WEBVTT

1
00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:29.000
Welcome. This is the Q and A answering your questions, trying to help you learn to think biblically about everything. That's the agenda and the goal. The first question for today is very hard. Um, I was sent a message by a mother who, um, they had lost their three year old girl, uh, suddenly in a tragic accident. And they had seen a video I did on infant salvation and where I build a case biblically that babies can be saved.

2
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:40.000
All babies are saved. In fact, um, there is something of a stage of accountability, or, uh, you might put it this way, there's a stage of when we're not accountable and then later we are.

3
00:00:40.000 --> 00:01:28.000
But the question was, you know, but my daughter was 3. How does this apply to a 3 year old? And this is like, oh, ah, this is really hard to discuss, um, hard to even think about. But my heart goes out to the parents that are struggling with this kind of issue. They're thinking about this sort of thing because they have lost a 4 or a 5 or an 8 or a 12 or 15 or whatever. And there's no like way that I can actually answer this question fully, sufficiently. I just have to start by confessing my insufficiency. I'm insufficient to fully address this question. It's in God's purview to know and to do the right thing. And it isn't ours to try to struggle to figure out what that is and what he's doing and try to comfort other's hearts when there's things that are, oh, uh, man. That are just heart wrenching and destructive.

4
00:01:28.000 --> 00:02:11.000
So, admitting my insufficiency, here's some thoughts on this. I'll first give you guys, uh, five reasons why you should think kids is just a summary. And then I'll talk about how old is too old kind of question. So I'm going to approach this kind of like an intellectual question because the heart can sometimes grab onto intellectual answers where you go, these are just facts. And then my heart goes, okay. I can feel more comforted by that because it's everywhere. My heart's all over the place and maybe there's something grounded I can hold onto. And that's the hope. So I'm not reading the exact question or the story that the mother told. I don't think that that's something I want to do. I, uh, want to honor the, I want to honor where she's at, uh, and what they're going through. And I don't want to read the whole story. So you guys can imagine.

5
00:02:11.000 --> 00:06:24.000
Um, so there's a few Reasons why kids are not. We can see in Scripture, the kids are not held accountable by God. They're not held accountable for their issues. That's not the same as saying they have no sin or they don't have sin. Nature not saying that. I'm saying they're not held accountable. Catch the difference. So first one, I'll say they're not morally aware, therefore they're not held accountable. I'll give you two passages of Scripture really briefly on this. So Deuteronomy 1, verse 39, which says, uh, and as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. What is this talking about, uh, entering the promised land? So the Israelites remember, everyone 20 years and older was left outside of the promised land. They wandered the desert, and then Everybody who is 19 and younger ends up being able to enter the promised land. They're the little ones, but they're described as having no knowledge of good or evil. No knowledge of good or evil. Now, you can remember with Adam and Eve, this is a really significant phrase and statement, Biblically speaking, right? There was a very significant issue with the knowledge of good and evil with Adam and Eve. They ate of the tree that gave them the knowledge of good and evil. And this created moral accountability as well as coming death. And so even though there's a sin nature passed down from Adam and Eve, yet God looks upon children and he says, but it's not developed in them, or it's not of a maturity in them. It's not in a place in their lives where they are actually held accountable because they have not the knowledge of good and evil. Let me give you another verse that talks about kids this way. Isaiah 7, 14, 16. Sorry, you guys know 14? Uh. All right. Before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. Okay, don't worry too much about the historical stuff that's there. Uh, obviously you should care about that. But the point I'm quoting this for is there's a category where it's just generally accepted in scripture that there is an age where a boy, or a girl for that matter, doesn't know how to refuse the evil and choose the good. They don't really understand it. They don't really quite get it there. Isn't that real, genuine, developed knowledge of good and evil. This is a known stage for all humans. So that's point number one. I'm gonna move quick here. So I'll move to point number two. There are specific examples of kids who were in this position of not knowing good or evil, not really understanding moral right and wrong in an. In. Let me be careful in an accountable way. Because there's some sense in which, like, uh, even. Even a very, very young child can sort of act out badly and act out poorly. But there isn't within them the full knowledge of what this means and the implications of it and all that. But Jonah, chapter 4, verse 11. We know that the Ninevites deserved to be punished. We know that they deserved God's wrath. And here at the end of Jonah, God talks about their kids. Right? Uh, and should I not have. Should I not pity Nineveh, that great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left and also much cattle. There's again, the young ones who don't understand. They don't. This is a metaphor right from left. They lack the knowledge of good and evil ultimately. And this means that even when the parents deserve judgment, the kids don't. This isn't an issue of if your parents are saved and the kids are saved. Uh, this is rather a blanket thing for all children, all people who are without the knowledge of good and evil, which would include those who are mentally handicapped to a certain degree. Um, God knows exactly what degree it would include them as well. So that's. That is, even if the parents are guilty, the kids are not accountable. There's a. There's a category of unaccountable humans, I think, in Scripture. I think this is a biblical concept. It's not a concept that is held by, say, Roman, uh, Catholicism, which has taught, um, authoritatively as recently as the Baltimore Catechism. They've taught that, um, children who die without baptism, that they cannot enter heaven, that they are still excluded because their sin nature is not addressed as far as they're concerned. Because baptism has a different function in the Roman Catholic system than I think it does in Scripture.

6
00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:45.000
But the Bible seems to be really strongly supporting this. Okay, third reason, third point on this. The way that people are judged doesn't seem to apply to children or people who are simply completely unaware of things. So Jesus talks about judgment, uh, plenty more than most people today would be willing to talk about judgment or hell or one of those types of things.

7
00:06:45.000 --> 00:07:37.000
Romans 1 is a good passage to go to on this. It describes the judgment of God. And I recommend you just read Romans 1. And it has to do with knowledge and then, uh, rebellion against such knowledge in acts of sin, against what you know then leads to judgment and more harsh consequences down the road. So they know God exists, but they don't acknowledge him. So God judges them. They're given over to a debased mind. They know that God judges sin and does, you know, is going to punish for doing these specific types of sins. And there's a list of them in Romans 1. And then people go and do those sins anyways. And so God gives them over to an even more debased mind. They know the right use of male and female and so they give themselves over to sexual sins anyways. Instead of marriage, there's fornication and there's homosexuality and those sorts of things. This is something they do knowingly, they do with a type of knowledge.

8
00:07:37.000 --> 00:09:19.000
This may be a subtle support in Romans one that the kind of knowledge that we're talking about, we say, no right from wrong. You can teach a three year old that's wrong, don't do it. But do they actually understand it? But Romans 1, it seems to imply certain things like a cognizant awareness of the fact that God exists, a awareness that even sexual things can be sinful. That's the kind of thing a 3 year old doesn't have. Like little children though, they can hear right from wrong. That knowledge of sexual sin is just foreign to them. Unless, you know, there's some rare situation in their life that has changed that for them. Let me give you the fourth reason. Uh, David's response to losing his son seems to support a heaven view for kids who, who die young. He says, I can go to my son, but I can't bring him back to me. We know that David had hope and eternal life. And I've talked about this more in a video I linked down below where I go into this in greater detail. I have a whole video on infant salvation. This is just going to be talking about what really is the age. So I'm just laying the groundwork to then ask the question, how old is too old? Or do we have any indication in Scripture that might be able to help somebody? A parent who's struggling and grieving can't think of anything harder than that, to be honest. Um, so David's response was, I'm going to go fellowship with him. This isn't just babies aren't punished, but rather they're brought into eternal life and you can look forward to seeing them again. And what incredible hope and comfort there is for believers to know that the number one issue is not ultimately going to be what happened to my child. But it's going to be what's going to happen to me when I pass. That I might be able to be with them again, that I might be with God, know Christ, have forgiveness. Because we're all heading towards this eternal consequence uh, that's coming our way.

