a lot in ezekiel, and then a bunch with Jesus. Jesus is the son of man. I think that when he refers to himself as the son of man. When you do this, there's an. There you are, um, sort of exalting your status.

100
00:51:05.000 --> 00:51:34.000
You're giving yourself a title. You're not just saying me or I, but rather the son of man. There's an iconic title concept that I'm, that I'm leaning on when I, when I say. When Jesus says the son of man, referring to himself, that connects to his humanity. It also connects to his, uh, fulfillment of the Old Testament typology that we have in, um, both Adam and in Ezekiel. Super interesting stuff.

101
00:51:34.000 --> 00:51:51.000
And he also uses it in mark. This is so cool. He calls himself the son of man. This iconic title to draw attention to this. This is an identity thing. I'm telling you something big about who I am. He's the son of God, but he's also the son of man. Just like we're God's servants, but also we're friends of Jesus.

102
00:51:51.000 --> 00:52:53.000
Um, so he called himself son of man. But then as you move on, in Mark, there's this sort of unveiling of what that meant all along when he appeals to Daniel and he talks about this one son of man passage in Daniel that refers to this divine judge who's coming to literally judge. He's in charge of all humanity. He's judging the world. So he comes lowly, calls himself the son of man, but then at the end, sort of pulls the veil off at the end of Mark's gospel to imply the fact that Jesus is deity and that he is the judge of all people. He's, um, coming in judgment, which is why the high priest goes, he's blasphemed. What more do we need to hear? We can crucify him now. So, yeah, Jesus is giving us, in the phrase the son of man, a title related to his identity that is meant to tie into a whole bunch of scripture and be part of this unveiling of both the humanity and the deity, the future judgment that Jesus brings. Neat stuff. Um, check that out. In Mark's gospel, his conversation with the high priest. Cool. And how it connects to Daniel.

103
00:52:53.000 --> 00:53:22.000
All right, question number six. Um, here's a slight parent warning. I haven't read the question yet, so I don't know. But my assistant, she knows what she's doing. She says, slight parent warning. Parents, if you're cautious at all, now, you know, okay, do what you gotta do. Pause. Go, uh, uh, go play Nintendo with them instead or something. I don't know. Okay, so, anonymous question. Does one corinthians seven really mean we can never say no to sex except for fasting and prayer? My pastor told my husband that if I deny him for too long, then he has biblical grounds for divorce.

104
00:53:22.000 --> 00:54:36.000
Um, I don't agree with your pastor, um, that that's biblical grounds for divorce. But, um, let me try to offer you a balanced understanding. But let's just first read the passage. Okay? Let's try to understand what Paul is saying here. Um, now, concerning the matters about which you wrote. Paul says to them, it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. This is in quotes in the ESV. And the reason for that is because it's generally believed that this is a. At least, I think it's generally believed. Maybe I'm exaggerating how many believe it, but I think it's generally believed that, um, this is something the corinthians wrote to Paul. Like, they wrote him a letter and he's responding with another letter. So they had questions. Hey, Paul, what about this? What about that one? Of the what abouts was, hey, we're sort of becoming what they call ascetic. We're sort of saying like, hey, married couples, don't be together, don't sleep together, abstain from each other. This is stuff that, um, some people have done in the name of Christ over the years, that they feel that sex is somehow there's something wrong with it, inherently wrong with it, as opposed to it being inherently good, but it can be distorted. They'll start thinking there's something inherently wrong with it. So they see the sinful uses of it and they think it's all bad. You know, it's kind of like with drums.

105
00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:46.000
It's kind of like with drums. There are those who saw carnal rock bands playing drums and concluded that all drums were carnal.

106
00:54:46.000 --> 00:54:55.000
Rather than thinking drums are inherently good, they're just being used in wrong ways in many occasions.

107
00:54:55.000 --> 00:55:05.000
Same thing with the sex issue is that people don't realize it's inherently good. It's just been used wrongly many times. Dating could be inherently good, but it's been done wrongly many times.

108
00:55:05.000 --> 00:56:37.000
Make sure that you see the goodness of the, of the good thing, not just the. The badness of the sin. So, yeah, they were, they were like, hey, it's good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. They were even applying this, it seems, in marriages, a very bad idea. But Paul says because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. And he means have physically, um, as well as just being married. It's just generally true that humans, we are, here's part of our nature. We're wired for sexual relationships. And that's not a bad thing. That is not a bad thing. That's a good thing. We're wired for that. It can be twisted so easily. Sin can so easily beset us, as Hebrew says, but it's a good thing. And because of that, you should. You should channel it into proper settings. Marriage, this should be what you shoot for. Uh, uh, each man should have his own wife, each woman her own husband. Again, marriage, biblically speaking, is a man and a woman. Uh, just one man, one woman. That's one marriage. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights and likewise the wife to her husband. They're actually called conjugal rights here. And this is, this is how they would think about it in the ancient world, because, um, the desire to have kids was very strong. And some individuals have desire to have kids. But in our culture, we've downplayed having kids. We live in a weird culture that, that doesn't see kids as, and having kids as important and valuable and wonderful as it really is. They think of childhood as wonderful, but not having kids as wonderful. It's kind of weird.

109
00:56:37.000 --> 00:56:49.000
But the, um, but their view would have been, you owe me this partly so that we can have kids because it's so valuable to have children.

110
00:56:49.000 --> 00:57:51.000
That's part of the reason. But it wasn't the only reason because Paul here elaborates that. Just temptation. Just the fact that you, if you aren't with your partner on a regular basis, at least something there, there's a good chance you're going to be liable to temptations that are going to mess you up because you don't have the right expression. You're going to go for the wrong expression of these sexual desires. So, um, in this sense, it's wrong to rob your spouse of a reasonable amount of sexual gratification. It's morally wrong. It hurts them. You're harming them. Now, I know that I'm saying this to some people who are like, I don't want to, you don't know the track record that we've gone through. You don't understand. Look, uh, I'm not saying it's a quick and easy fix, but what, but the situation as it stands, if that's your situation, it's wrong. It's actually wrong and it should be changed and you should start trying to think of honest ways. If I was really trying to fix the situation, what would I do? And start doing those things? You will know better than I will what those things are. If you're honest with yourself, you will.

111
00:57:51.000 --> 00:58:06.000
But then it goes on. He says, for the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. This offends people. And those people, uh, who aren't offended by it are maybe offended by the next part. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

112
00:58:06.000 --> 00:58:38.000
You, uh, guys belong to each other. This is partly a case against polygamy right here. Because if the wife has, husband has, ah, authority over the body of her husband, then certainly she is the one who can say, no, you can't, you can't be with somebody else. Um, there's other verses against polygamy as well. If you're a polygamist, you literally cannot be in church leadership in scripture. First Timothy, chapter three, uh, Jesus, um, spoke against polygamy, uh, in the way that he talked about marriage. It's kind of cool how he did that. Actually, I have a video on that somewhere. Maybe I'll link it below.

113
00:58:38.000 --> 00:59:01.000
Um, at any rate, don't deprive one another. That's the idea. You're depriving them. Don't deprive one another. And it goes both ways for the man or the woman. Do not deprive one another. Except it says, perhaps by agreement, for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come together again so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control. I don't think it's grounds for divorce. But can I say this?

114
00:59:01.000 --> 00:59:03.000
You're hurting your spouse.

115
00:59:03.000 --> 00:59:06.000
You're feeding into the temptations of Satan for them.

116
00:59:06.000 --> 00:59:08.000
It's not healthy.

117
00:59:08.000 --> 00:59:14.000
Find ways to bring them in healthy and reasonable ways.

118
00:59:14.000 --> 00:59:42.000
Gratification in your marriage. That's a good thing. And it's entirely right for you to talk to them about it and ask them about it and tell them what you desire. Don't put up a wall there where you have all these unfulfilled expectations, but you won't tell each other about them. Um, I'm not talking about weird and perverse type of behaviors and things like that. I'm talking about normal, heterosexual healthy behaviors. The, um, question. Then go back and read your question again.

119
00:59:42.000 --> 00:59:46.000
Um, just to make sure I'm answering it.

120
00:59:46.000 --> 01:00:36.000
Does first corinthians seven really mean we can never say no to sex? Except for fasting and prayer? Um, I don't think. Never should be thrown on there. There are other times when you can say no. For instance, let's say that you just went through major life trauma. Um, uh, you just had the death of a loved one. And then, like that night, your spouse is like, come on, I'm having urges. Like, they need to get over that and give you some space. It's not like Paul would think. There's no conceivable experiences in life where we can make exceptions to this. There's also times where people have physical problems, physical maladies, that make it. Make them incapable of doing at least some things for their spouse. And that's totally understandable. Um, and it's going to create some problems. It's going to create temptations for their spouse, and you should do what you can to alleviate that. But, um, it's understandable.