9
00:09:19.000 --> 00:11:01.000
Let's see, there's other stuff too. Um, but let's ask the question now. Uh, how do we determine the age? How do we determine the age? If you want more on how I back up the principles I've been sharing, link in the description down below video on that topic. But who is in the category? Uh, some people say it's 20 years and younger. Uh, and the reason they give, you probably have already guessed is because of the first verse I gave you, Deuteronomy 139 about the Exodus. They're leaving Egypt, they're wandering around, heading for the promised land. They doubt God and God says everyone 20 and older will die. But these little ones who don't know right from left or right from wrong, they are going to enter the land. And that is a pretty broad. Like I know for most of us our guts go 20, 20 as an age of accountability. Um, even a typical age or about 20, it just seems extreme. You know, there are 17 year olds who are like m are married with kids. There are plenty of them in the world. Right. Just where you live isn't the whole world. There's plenty of them married with their own children and plenty who have committed heinous crimes. And you know, there's even courts where they're like we're going to try you as an adult because look at you. It would seem strange to say there's no accountability. Um, we also know people who at the age of 15 or 16 or 14 have truly seems, seems to have truly repented of sin and given their lives to Christ. And if you can repent of sin and trust in Christ, then it would seem like you can be judged for the sins that you've committed if you don't do that. Right. That just seems logically true. And I admit I'm in conjecture territory here, but if your child passed, you can't help but be in that territory. It's forced upon you.

10
00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:19.000
Um, I don't think that the 20 and under is meant to be an eternal age of accountability. The Deuteronomy 1 describes them as having no knowledge of good or evil. But it doesn't necessarily have to mean that that's every single person who's under 20 that has no knowledge of good or evil.

11
00:11:19.000 --> 00:12:20.000
He could be describing the younger of those under 20 with that phrase. That's all it takes for us, um, to set aside 20 as the number. You could again be a 19 year old married man who has a kid, who commits murder and then think you're not accountable. That doesn't, it seems clearly incorrect. There's every indication that a 16 year old, 15 year old, 14 year old, that they have real moral reasoning capabilities that are advanced enough to make them genuinely accountable. Now, um, are they as accountable as an adult? I'm not sure that they are. But I know that God measures his judgment for each individual just based upon what they did know, what they did do, what capacities they had, it's all measured. But are they accountable? Seems like they must be at that age. They must be. I think others suggest. Well, in Jewish, uh, tradition, 12 years old is when a boy becomes a man or a girl becomes a woman is about 12 years old. They have a bar mitzvah, they have this actual event.

12
00:12:20.000 --> 00:13:19.000
I'm going to come back to this in a minute, but I will say it's a bit of a stretch to base this as an age of accountability based merely on the fact that there's a Jewish tradition of coming into your manhood. I don't want to take what is tradition and force that onto scripture too harshly like that. I mean, I can be aware of it and say, hey, there's something to think about here, but it's not like a one stop shop. You need more data if you're going to support this. And even when I give an age, if I can give an age today at all, I want to say there's a sense in which the age of accountability is actually a stage. The age would just be, hey, here's a starting point for understanding how God may work this out. Maybe let's say it was 12, but obviously one 12 year old is not the same as another 12 year old. And God will judge each one based upon what they know and their capacities. So it would only be a ballpark idea. We couldn't actually give you a real age because it's based on knowledge, not numbers.

13
00:13:19.000 --> 00:13:29.000
So accountability is not ultimately based on age. It's based on a level of mental awareness of morality and God's revelation in nature. That's Romans 1 and that's consistent with the verses I read earlier.

14
00:13:29.000 --> 00:14:32.000
People are unique. Each individual could be different. One 10 year old might be very advanced. Uh, another 14 year old might be very childish, not just in their behavior, but in Their, in their reasoning capacities. There are some obvious ones though. Um, an infant versus an 18 year old, obviously the answers radically different. The infant's totally covered and then the 18 year old doesn't seem like they are unless they come to Christ. Um, so since it's based on knowledge or the ability to think about these things in an accountability type way, I think I could say with my own sense of confidence, like I can't declare this as you have, this is a binding thing upon every Christian or something like that. But I can declare I feel confident a three year old is not accountable. This seems entirely reasonable to me. Now I don't have a three year old, but I did work in a preschool for a couple years and uh, one of the jobs I had, well it was actually with my high school, they had an ROP program, so I worked in a preschool. So I got to know these kids, spend some time with them every single day. And we have like two to five year olds in that preschool.

15
00:14:32.000 --> 00:15:13.000
The three year old for that matter, the four year old for that matter, the five year old. The level of real moral accountability there is minimal. And I think that I look at the description in Scripture of this category. Don't really know knowledge of good and evil, don't really understand the revelation of God, don't really have an, in a way that makes them accountable. And I go, yeah, this seems to apply to all these kids in this preschool. I can't imagine, imagine, um, a three year old being held uh, accountable the way that an adult is. And that seems to be who is being talked about in Romans 1 as being accountable for that understanding of the revelation of God. So pretty significant stuff.

16
00:15:13.000 --> 00:16:19.000
Um, now some people say that the ability to reason as a human, it begins around seven years old, seven, six, seven, eight years old. And that that's when your sort of reasoning capacity or start to start to be able to maybe teach your kid what the laws of logic are, which by the way is a great thing to do as a parent. Teach your kid the laws of logic or else wait till they're in college and someone else teaches them and then they use them for the first time ever against you to argue about what video games you should buy them. Um, I think it's good to teach your kids that stuff at that age. But it's still seven, eight, that's the beginning of the reasoning capacities. But the brain development and all this stuff, it just has a long, long way to go. And if you compare a 7 year old to a 12 year old to a 13 year old. There's one interesting case that can be made that not a bar mitzvah or a bar mitzvah, that's not the thing that tells you a kid is now accountable because it's a ritual, but rather what the ritual is about, which is puberty. Puberty is a real stage of development where humans go biologically from children to adult. Now, we're not fully grown adults, but you're an adult.