121
01:00:36.000 --> 01:00:49.000
So never say no. No. Um, does it mean that every time, and I know there's husbands like this, every time you get an urge, you think your wife should immediately satisfy that urge?

122
01:00:49.000 --> 01:04:28.000
This was not. This was written to make you have a healthy marriage, not to turn you into a weird baby about these issues where you're just. Every urge is immediately got to be satisfied by this other person. No matter what's going on, no matter how frequently you're asking for things, you need to find a reasonable, reasonable and loving compromise on these types of issues. Um, that's my counsel, my advice, having talked to some different leaders, different, uh, individuals, I should say, as a leader, how, um, there are, more often than not, it's the. It's the guy who wants more and the girl who wants less. Um, and more often than not, not always. And, um, the. In those situations, there needs to usually be some sort of middle ground compromise, I think, for a healthy marriage to take place. But the reality is, is that you are. You should see yourself wife as someone who's trying to be there to be the right place of sexual gratification for your spouse, for your husband and husband. You should see that the same way for your wife. But there's plenty of husbands who you're engaging. I'm, um. Just be straight with you guys. This is very adult stuff here, but you're engaging in regular use of lustful content online or through video or whatever means, or just. Or just having very lustful eyes everywhere you go. This is why you have constant urges. This is why you want you. You over demand on your spouse. It's because of your regular overuse of those. Those things. You. You're being unreasonable. You're not being loving. You're using them as. Merely as a tool for your gratification instead of realizing they're the right place for it. But that's not just what they exist for. I hope that that gives some balance. I'll go to the next question, and hopefully we'll be less adult like, uh, for the broader audience. Inkless emissaries. Says a friend doesn't believe in the rapture because Jesus never taught it, and he doesn't consider Paul or his writings to be authoritative. How would you approach something like that? First, uh, off, I don't care if you guys believe in the rapture or not. Um, I'm not saying that there's no reality to it or not. There's. Obviously, scripture has teachings here, but in the realm of, like, things that I'm worried about in people's lives, eschatology is not one of them. Unless. Unless. Here's cabbage. You're denying the second coming. You're, uh, denying final judgment. You're, uh, denying the resurrection, the bodily resurrection, things like that. Yeah, I would say those are incredibly important issues. But to say that, um, someone goes, I don't believe. I go to church with lots of people that don't believe that there's a rapture. I don't care. I don't talk to them about it. I'm interested in their views, and I don't even, uh. Well, I do think that first Thessalonians will be caught up in the air to be with the Lord. That I do think that that is talking about an event where physical humans on earth are caught up in the air and transformed and given new bodies, as in, we don't die. We just immediately are changed into new bodies through a supernatural miracle work of God. In the moment, I think that that does happen. That's often called the rapture. Okay. But when you say rapture, people often usually mean, okay, rapture means pre tribulational rapture. Then there's a seven year tribulation. So it's about locating when it happens. I don't. I'm not gonna argue with people about that. And I don't even have a position on that. I'm not sure. And those of you who know I'm Calvary chapel know I'm supposed to be pre trib rapture. I don't have a position on that. In that sense, I do. I'm very atypical for someone who's originally from Calvary chapel environment, which I love and think Calvary chapel is so much great stuff. Uh, people tell me, Mike, I'm going to a Calvary chapel because of your ministry online. That's great. I think Calvary chapels are great churches. I'm glad you're glad you're there. Um, and, um. Man, the emphasis on scripture is the. Is the big thing that's there. Just so sweet.

123
01:04:28.000 --> 01:05:32.000
Anyhow, what's really freaky is that your friend, while they don't believe in the rapture, they reject Paul the apostle and his writings. Uh, this is way bigger than that. Chances are they believe in a works based salvation. That's most likely. When I hear people reject Paul, it's because they also believe in works based salvation. So they'll take the teachings of Jesus about how judgment's coming, and they'll. And they'll think, yeah, that looks works based. I don't think it is workspace, but they'll think that's works based. Then they see Paul as contradicting that. They often also will think that they're supposed to be under the law. See, Jesus came to the jew and he preached. This is big picture stuff. Guys, he came preaching to the jew first. So he's talking to those under the law, and he speaks to those under the law. But when the gospel goes out to the Gentiles in the book of acts, we see that they're not required to follow the law. But the Torah observant crowd will, uh, reject that interpretation of acts. They'll interpret as though we're all supposed to be following the law. We're effectively all still under the law.

124
01:05:32.000 --> 01:06:12.000
Paul is a big problem for them, either. They have to have the weirdest interpretations of Paul because he speaks so clearly. Remember, he's God's apostle. To who? To the Gentiles. So when he's interacting with Gentiles, he has more motive than anybody to explain why they're not under the law. Because they're dealing with the acts 15 council. They're dealing with the people coming into their churches telling them Jesus is a jewish messiah. True. You guys are following the Christ, the messiah of Israel, the jewish messiah, right? The one who was prophesied in the Old Testament, right? Look at us. We're the Jews. We are the ones who receive the word of God. Right? True. You need to listen to us. You need to get circumcised. You got to start following the law of Moses. You got to follow all of our kosher laws and all this stuff. False.

125
01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:17.000
But there were people telling them this, telling them this, that if you're going to follow Jesus, you got to follow Moses.

126
01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:52.000
I mean, I follow Moses, and I believe all that Moses said. I just don't think I'm under the law. The law was good and all that, but I'm not under it. Um, so this is what Paul's dealing with. So, of course, in his letters, he writes about it in Galatians. He writes about this exact issue. That's what Galatians is about, is about this idea of circumcision, keeping the law. The relationship between the law and the gospel, and the law and the christian acts does this, too. But it's a little easier to misinterpret it. I don't think it's easy, but it's not as difficult as it is to interpret, misinterpret Paul here, because he talks so much about it so directly.

127
01:06:52.000 --> 01:07:29.000
Um, there's theological reasons why they're rejecting Paul. That's my point. The reason they reject Paul is not because they have, like, examined history and thought, yes, well, I've got rather. It's. I have theological commitments Paul disagrees with, so I just reject Paul. The truth is that Paul was affirmed by Peter. Peter, who calls Paul's writings scripture. Have you got you guys? Many of you know this verse, but. But, um, let me see if I can find it, where Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture.

128
01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:35.000
Second Peter three.

129
01:07:35.000 --> 01:08:25.000
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by him in peace without spot and blameless, considering that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. So Paul had written to the same group of people. And Peter says that the wisdom Paul has was given to him. That connects to Paul's claim of apostleship. It's subtle, but it's there. But even more strongly, less subtle is this, as also in all his epistles. So he knows that Paul's written a number of epistles to christians, speaking in them, of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction as they do also the rest of the scriptures.

130
01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:40.000
You can't reject Peter, right? Even if you want to reject Paul, those people aren't going to reject Peter, are they? Are they going to reject two Peter? Oh, I don't believe second Peter from God. Well, that's convenient how you just reject every book of the Bible that doesn't fit your theology.

131
01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:58.000
Does that bother you at all? Like, do you see there's a red flag? I just reject that one because I don't like the theology that's in it. That's dangerous. That is unbiblical. That is certainly not what Jesus founded the church with. Jesus appointed Peter. Jesus appointed Paul. Paul acknowledges that that's the case.

132
01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:15.000
Uh, Peter acknowledges that's the case when he calls Paul's writings scripture, which is something that is just below. It's mind boggling that this isn't. I mean, it's the Holy Spirit, really, to just already affirm in the New Testament that other New Testament works are scripture. This is just mind boggling, this idea.

133
01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:59.000
Really cool. Um, yeah, I'd be deeply, deeply concerned with your friend. Um, maybe a way to approach this is to focus on, um, either the teachings of Jesus that he does already believe and show them how, you know, what the gospel really is in those teachings. Um, the Old Testament, like Isaiah 53, about how we will get saved, um, through the work of someone else, not through our own works. Our righteousness is filthy rags. But Christ, Isaiah 52 and 53, Christ shows up and he is the suffering servant who dies for us and gives us his righteousness. By his offering, he'll make many righteous. You could actually show without using Paul. If you show that theology is there, then you might remove their theological reason for rejecting Paul.

134
01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:05.000
That might be the case. Um, you could also show the second Peter passage.

135
01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:12.000
Um, show the book of acts. Do they accept acts? If they don't accept acts, do they accept Luke? Luke wrote acts.

136
01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:17.000
Acts shows the same thing. Shows Paul's appointing, Paul's anointing, all that sort of thing.

137
01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:20.000
It must be like a red letter only movement.