17
00:16:19.000 --> 00:17:35.000
You are physically. Let me put it this way. You can make a baby, okay, you're still young, but you can make a child. Now that is an adult thing. Your body is now awakened to sexuality, which is not a bad thing. It's a struggle for everybody, for sure, but it's a good thing. This is a wonderful natural part of human life and it will bring with it all kinds of temptations and all kinds of sins. And this is when you get this different stage of life. Parents will talk about their kids now. They're kind of like doing their own thing. Before, they were just my echo chambers, and now they're sort of becoming their own thing, mostly, um, echoing their schoolmates and the culture around them, sadly. But puberty, it seems to me, is at least a real milestone that you can put down. Now, can I say with confidence that every kid before puberty is going. If they pass away, if they die, they're going to be in heaven? Um, I can say I'd like to believe that. I want that to be true. I know that God will judge fairly and rightly. I know that some of the things that the Bible talks about people being held accountable to, they don't really fully apply. Unless you're talking about adults, unless you're talking about post pubescent. Right. People who are in that stage.

18
00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:56.000
If I had to say right now, okay, for whatever, whatever my thoughts on this, um, are, I would think sometime around puberty, it looks to me like there becomes more of a personal sense of accountability and awareness, knowledge of good and evil, that kind of thing. And even the opening of sexuality and all that sort of stuff.

19
00:17:56.000 --> 00:19:12.000
That seems reasonable to me now. That's probably a higher number than a lot of people watching would have, would have thought. And you feel free to think about this, disagree if you like. Um, I fully admit I have a bias here. Okay. I care very deeply about the parents who are struggling and going through hardships, and I want to comfort them, okay? I want you guys to have that comfort. It's possible that that somehow is affecting, um, my reasoning here, some bias that's there. And so I'm pushing the number higher or something like that. But I mean I, if I really was going to be super biased, I'd just push it to 18 or something. Um, but yeah, there's my thoughts. I'm trying to use human reasoning to draw out a principle in Scripture, knowledge of good and evil, which isn't just. I know that's wrong, but no, there's an accountability sense there. I can't imagine in any of the authors of scripture, in their cultures, them thinking that three year olds are actually accountable. You can put it this way, when a three year old or a five or a seven or an eight or a nine year old does something wrong, do you look at the kid or do you look at the parent to blame them? You blame the parent and rightly so. Now when a 14 year old or a 15 year old does something wrong, you start shifting your blame over to the kid because it's like you got to start behaving different. You have a sense of accountability as you've passed puberty. And I think that makes a lot of sense.

20
00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:26.000
God's judgment ultimately is going to be fair and good and just and we will one day understand and even appreciate it. You don't have to try to appreciate it now. You can just wait and trust that you will eventually and wait on him to encourage your heart and help you through it.

21
00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:49.000
But another way to look at this, uh, I thought of an analogy that might help people. Imagine the scene of Adam and Eve. They eat of the tree and now they're cast out of the garden. Now imagine there's an age range in your imagination here of how old are Adam and Eve? And so you picture Adam and Eve and their physical bodies and their mental capacities are those of a 20 year old. And you're like, yeah, okay, I can see you getting kicked out.

22
00:19:49.000 --> 00:19:59.000
Now I want you to imagine them being 10 year olds and they eat of the tree and the serpent deceives them and you're like, wait, are they even accountable for being deceived by the serpent?

23
00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:14.000
Look at how old they are, look how little they are. Is it really even fair to judge them based upon this? Or let's say we make them three years old and Adam's like, Adam's like it was the woman you gave me.

24
00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:22.000
And you imagine this like 3 year old version of Adam and Eve. And it seems, at least to my gut, preposterous to think that they are held accountable.

25
00:20:22.000 --> 00:21:36.000
And it does seem consistent with scripture to say that they are in fact not, um, ultimately we're all going to be held accountable. God knows. God knows. And he's going to do exactly what is right and perfect. So I hope that that has helped. I've tried to do it as dispassionate a way as I can. I'm not trying to pull people's heartstrings. Um, but I'm going to take your guys questions from the live chat today. So, uh, my name is Mike Winger. Look, I do this every Friday, just about every Friday, most Fridays. And I take your guys questions and try to answer them Biblically. I try to give you scripture to hang your beliefs on so that you'll understand from the Bible exactly what you should or shouldn't be believing to be true. Um, I'm just looking for the questions. Here they are. Um, we've got the first one coming in or the second question for today coming in from Justin, who says, can we be confident that a book of the Bible is truly inspired and belongs to the canon if the author is unknown like the book of Hebrews, if we don't know who wrote it, how can we trust what it contains? How can we know it wasn't just the written version of someone's sermon? A pastor may be educated, but they aren't inerrant. Um, yeah, so I'm going to answer these in reverse. Okay. You ask a number of questions. You say, hey, a pastor can be educated, but they're not inerrant. That's a great observation.

26
00:21:36.000 --> 00:21:49.000
Just because the scripture is or a writing contains highly educated content or even true content, that doesn't make it scripture. Part of what God's inspired, infallible rule for all believers.

27
00:21:49.000 --> 00:22:42.000
That's entirely correct. Um, okay, next thing you said, working backwards through your comment, Justin, how can we know it wasn't just the written version of someone's sermon? And that I would say, well, we don't know it wasn't, but that's okay. That shouldn't bother you. Act has the written version of people's sermons, the book of Acts, Jesus and the Gospels have. The gospels have written versions of Jesus sermons. And that's totally okay. So it's not. It's very natural the way the Bible happened. I mean, it is just, it's just writing. The only difference with the Bible in some other book is this is writing that was inspired by God. The Holy Spirit was guiding and leading and working in the lives of the people who wrote, which may have included and for sure included times where there was the writing of a sermon. Writing a sermon down. And it was the inspiration of the Spirit that made the difference. And the author is. Well, we'll talk about the author in a second. Okay, Your next statement was, if we don't know who wrote it, how can we trust what it contains?

28
00:22:42.000 --> 00:22:52.000
Um, the question of authorship goes back even to the Old Testament. There's Old Testament books, we're not sure who wrote.

29
00:22:52.000 --> 00:25:19.000
So the mistake here is thinking that in every case, when we have a book of the Bible, the trustworthiness of the book is hanging on the trustworthiness of the author, whereas inspiration is a little bit of a different idea. Inspiration is that the trustworthiness of the book is hanging on the inspiration of the spirit. In the writing of the book, we don't need to recognize the author. We need to recognize the ultimate, the human author. We need to recognize the non human author, the Holy Spirit, who is inspiring the writings. Because indeed, um, Paul, who wrote the first Timothy, for instance, he could have at times written things that were incorrect, made mistakes. He wrote some things that weren't inspired. They were just things he wrote. It was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that makes the difference in the authorship. It's not the author themselves. So God could use anybody. I mean, for an example, he spoke to Balaam through a donkey, that donkey speaking, a supernatural, miraculous act. But you could ask, how could I trust? It's a donkey. How could I trust a donkey? Obviously, it's God miraculously using this thing. That's the nature of inspiration. So it's okay if we don't know who wrote it. Um, I'm not saying we don't care. Sure we care. I'd like to know who wrote it. But it doesn't, it doesn't prove inspiration is wrong because God can obviously inspire anybody he wants. Now, if you look at Hebrews, we don't know who wrote it, but there's a lot of agreement that what we have here is, um, apostolic teaching, right? So whoever wrote the thing down, for instance, Luke, Luke is not one of the 12. Luke is not one of the major apostles in the New Testament. Luke is a guy who's writing down, Peter did this and Paul did this, and Jesus said this, and he interviewed and gathered information from all sorts of sources. And then the Holy Spirit used him to write this down and to write it the way he did. So God used it. But Luke himself wasn't one of those, um, he wasn't one of those guys, you know, Whereas Matthew is written by Matthew, Mark is written ultimately by Mark. But it's Peter's content and Mark's more like his, uh, helper in that. And then, um, you know, John. So Luke's different. Luke's different. He wasn't even there for some of the stuff that happened, but he interviewed the people that were there. So what he has there is not. We don't have the writing necessarily of an apostle in every New Testament book. What we have is apostolic writing. There's a difference.