138
01:10:20.000 --> 01:11:16.000
Do some research on the red letter only movement. You'll find some other helpful stuff there, too. I hope that helps. Um, let's go to the next question, which is number eight, Alana Quinones. I never. Alana, you ask questions all the time. Hi, Alana. I recognize your name. I just. I know I probably say it wrong. Quinones is the concept of only good things coming from God biblical? I hear this a lot in CCM M, and I'm just not sure. Is that. Is that cavity chapel music? CCM, maybe contemporary christian music? Maybe it's that. I think maybe it's contemporary christian music. So I hear this a lot. Only, uh, good things come from God. And I'm just not sure, given how our culture defines good. Is God not finished? If your story isn't good? Okay, that's a few different things going on there, Alana. Um, is the concept of only good things coming from God biblical? Um, the biblical concept would be God only does good.

139
01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:19.000
He only does good things. Everything God does is good.

140
01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:28.000
Um, let me see. I'll take you to the book of James.

141
01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:54.000
Um, well, I'll start with one John. Let's start with first John. Then we'll go to James in a second. Just a moment. I'm gathering my brain. Okay. Um, here's first John. Uh, this is the message which we have heard from him and declared to you that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

142
01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:13.000
There's no wickedness. There's nothing less than good in God. God is good in every way. But this also means that when God punishes people, that that was a good act. And this is a position I've held to for years, and a lot of people, I think, uh, haven't, haven't, um, a lot of christians haven't grabbed onto it, and I hope that they will.

143
01:12:13.000 --> 01:13:16.000
Um, when God judges, it's good. It's not just excusable. It's not just something I can defend and go, well, let me try to explain why it's okay when God judges. It's actually good, whether I understand it or not. God, even his punishments are good. He gave something like hemorrhoids to a group of philistines who were, uh, taking his, um, ark of the covenant and putting it in front of their false God as a way of saying that their God was over Yahweh and he gave them bottom problems. And that was. That was the. A right and good thing that he did is as much as in our current culture, the way our comedy works today, that that's something we see as. As mostly a comedy thing I'm saying is actually was a good judgment. The, uh, flood was good. God did was good there, and there is no darkness in God. But that doesn't mean God's always nice. That's what I'm saying. There's also James, um, um. I'm just finding the text.

144
01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:18.000
Let me look at this.

145
01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:38.000
Blessed um is the man who endures temptation. For when he's been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he's tempted. I'm tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he himself tempt anyone. Now, he may test people, put them into situations that reveal what's inside them, but he's not trying to get them to sin. He's not tempting them to do evil.

146
01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:46.000
Um, each one's tempted when he's drawn away and enticed by his own desires. Your temptations are from within is the idea, otherwise you wouldn't be tempted. Right.

147
01:13:46.000 --> 01:13:55.000
So is God only good things come from God? Uh, you could say that. But then there's another.

148
01:13:55.000 --> 01:14:03.000
I would say it this way, though. God only does good things. That doesn't mean that all the things he does are things that you're going to call good.

149
01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:10.000
When God gave hemorrhoids to the Philistines, none of them were like, this is good.

150
01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:16.000
And so if you're using this as a way of saying, whatever happens in my life, I know that it's a good thing.

151
01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:46.000
Uh, I wouldn't even say that, because sometimes things happen in your life. They're not things God did. They're just things God allowed, and it wasn't good. I know that God works all things together for good. That doesn't make everything good. Some stuff's bad, but God works it together for good. God will bring good out of it, but it doesn't make it only good. Um, so I don't know. It just seems a little clumsy to say it that way. Um, you also say, um, is God not finished if your story isn't good? Um, no, I wish I could say that.

152
01:14:46.000 --> 01:15:29.000
A lot of what we see in the sort of Joel Osteen side of Christianity is, um, everybody is a protagonist. Everybody's the good guy. Everybody's the hero. And so you can say stuff like this, I don't care what's going on, going on in your life. Your story's not over till God makes it good. So that. It means that, like, before you die or before any particular season of your life is over, it'll. It'll be like a good resolution. There'll be a positive ending to that moment, and that's very encouraging to people. Okay. I appreciate the encouragement. I want that, too. But it's also not true. It's just not true. Right. Uh, did Judas have a good ending? It was a terrible ending. Horrible ending.

153
01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:37.000
But if Judas was attending your church, would your pastor say, God's not over with you until he makes it good?

154
01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:40.000
That wouldn't be true. You would be misleading him.

155
01:15:40.000 --> 01:16:06.000
Do you think Judas is the only Judas? Certainly there's other people in those situations. I have, uh, a ministry I could fall. I shouldn't use that term. I could go headfirst and willingly into horrible sin that undermines me, undermines my ministry, and ends up publicly shaming me, as we've seen with people like Mike Bickle and now, just recently, Robert Morris and others. You can add names to this list. Ravi Zacharias. Like that. That was not a good ending.

156
01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:11.000
Not a good ending. And that. And it's over. That's how it ended for those guys.

157
01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:13.000
Not good.

158
01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:40.000
At least say Zacharias ended not good. Ended very bad. Um, so I'm giving someone false comfort if I tell them, like, uh, the phrase was, God's not finished if your story isn't good. Um, no. You, uh, need to feel a little bit more fear that the decisions you're making will cause that story to end very badly and not just count on God to fix everything, no matter what you do, because then that provides no personal accountability.

159
01:16:40.000 --> 01:17:10.000
Part of the problem with, like, that, Joel Osteen style, is there is no real personal accountability, um, for people's actions and their sins and stuff like that, in that sort of preaching. So I like how comforting it is, and I want to hear it. Um, but I like to tell people things like, hey, it's not too late. If you're still breathing, it's not too late. Not too late to do what, though? Not to. I'm m not saying you can fix the past, but it's not too late to make a change now and have, at least if you want, you can end good. But you got to make a choice. I think we got to put responsibility on people's shoulders.

160
01:17:10.000 --> 01:18:26.000
I don't want to be dopey Hopi right, where I'm hopeful about the future in a way that's dopey, that's unrealistic, that's irrational. Uh, where my family will look on at me and they'll go, I love your optimism, but, boy, oh, boy, you will not take personal responsibility. And you sure are acting kind of dopey. Dopey hopi. I don't want to be that. The Bible doesn't do that. Christianity shouldn't be that. I hope that helps Alana have grace on those who don't understand those things, but seems to me to be biblical. There's warnings in Hebrews, and they're there for a reason. There's warnings about, um, running with endurance. There's warnings about seeing the examples of those who've gone before who failed. The Bible is full of people who did not end well to teach us that we could easily be the same, and many of us will be. And we need to be on guard. Our adversary, the enemy. The devil goes around, right, seeking who he. Who he can devour. That's a real thing. All right. Number nine. Seth Yoder says, what's up with isaiah 60 317? Is this a bullet in the calvinist gun? Thanks for your ministry. Well, you're welcome, Seth. Let's look at isaiah together.

161
01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:28.000
Come. Um, on.

162
01:18:28.000 --> 01:18:34.000
Isaiah, chapter 63, verse 17.

163
01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:44.000
O lord, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so that we fear you not return for the sakes of. For the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage?

164
01:18:44.000 --> 01:19:05.000
Um, it's definitely. That's a bullet in the calvinist gun for sure. I would. I would if I was a Calvinist. I would probably have that verse in my arsenal. Um, I imagine. I'm trying to imagine if I was a Calvinist because it's hard to imagine it since I'm not, and so I don't interpret it that way. Um, but I can see that Calvinists would use this verse.

165
01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:09.000
Um, so here's a question.

166
01:19:09.000 --> 01:19:17.000
Do non Calvinists deny that God hardens hearts?

167
01:19:17.000 --> 01:19:20.000
No. I mean, I'm not a Calvinist, but I can affirm this.

168
01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:28.000
God made them wander from his ways. They hardened. He hardened their hearts so that they would not fear him.

169
01:19:28.000 --> 01:19:33.000
That. That is true. I confirmed that that's true.

170
01:19:33.000 --> 01:19:34.000
Hmm hm.

171
01:19:34.000 --> 01:19:37.000
So then the questions are, but how does he do it?

172
01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:53.000
How did he do it? And I think that's where the debate lies. It's not in the meaning of the verse on its surface. It's in the interpretation of what's behind it. But this verse, in my opinion, as much as it on the surface, it seems like a very strong verse for Calvinism.

173
01:19:53.000 --> 01:20:03.000
I think it actually would be a challenge to Calvinism. And let me explain why this very verse that would be offered to support it would challenge it. Here's the reason.

174
01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:15.000
God makes them wander from his ways and God hardens their hearts and why? So they won't fear him.

175
01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:31.000
That doesn't make sense to me anyways. Uh, I'll put this out tentatively. It doesn't make sense to me with the doctrine of total depravity. As I understand it, total depravity is such that God would never need to harden anybody's hearts. They were born that way.