30
00:25:19.000 --> 00:25:45.000
If I'm an apostle and I write, I could be writing a recipe for making, like, cornbread that's not really apostolic. I'm an apostle writing. But, um, that is not apostolic. It's a recipe for cornbread. On the other hand, I could have a non apostle who's writing. And what they're writing down is the things the apostles have taught us. And then the writing can become apostolic because the nature of what's in there is from the apostles. And then the Holy Spirit uses it to make it actually Scripture.

31
00:25:45.000 --> 00:26:35.000
So if we don't know who wrote it, how can we trust what it contains? Yeah, one theory out there is. Well, I'll just put it this way. Hebrews has, um, ah, Pauline theology. Not that Paul wrote it, but the theology is there. That is very, very Pauline. It's very much the kinds of things that Paul teaches. Not that it contradicts someone else's theology, but it's the kind of stuff that he teaches, the stuff that he talks about. And there's debates. You know, did, uh, did Luke write Hebrews? And maybe he's writing one more book, but he writes this and it's like Apollo and theology stuff. Or did Apollos perhaps write it because he was debating with the Jews? Or is it some person we never heard of? Is it Barnabas the encourager? He ends up perhaps writing it, and if he did, it gives you a different idea of what kind of encouragement he offered people. Because Hebrews is like. It's like encouraging people with a sword sometimes.

32
00:26:35.000 --> 00:26:44.000
All right, your next part of your question. I know I'm going on for a while, but this is a great question. Can we be confident that a book of the Bible is truly inspired and belongs in the canon if the author's unknown?

33
00:26:44.000 --> 00:27:39.000
Absolutely. Um, our knowledge of the author is great. We'd like to have that. It's not necessary because inspiration, not only these authors, is the rule. The Holy Spirit guiding is the rule. It's not only these specific group of people. Is it apostolic, not it had to be written by an apostle. There's a slight difference there, but it's a. It's an important One, Yeah. Um, yeah. And ultimately, I trust that the same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures guaranteed that those very scriptures would get enshrined. And here we have incredible agreement across the church that the New Testament, the same New Testament that I have, that I teach from all the time, is in fact, the very New Testament. That's where the agreement is. Now, some people try to add other stuff in there, especially in the Old Testament, but the thing that the church widely worldwide agrees on is these 66 books. That's what we all tend to agree on. And then some people try to add other ones.

34
00:27:39.000 --> 00:28:04.000
All right, moving on to the next question. This is from SisterChick17. And no more questions for today. We've got all 10. Can you help me to contextually understand Matthew 11:12? Teachings I've heard make no sense. And I, uh, have tried to understand it myself. I'm not sure if I'm understanding what Jesus was saying here. Thank you. I will do my best. All right. No promises. Unfortunately, I wish I could promise Matthew 11:12.

35
00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:22.000
Um, I'm not off the top of my head. Don't know what I'm about to read. So let's read it. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and the violent. Take it by force. Yeah, I am so, um, part of me is just with you on this going. What does that mean?

36
00:28:22.000 --> 00:30:18.000
Violence? The violence? Take it by force. What does that mean? So let's back up a little bit and just see. Um, uh, I'm not. I'm trying to see how much relevant context I might want to read here. Um, John is in prison, and John seems to be discouraged. Okay, so John, Matthew, uh, chapter 11, starting in verse two. Now, when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another? And then Jesus answers him. It's awesome that even the doubts or the concerns or the questions of John, he's. He's like, what's going on? John rightly identified Jesus as the Messiah, but like many others, may have misunderstood the timing of his first and second coming, expecting, uh, more of a political victory that would come alongside at the same time as his other victories over sin. And Jesus answered them. Go and tell John what you hear and see. He doesn't just say, yes, I am. He does say, yes, I am. But he doesn't just say, yeah, trust me. He offers evidence. The blind receive their sight in the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear and the dead are raised up and the poor have the good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me. Why might you be offended by Jesus? Because he is who he said he is. He's just not who you expected. That's kind of the bottom line with the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah, but the Messiah is not who you thought he would be. And he came to save you from sin and you want help with other lesser temporal things. And a lot of people, that's what they want. Uh, it's the Joel Osteen syndrome. I want health and wealth and well being in this life right now. And yeah, I'll take the sin stuff too, but I want. And it disturbs them. They offend them sometimes because they're not getting the temporal benefits of Christ. And then they start to doubt whether they even want Jesus at all.

37
00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:48.000
As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John. So the context. John's in prison and John's concerned because what? Because things aren't going very well? Maybe the violent have taken him by force? Maybe. Something like that. I say maybe. Let's walk through it. What did you go out in the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? He's talking about John now. What then? Did you go out to see a man dressed in soft clothes? Clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings houses.

38
00:30:48.000 --> 00:31:40.000
Did you go to see a guy that was like rich and doing well? No, no, no. You went to see this like stern, bold faced prophet preaching, wearing sackcloth and eating locusts and stuff. What then? Did you go out to see a prophet? Yes, I tell you. And more than a prophet, this is he of whom it is written. Behold, I send my messenger before your face who will prepare your way before you. Oh man. Matthew's all about fulfilled prophecy in Jesus and John and everybody around him. Truly I say to you, among those born of women, there is arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Ah, uh, yes, this is, this is the thing. You're not looking to get a better kingdom on earth. You're looking to get into a better kingdom while you're on earth. And that kingdom will last forever. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and the violent take it by force.

39
00:31:40.000 --> 00:32:24.000
Now, uh, this is that verse. Okay, so perhaps Jesus is just in contrast. Right? Um, John has these expectations of a messiah that will Deliver and will bring them into promised joys and riches and all these wonderful things and cast off the Romans, just like many today think Jesus is going to like, get them the right info for the best crypto they can invest in. It's going to take care of their finances, their health, wealth, family, and just happy, happy, happy. Right? Your best life now. Um, and John is now in prison and instead of telling Jesus saying, hey John, don't worry, I'm going to come break you out and we're going to take over this thing, he just says like, yeah, the kingdom suffered violence and the violent, take it by force.

40
00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:39.000
That in the kingdom of Christ we don't overcome and we don't preach the gospel and we don't spread the kingdom through violent means, but we will experience violence as we're part of that kingdom because we're not of this world and we're not going to be getting that sort of health and wealth lifestyle.

41
00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:50.000
Um, that is one interpretation, um, and that seems like it fits the context overall. Um, I'm open, completely open to being wrong about this. I'm just walking through the text with you and trying to read it very simply and straightforwardly.

42
00:32:50.000 --> 00:33:17.000
And um, there's other interpretations often goes with different translations. So let me look at verse 12 and see if a translation will bring out a different angle on this because I know some do. Um, Niv, it keeps taking me to verse 11, which is probably making your guys eyeballs bounce around way too much. Um, let me try this again.

43
00:33:17.000 --> 00:33:32.000
Okay, so for the days, um, it's been subject to violence and violent people have been raiding it. So the NIV actually it reinforces this even more. It's like, yeah, hey, this is my view that I've shared with you today. The rsv.

44
00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:35.000
Violence, take it by force.

45
00:33:35.000 --> 00:34:23.000
Men of violence, take it by force. Yeah, it's experiencing violence as a negative thing. Oh, uh, I could. It's going to be hard for me to keep going. But the. There, there is. If you look at the footnotes, you will find debates about what this, how to translate this properly. But it seems like translations largely, um, they go with, the kingdom is experiencing violence, but there are others who would say no, no, the kingdom of heaven is the violent one. We are the violent one. And I know that sounds weird when I say it that way, but instead of the kingdom is suffering violence. Here's a footnote for the esv. It says or has been coming violently. And what would they relate that to? Well, think of Daniel and the dream Nebuchadnezzar's dream. And how this stone cut without hands, this stone comes and smashes the statue and fills the earth. And this is the kingdom of God coming, taking over.

46
00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:30.000
That is a different take. The kingdom of heaven is the one doing. The violence is coming violently.

47
00:34:30.000 --> 00:35:00.000
Then you have to probably reinterpret the violence. Right, Because John was never violent. Jesus was never violent. Um, they didn't do that. So this violence could be just a reference not to physical violence, but to the sudden explosion and breaking of the kingdom of God into this world. Now, theologically, that works. Jesus does show up and the gospel goes out and just invades and he's. It's with like, sudden aggressiveness that the gospel spreads and all that. You could do that.

48
00:35:00.000 --> 00:35:28.000
That could be a theologically safe alternative. I don't think the text means that, but that's another possibility. So there's a couple thoughts for you. I hope that something there helps you out. We'll go to the next question, which is from Katie, who says, my LDS husband, um, wants me and our kids to go to his ward and my church split 50, 50 every other week. Okay, so one week you do your church and one week you do his ward. Should I do this and submit to him or get out completely from doing this?

49
00:35:28.000 --> 00:35:46.000
That's a tough question. That is a really tough question, Katie. Um, I really feel like I should think about it a lot more, to be honest. Let me see the. You put up a couple verses of scripture, second kings 5, 17.

50
00:35:46.000 --> 00:37:07.000
Um, yeah, okay, so Neyman here, Naaman has leprosy and he gets healed and by the prophet of God. And, um, and after he's healed, he goes back to his pagan king. Because he's a pagan. He goes back to his pagan king and he asks for permission to take some dirt from Israel so he can have, like, a place where he can worship Yahweh, the true God who healed him. He no longer believes in these pagan gods. But then he goes on and he's like, is it okay, though, when he. Because he's. He's the general who helps the king. So when the king goes to worship his false God, Naaman helps him out. So verse 18, um, may you may God pardon me. When my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon. When I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon your servant in this matter. And then he's told, go in peace, which is to say that he's given permission to do that, um, he's not bowing himself, uh, to Rimmon. He's bowing himself in the house of Rimmon because he has to help his master. Can't walk properly, he's older, and he's kind of feeble. So he's got to help the guy down and help the guy up. So he's just aware of the physicality of I'm walking into the house. I have to take him where he's got to go. It's my responsibility.

51
00:37:07.000 --> 00:37:46.000
And in that, I think you've drawn onto, like, an interesting passage of Scripture. There's a sense in which you go, it's not up to me. It's not up to me to stop this guy from worshiping and stuff, but it is up to me to help him physically. And so I'll continue to do that. And I ask that God understand how I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Sorry, there's like, a whole bunch of planks in my eyeball right now. Just keep rubbing it. It's just making it worse. I thought about taking him out, but why would I do that? Um, sorry, guys, my humor is so bad, um, now. But then you also say Psalm 1:1, okay?

52
00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:59.000
And then we'll talk about how this might apply to kids. I don't know if I'll have the answer for you, but I can at least talk it out with you and help you think about it. Psalm, uh, 1:1. Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.

53
00:37:59.000 --> 00:38:34.000
Um, yeah. So you might be like, I don't want to involve myself in those things. I, um, think that what's happening here, though, in Psalm one is partnership. He walks in the counsel of the wicked. That he's doing the things the wicked encourage him to do. He's standing in the way of sinners. Uh, that is like a permanent standing. Like, he's hanging out and associating himself purposely with sinful people, people who are living sinful lifestyles. You become like your friends, is the statement. And, uh, he doesn't sit in the seat of scoffers. That is, he is not finding himself as belonging and being part of the in group of those who are scoffing against God and scoffing against truth.

54
00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:52.000
Can you somehow make this work? Um, look, well, you can't stop your husband from going to the ward. You also can't stop him from being the dad of your kids. And there's a sense in which do you have the ability as a. This is where I don't.

55
00:38:52.000 --> 00:39:12.000
I haven't thought about it enough to even weigh in on this, but I understand the question. Um, and I'm sure some are like, you, knee jerk. You know exactly what you'd say. Good for you. Okay, you can get mad at me in the comments. I'm sure people mad. You don't know Mike. How dare you are. You idiot. Plenty of those comments every time I say I don't know something. Um, but the reality of.

56
00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:20.000
Can you be telling your husband you can't take my kids to this place because it teaches false things?

57
00:39:20.000 --> 00:39:32.000
I don't know that you can say that. I'm not really sure what the right move is on that. Um, maybe there's a time when you can and maybe there's times when you can't in your situation. I'm not really sure. I'm not really sure. Okay. That's kind of beyond me.

58
00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:37.000
But given. Let's suppose you can't. Let's work with that.

59
00:39:37.000 --> 00:40:12.000
Then. Um, I would actually encourage you not only to allow your kids to go to this ward, but to go with them, to make sure that you go with them and you're sitting there and you hear the things that they hear and you're aware of the teachings and that you are always having your radar up and your thoughts prepared. Um, but that you don't let this become a point of contention because you want to be doing this in the most gracious and loving way you can where you're not driving a wedge between you and your husband. Um, if at all possible, in as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all, well, that includes your husband, and especially in this very difficult, very hard situation.

60
00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:34.000
So. And if this is part of a deal where you're like, hey, this is how I can get my kids into church, is by. They go to ward one week in church the other. That's fine. Um, at least they have them in church, right? As opposed to nothing. Now, I'll tell you what I've. What I've experienced as a youth pastor for many years. For many years. For 73 years, I was a youth pastor for, um, 107 years. I went to 3,000 camps.