176
01:20:31.000 --> 01:21:15.000
They were literally from my mother's womb. I according to total depravity, I am so sinful that I don't want God. I will never want God for me to fear God. I don't need him to harden my heart keeping me from him, but rather for me to fear God. I have to be regenerator, be born again in order for me to fear God. So I need to have like a life transforming new heart in order for me to. So there's nothing to harden on Calvinism, at least not in relation to the gospel. Now, Calvinists can say God will harden you to a certain action. He'll harden pharaoh to not let the people go, but they can't really say he'll harden you in relation to the gospel. That doesn't make to me, uh, you can say it, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense.

177
01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:19.000
The fact that God can harden hearts.

178
01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:31.000
This indicates that their hearts were less hard before they were hardened. The heart was less resistant and became more resistant to the fear of God.

179
01:21:31.000 --> 01:22:24.000
That seems to kick against the calvinist understanding of total depravity, uh, or some would say total inability. And that to me is like a big deal. So while this would be used for Calvinism, it seems like it would push against it. That being said, um, I think that when God hardens hearts, he does it through means. He doesn't just zap a heart now, he can if he wants, and that's fine. And if he wants to do it, that's fine. But if you're going to then translate that into a rule. That's how everybody's heart always works. God's just pulling the strings. I think that you're pulling. You're going beyond the text. Um, but God can do it through means. So even in the book of Isaiah, God sends, um, Isaiah out to the people and they will not listen, and they will only become more hard. One of the ways God hardens the people in Isaiah is through the preaching of isaiah, meaning they respond to preaching by becoming hard hearted.

180
01:22:24.000 --> 01:23:42.000
Not a divine zap of the heart, but rather an encounter. So let me, let me share it to you this way. You go up to your parent when your kid, and you're like, I want to ask if I can sleep over my friend's house. I want to ask if I can go on this thing, go to the movies. How about that? I'm going to go to the movies tonight. And you look at your parent, they just got home from work, they're tired. They can tell. They're a little frustrated. And you think to yourself, if I. Okay, this is me growing up. Right? Everybody's parents are different. My parents, you get to become like the face detector where you read on the. Don't be like that with your kids, where they have to read your emotions to decide when they talk to you. But maybe we're all like that to some degree. But try to avoid it if you can. Um. Uh, the thing is, I know, hey, if I ask my mom now, if I say right now, can I go to the movies tonight? Can I have some money for the movies? I know she's frustrated and tired, so I'm going to get told no. But if I wait till she's had like half an hour, an hour to chill, then I ask, maybe I'll get a yes. There's times where when we confront people with certain information, they become more opposed to it than before they heard it. Another example is the story I shared earlier where the co worker who asked me if I thought he was going to hell, and I told him, I don't think you're going to heaven. And he got so hard towards me and angry at me, I thought he was going to maybe m fight me, very angry at me.

181
01:23:42.000 --> 01:24:42.000
This hardening of him was not a divine like zap by the Holy Spirit. This was him responding to information he hated because he was confronted with it. Isaiah confronts the people with information they hate, and they get even harder. God hardened them through Isaiah. In the book of Isaiah, does that mean that's the whole story? Uh, no, it certainly is. Part of the story, at least. So God hardening people does not necessarily mean, like, apart from anything else, he just sort of zapping people. In addition to that, the concept of hardening that you see against the gospel itself. Uh, and Jesus does this, too. I don't think it makes sense with total depravity. I don't think hardening someone, and please hear me, calvinist in relation to them receiving the gospel doesn't make any sense on the calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Yet Jesus talks about this when he says, I speak to them in parables, less hearing. They should hear, right? That they would turn, that they would actually get saved.

182
01:24:42.000 --> 01:25:03.000
So this seems to me to be a big challenge. Like, there's. There's. There's big challenges to different perspectives. Doesn't mean that your. Your whole view is wrong, but it's. To me, it is a really big challenge to the calvinist, uh, perspective. Let's go to the next one, which is question ten coming in from Nate Leighton in or lightning.

183
01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:23.000
Do you suppose Jesus was the most skilled carpenter who ever lived? Is it heretical to imagine him ever making a mistake on the job? Um, let me. Water break.

184
01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:27.000
Yep. I put my cat. All right.

185
01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:35.000
Um, Nate, I think what you just have to do is differentiate between moral mistakes and other kinds of mistakes.

186
01:25:35.000 --> 01:26:13.000
So if someone's, say, cutting wood to. And he was probably working with Carpenter, is probably more just like builder. He probably did all kinds of things, didn't specialize on just wood. He probably worked with some wood, work with stone, probably lots of stone, given the culture, the local area, where he's at, and the kind of building projects people did. But. But you have to differentiate between moral mistakes and other kinds of mistakes. So I could, like, go to hit a. Hit a button and get you guys onto the Bible software, but accidentally, I hit the cat cam button, and I show you my cat.