61
00:40:34.000 --> 00:41:47.000
I had to eat all kinds of bad food and learned value of earplugs. But with kids, when they have a parent who has one belief and another parent who has a different one, whether it's like Buddhist and atheist or Christian and Muslim or Mormon, LDS versus a, uh, Christian, usually what the kids will do is they'll try to straddle the fence, and they'll try to say, I'm both, I'm both. I'm Mormon and Christian. And maybe that feeds into Mormonism, because they try to say the same thing about themselves, even though it's just propaganda, it's not real truth. Um, you're going to need to be patient with your kids and understand that in their minds at that age, they're not weighing the right and wrong of morality and of. And of doctrine. What they're doing is they're choosing between mom and dad, and that's why they're going to choose both. And so be patient with them and try to be thoughtful and help them understand where they're at on their level, to understand the theological issues as you're able to give them. Give them those things. But, uh, I hope that your witness to your husband is really strong and really good and that it's not just about fighting over the kids, but that you can show him what it means to be a godly and wonderful wife.

62
00:41:47.000 --> 00:41:51.000
Read Second Peter on this. Or, uh, is it First Peter?

63
00:41:51.000 --> 00:42:01.000
I think it's First Peter. Yeah, yeah. Where it talks about a wife who has an unbelieving husband, which is what you have. Your husband's an unbeliever. He won't say he is, but, uh, God help you in it.

64
00:42:01.000 --> 00:42:19.000
All right, let's go to question number five. Matthew Race says in Leviticus 2, 9, 10, the part of the grain offering for the priest is a most holy part. Why is the part that the priests eat more holy than the m. Memorial portion that is burned on the altar?

65
00:42:19.000 --> 00:42:21.000
Um.

66
00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:22.000
Um.

67
00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:31.000
Well, let's read this and see if I can offer any insights at all. 2, 9, and 10, Leviticus.

68
00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:59.000
And the priest shall take from the grain. Grain offering, its memorial portion and burn this on the altar. A food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons. It is a most holy part of the Lord's food offerings. So I guess what you're thinking is that the memorial portion is less holy or less maybe important or valuable than what's called the most holy part of the Lord's food offering.

69
00:42:59.000 --> 00:44:21.000
Um, I don't read it. I do not take the statement that this part is the most holy as being a statement about less holy or less important other memorial offerings. I think the reason why the offerings that are given to the priest to eat are called holy or most holy versus the memorial offering. You don't need to use that language. Is because the memorial offering is burnt and destroyed, Meaning that nobody ever touches it again, nobody ever sees it again. But the stuff you give to the priest, they actually eat and consume and they're told, oh, this one's holy, this one's this. Because they're not to just eat it whenever and wherever and however they want. So sometimes they're given a piece of offering and they can only eat it in certain ways or in certain places to preserve the holiness of that thing. Now when it's burnt on the altar, you don't have any of those concerns, you don't need to call it that. To indicate, to signal how to behave with this food afterwards. So you can imagine, um, them being given holy food. Like there's like a piece of meat that's given to the priest and his family when someone offers their goat or something, and then the guy takes it and throws it to his dog and he's like, here, dog, go ahead and eat this food. They cannot do that. Hey, that's holy. That's holy food. You can't just give that to a dog. Do you get the idea? So the most holy language there, I think, is about how to treat the offering after the priest receives it.

70
00:44:21.000 --> 00:45:06.000
And there are rules in the text about that sort of thing. So, uh, question number six. Betty Bloop says, I see a lot of new age ish things, energy manifesting vibes creeping into Christ followers lives around me. I've gotten blowback trying to correct in love. Any advice to continue the conversation without angering them? Yeah, it's weird how angry people get when they're all about good vibes. Have you noticed this? They're about good vibes. They're like, good vibes, good vibes. You don't have good vibes. I despise you, but I smile while I do it. The, uh, advice, um, this is a tough one. Um, I'll be honest. And some of you out here, some watching this video, you'll be someone who's like, I'm into energy and manifesting in vibes. I think that stuff's great.

71
00:45:06.000 --> 00:45:55.000
Um, they often have beliefs that are based upon their feelings, and you're often trying to correct with beliefs that are based upon information like facts from scripture, that sort of thing about how manifesting is a distortion. Uh, it distorts the idea of faith. It turns faith into a power instead of into a confidence. Faith is a confidence in God. It's his power that does things. My faith does nothing. Now, by faith you can be healed, but the whole point Here is to say that I'm just trusting and God's doing the healing. And someone goes, how'd that happen? I just believed it was God who did it. Whereas manifesting is about the actual. My belief pushing out, like, nebulous m energies into the universe that cause the universe to give me what I want so that it's a power. It's like using the Force. It's, it's kind of like that.

72
00:45:55.000 --> 00:46:01.000
You know, this is like a Neo thing. You're, you're, you're learning to control the Matrix. That's the idea.

73
00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:30.000
Manifesting is an unbiblical idea. But a lot of people who believe in the vibes and vibrations and energy, um, they do so because it feels right to them and they like it when you're encountering them and you say, hey, that's not true. You're telling something that's not true that they like and they feel good about. So I guess the question I have is how do I tell somebody that something they like and feel good about isn't something they should like and feel good about?

74
00:46:30.000 --> 00:46:44.000
So, um, maybe I approach them on the, on the place of feelings. I'm just brainstorming with you. Maybe something to do is say, hey, people who get into manifestations and vibes and energy and they get deep in this stuff, they end up getting involved with demons.

75
00:46:44.000 --> 00:47:42.000
That I think, is the truth. And you can actually show people, um, who have, like, they have their New Age testimony coming out of New Age into Christianity and how they were involved with demons and how they thought it was positive. So showing them a testimony, like sending them Stephen, uh, Bankar's testimony. He was a major New Age writer, author, wrote this stuff, gave his life to Jesus Christ. Total transformation and stuff. Really, really amazing story. And he actually has his testimony so he can talk about what they liked from the same angle as they liked it, and then talk about how it led him into darkness and how those things are actually dangerous. See, this is different. It's one thing to say what you like is not true. This feels like telling someone Santa doesn't exist and they get offended. Um, it's something else to tell them what you like is actually harmful. It's dangerous. It's dangerous. And I feel like that might be a better tack since they are on that level. Does that make sense? What do you guys think? Does that seem like a smart angle to take? Show them it's dangerous, then show them it's not true.

76
00:47:42.000 --> 00:47:47.000
Now everybody's different. So that may hit in different ways. For different people.

77
00:47:47.000 --> 00:47:58.000
Let's go to question number seven. Muffin Smith says, Does the last verse of Malachi 4 suggest that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses in Revelation?

78
00:47:58.000 --> 00:49:34.000
Malachi, chapter four, the last verse. Okay, so there are these witnesses in Revelation. And uh, I'm pre millennial and so I do hold like you seem to as well, that there's coming a tribulation time, a seven year tribulation time. And during that time God will set up two people who are, they're like old school prophets. They can call down fire, they can do like Elijah type stuff, um, not because of a power they have, but because of permission they have from God that he'll honor the things that they're saying. And they're going to be a witness during this tribulation time. And the world can't attack them or hurt them. And then they end up, finally the protection goes away and the world kills them and they lay their dead and then God brings them back. It's all part of God witnessing to the world and judging the world. Who were these two witnesses? Now we often think these two witnesses are going to be two prophets of old that are brought back. They're not just two individuals who show up in the end times, but they're actually two known people who are brought back from the past into the present. Like, not, I don't mean teleported in time here, but here's the idea. Maybe Elijah is one of these guys. Why Elijah was taken up into heaven, he did not physically go through normal death. You know, his body was taken up. The other one in the Old Testament, like this is Enoch. He just was not for God took him. They didn't go through a death. Both of them were prophets. Maybe those are the two witnesses. Maybe they're going to be brought back and then they actually experience death. And it's like, hey, every man dies and it feels like symmetrical. Um, I'm not saying all that's the case. I'm um, helping people understand the reasoning.

79
00:49:34.000 --> 00:50:35.000
Malachi, um, four. When we get to the end of the book, really it says, behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction. Now I do personally take this as future, not past. Now you might think, well, that was John the Baptist. Mike, the uh, way that Jesus discusses John the Baptist is remember there's two comings of Christ. And they mirror each other in some ways, but they're different. There's the first coming, and John the Baptist is like Elijah going before to prepare the way of the Lord. But Jesus is asked about John, and he goes, yeah, if you can accept it, John is Elijah who is to come. Future tense. That there still is a coming of Elijah in the future. And that seems to imply he may be one of those two witnesses. Could be something else, but he might be one of those two witnesses in Revelation. Okay, I think that that's a possible, very possible thing.

80
00:50:35.000 --> 00:50:38.000
Um, but then the questions come up.

81
00:50:38.000 --> 00:51:24.000
Does that mean it's literally Elijah? Because John wasn't literally Elijah, was he? No, he wasn't. He was one who came like Elijah, like in the spirit of Elijah. So this future witnesses, are they. Is it literally Elijah, or is it someone who's like Elijah and maybe someone who's like Enoch or like Moses? Uh, like one of those guys, um, that I don't know the answer to and I don't postulate it. So make sure I answered your question here. Um, you said, does it. Does Matthew. Does Malachi 4 at the end suggest that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses in Revelation? I think it at least implies he'll be. He could be one of the two witnesses, and doesn't necessarily mean he has to be the same Elijah. Could be someone like him who's just called Elijah because of the parallel that's there. Like, it's typology.

82
00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:45.000
Um, I could be wrong on that end time stuff. Very easy to get that stuff wrong. They got a lot wrong when they thought we're trying to predict what Jesus was going to be like in the first century. And we could get. We could get a lot wrong because we'll know when we know. All right, next question. And, uh, this is going to be a parent warning question. So I haven't read it yet. I've read any of these yet, but.

83
00:51:45.000 --> 00:52:05.000
Parents, stop this if your kids are listening. Okay, I'm, uh, only 18, but I've been addicted to porn for five years now, which slowly turned homosexual over time. Can you please explain the past tense of died in Romans 6? 2? Am I dead to sin, or do I die?

84
00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:19.000
There are two very different things going on. One, you've got this pornography addiction, and I'm grateful that you shared it so that you can hear some thoughts. Um, and the other is you have this question about Romans 6:2 and its interpretation.

85
00:52:19.000 --> 00:52:26.000
Um, let me start with Romans 6:2. Then I'll address the other thing which is a really big deal.

86
00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:47.000
So we'll start with verse one. Uh, what shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means. How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were past tense. Baptized into his death. Past tense. This is all past tense. We have died to sin, so how can we live in it?

87
00:52:47.000 --> 00:53:28.000
So Romans is where Paul talks about God's grace. He's really explaining how gracious God is and how he just forgives us. And he responds to Paul, does this in his letters where he'll write and he'll predict where the reader will misunderstand him. And so he'll throw out a question, a rhetorical question. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? The response is, hey, just because you're forgiven by grace, does that mean you can sin all you want and you'll just go, hey, it's bringing God even more grace when I sin more. Look at. Look at. Glory to God. Even more grace as I sin. And he says, no, by no means. By no means. That's evil. But the reason it's evil is because we've died to sin.

88
00:53:28.000 --> 00:55:03.000
If you're dead to sin, how can you live in it? Uh, now you asked the question, am I dead to sin or do I die? Like past or future tense? This is past tense. You have died to sin, and therefore you should live as though you're dead to sin. What does that mean? Um, do you know that point when you were a little kid when you started realizing you couldn't play with the same toys you used to? And I don't mean you were embarrassed. I mean, like, you just. You just couldn't anymore. Like, it wasn't fun like it used to be. Some of that stuff, you know, your. Your. Your brain gets a little bit bigger, and you start going, this is just. Doesn't. It's just not that great. Like, this is super fake, and I'm over it. And you start to desire more adult things in a good way. You know? Um, that's kind of like a parallel here. So, as a Christian, I put my faith in Christ, and now it's like, I've died to sin. And as I look back at sin that I want to commit, and I still desire to sin, Even as a man who's a Christian now, uh, and has been for many years, I'm looking at things that don't fit me anymore, things that shouldn't be part of my life anymore because I've moved on to, in this metaphor, adulthood. I've moved on to what it is to be in Christ. And that old life doesn't fit me anymore. So I crossed a threshold from childhood to adulthood. And so I shouldn't be playing with my GI Joes. That doesn't really make a lot of sense. I shouldn't be, um, doing whatever certain things that kids do, and that's healthy and good. I know our culture wants to get you back to those kid things, but that's actually not great for you.

89
00:55:03.000 --> 00:55:33.000
Um, the parallel is that as a Christian, I've given my life to Christ. Just as he on the cross died for my sin, so through him on the cross, I am dead to sin. Positionally, that's where I'm at. So I should therefore live it out. I shouldn't go back and be like this foolish offense, uh, to the cross of just continuing in sin. Although I've. And you have done it many times. But if you keep reading, it'll take what you have done and talk about what you should do. So let's just keep reading. Romans 6.

90
00:55:33.000 --> 00:56:04.000
By no means. How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried, therefore, with him by baptism into death. Past tense. In order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. That's the goal, is that you might walk in the newness of life you've been given. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with his, with him in a resurrection like His. Let these words sink in.

91
00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:13.000
Read Romans 6. Read it every day for like, a week. I'd encourage you to do this seriously, as a brother or sister, whichever you got, whichever you are.