187
01:26:13.000 --> 01:26:18.000
That, uh, would not be a moral mistake. It would be a mistake, not a moral mistake.

188
01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:29.000
I think we understand this kind of thing. There's all kinds of mistakes that we do. I make mistakes all the time. I microwave something and then forget about it, and my wife finds it the next day. There's a mistake. Not a big deal.

189
01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:58.000
They can be. Now, normal mistakes can become moral mistakes, and sometimes it can be blurry between the two. But I don't think we have any reason to think that Jesus was, um, a carpenter who couldn't make mistakes or that he never maybe stuttered while saying a word or never failed in some way. That. That seems to be almost like saying he wasn't really human. Not, uh, that making mistakes is. But humans, we're limited. We have limitations.

190
01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:27.000
I would think it makes. It makes more sense biblically to think that Jesus was probably a very diligent carpenter because that's a moral quality, a very committed one who you could trust, who would do the right work at the right time, the right way, m and then charge you the right amount. He's the kind of carpenter you could rely on, but I wouldn't expect him to be more skilled than any other carpenter because I don't think being naturally, um, skilled at something is a moral quality.

191
01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:45.000
And Jesus came to just be like, he represents normal humans. I don't think he was the tallest, best looking guy in Nazareth. I don't think he was the best carpenter probably either, nor probably the worst. I would just say he was probably middling. If I had to guess. I don't have to guess, so I won't.

192
01:27:45.000 --> 01:29:18.000
But, uh. Uh. But let's differentiate between different kinds of mistakes. Jesus was sinless, but he was not without human weakness. He had all kinds of that, and for that, I'm grateful, because I got all kinds of that, too. All right, I have a bonus question for you guys. Um, I haven't read it yet, but, you know, Sarah picks these sometimes and sends them to me. So at Sarah's discretion. Here we go. Bonus question. Castle. To the kingdom. Castle. The kingdom says, hey, Mike. My husband Andrew and I love your ministry. That's wonderful. I'm grateful to hear that. Uh, it helped bring us out of mormonism. Today's his birthday. Would you be willing to wish him a happy one? Yes, Andrew. Happy birthday, brother. I am so happy to hear that. Um, my ministry was just something God used to help bring you out of Mormonism. But not just that. It's one thing to come out of Mormonism, and it's something else to come into Christ. There's plenty of people who leave mormonism all the time, but they don't necessarily come to Christ, to the truth of Christ. And it's so sad because coming out of a false religion like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, people often just go into nothingness or into sort of, I'll develop my own sense of spirituality because it feels safer than committing to something that you might be manipulated. Again, I'm so excited that you came to the truth of Christ, that there was a reborn thing that happened in your life, a revelation of the true gospel of Christ. That's exciting. So very happy birthday, to you, Andrew, and to your wife. And, um, for those who are watching, um, who are not, um, you're still. You're Mormon, right now, watching, um, your Jehovah's Witness right? Now.

193
01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:25.000
I know that my words, uh, on these topics offend you, and I don't mean them to. I don't mean them to, um. You believe that I'm wrong.

194
01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:56.000
I believe that you're wrong. More importantly, though, scripture makes it pretty clear, pretty clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ is different than what you've been told. And so I'd encourage you, you Mormon, Jehovah's Witness and other camps, too. You believe the New Testament is God's word. Read it without anyone telling you what it means. Go read through the book of Romans with nobody telling you what it means. Just read it. Read it again. Read it over and over until you understand it, without anyone's help, and you'll see it for yourself. I think it'll change your life. So.

195
01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:34.000
All right, y'all, thanks. It's been good. Um, I'll be with you next Friday for the next q and a, and I think that's it except for some prayer. Lord, we thank you for your holy word, your truth. We thank you for the wisdom that we find in scripture. Not so much always in me, but definitely in your word. We pray that you would guide and direct us according to your word. Help us to see. I just pray you now, um, help us to see the lives that you've called us to live. There's many of us who we're. We've become sluggish in our spirituality. We've become comfortable, and we're not really pursuing. We're just sort of resting in the wrong sense.

196
01:30:34.000 --> 01:31:00.000
We're just sort of chilling and not chasing after you. And we pray that you would awaken us, that you'd stir us up, that you'd show us the. Our first love, the things we used to do, that you remind us to pursue you with all that we have to run with endurance. The race set before us, having our eyes on Jesus. In Jesus name, amen.