92
00:56:13.000 --> 00:58:51.000
Um. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing. So this is past tense. Positionally, in my position in Christ, I am, um, crucified with Christ so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. That's the ripple effect of that. I'm not enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. We Know that Christ being raised from the dead, will never die again. Death no longer has dominion over him. For death, the death, he died. He died to sin once for all. But the life he lives, he lives to God. And that's supposed to be a mirror for us. I've died to sin, and now I live to God. That's Christ is my example there. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Consider yourself. This is your job right now. Reckon is the new King James Version. Reckon yourselves dead to sin. See, you are positionally. But you need to be thinking about this. You need to consider this. You need to commit yourself to this idea that you are dead to sin and you are alive to God in Christ Jesus. Now you go down to the application, because just the fact that you're dead to sin doesn't mean you stop sinning. No, it's the reason why you should stop sinning. It's not the fact that you just don't ever commit sins, but it's why you shouldn't. Let not sin, therefore reign in your mortal body to make you obey its passions. Don't let it. Don't present your members as, uh, to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. This is something we often miss as Christians today we are so individualistic. We don't realize when we commit a sin, we're taking something God is sanctified, purified, redeemed, and brought honor to. And we're dragging it down into the mud. And that's me. That's me. I'm the thing that God has redeemed. And I'm dragging myself into the mud when I commit sin. And so he goes, don't do that, for sin will have no dominion over you, since you were not under the law, but under grace. And we could go on and read more, and I recommend you would read more of Romans 6. But then you have a question about, um, you've had a porn. You say porn addiction for five years now, which has slowly turned homosexual over time. Um, I'll give you a few thoughts on this. And I'm not like the guru for this, but my thoughts are five, um, years. So get real help. Get real help. Pursue help.

93
00:58:51.000 --> 00:59:41.000
Look for help, whether that be in person, whether that be some program or some educational content that will help you understand things better. Um, create real limits. Jesus says, um, you know, it'd be better to gouge out your eye, cut off your hand. Well, you're not supposed to actually cut off body parts. Please don't do that. Please don't do that. Jesus didn't want you to do that. Um, the point is you can make drastic. Take drastic steps in your life to separate yourself from this sin. And that may mean limiting your access to media, to social media, to a cell phone, something else. Create space in your life where you can overcome and recover from this thing. You know, Uh, a person who's an alcoholic will sometimes go into a treatment facility where they're cut off from the world for a little while so they can reset and then they can learn new boundaries and refresh themselves on how to be living. Those can be positive things. Take real action is what I'm suggesting.

94
00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:48.000
And I'd encourage you that the longer you're away from it, the more your brain, your heart, will fix itself.

95
00:59:48.000 --> 01:00:32.000
You will. You will get better. You will get better. The less you engage in those things, the less you stimulate that sinful side of you, the less it's going to be taking control and becoming a monster in your life. And that's a beautiful thing. Now, it'll always be an easy step away because you've walked on that path so many times. You know, there's an old saying that, um, like you learn this from. From druggies and stuff. So like, let's say a heroin user, um, when they use heroin, they have to keep using more and more over time. But if they get clean, there's a danger of overdose because often they'll stay clean. They'll do great for a year, two years, five years, whatever. And then one day they go back to it. And that's usually when people overdose, because what they do is they go right back to the dose amount that they had had a high tolerance for when they were younger.

96
01:00:32.000 --> 01:01:18.000
They didn't build up to it, right? Their body's been cleansed, but the pathway to sin is there in their lives. And so they go right back to it and they od and, uh. M. There's a sense in which when you've developed a weakness for a particular sin, you can't even open the door a crack for it because then the floodgates can come. But as long as you keep that door closed, you are solid, you are fine. But you can't even. Don't even take a step towards it. Don't give the enemy a foothold in your life in these areas. Draw real solid boundaries and live in the fear of God with those things. I Hope some of that helps. You know, the last thing I'll say is there is. There is a grace. The grace of Christ is available to you right now, even in the midst of all this stuff. It is not just you. This is an epidemic going on in churches. It's an epidemic going on across the entire world.

97
01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:49.000
Satan is absolutely the God of this age, and he's driving the depravity of this age through online pornography. More than, uh, probably any other issue that's facing our culture and our world today. This thing will undermine and destroy, um, and ruin in so many, countless ways. But it will do it for you individually. So you need to trust in the grace of Christ. Don't sit in your condemnation. Get up in his grace and walk in the light.

98
01:01:49.000 --> 01:03:57.000
Question number nine. Tammy Gibson says, how should a church member confront an elder biblically? Is Matthew 18 still applicable, or is there another text that applies since they are an Elder? Um, I think you should confront an elder the same way you confront anybody. There's no special, like, separate set of confrontation for an elder. It's, uh, what you do after you confront that may change an elder. So Matthew 18 is not for confronting everybody about everything. Like, for instance, I'm a public teacher. You want to refute one of my teachings because you think I got something wrong, and it's not scriptural, it's not honoring Christ. You don't need to come and talk to me about that privately. First, you can just make a video. I can't throw Matthew 18 at you there as though my public teaching ministry. I can only be privately confronted about my public teaching. Sins that are done publicly can be addressed publicly. If a brother sins against you, singular, just you go and confront them privately. Just you. If it's between you guys, try to keep it that way if possible. Um, and this depends on the sin, too, right? If the sin is like, um, something that's like a criminal offense, you can go to the police. We're talking about brotherly offenses and stuff. Not just, uh, if a man rapes a woman and then they throw Matthew 18 at her, that's inappropriate. Like, she should go to the police and tell the world, and he should be arrested and he should get the death penalty. So that's the reality of it. But the Matthew 18 shouldn't be used there. So there's got to be some wisdom here in how we apply these ideas. But with an elder, you go and you confront them individually and say, hey, you've sinned against me here. Or I believe that there's A correction that needs to be brought here. And you do so first, considering yourself, lest you also be tempted. So you get that plank out of your own eye. You deal with any bitterness that's in your heart, any ulterior motives that are in your heart. You handle that before you talk to them. You make sure that you go to them with a spirit of restoration and not just a spirit of rebuke. The. There's a difference. All I want to do is rebuke you. That's to bring me, um, some feel goods. I want to, I want to feel good. So I'm going to tell you off about how wrong you are. But a spirit of restoration is. I want to help you do better. I want to bring a blessing to you. So I'm going to clear out my own bitterness, clear out my own anything and deal with those issues. I'd like to restore things here. That's, um, the idea.

99
01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:35.000
The, um, next step, though, if he rejects and doesn't listen. Um, with an elder, it can be challenging because you might normally go to an elder to say, hey, you have some spiritual authority here, so and so sinned against me. They won't hear me. Will you come and help me to restore them and help them see what they've done wrong and help fix the problem? But if it's an elder, especially if you have only one pastor in your church, it can be like, I don't know who to go to. So this can make it more challenging. Um, yeah, but then you just go to who is it that they might respect that you also would look at as a wise person.

100
01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:41.000
Yeah, but elders aren't in a separate category there. It's just a different social dynamic, in my opinion.

101
01:04:41.000 --> 01:05:09.000
Now if you do go to people repeatedly and nobody listens, um, and the elder won't listen and you know, you're in the right and you're just, they're sort of teaming up against you in an ungodly way. It's okay to go even more broad than that. What about going to the other church over here somewhere else where they're, they're not able to control the narrative so much. Um, because you are in the right in this case, then it is okay to go beyond that and be the whistleblower. That can be the case. It depends on the circumstance, though. I don't want to be too general.

102
01:05:09.000 --> 01:05:19.000
Number 10, Antonio Hernandez says, why were people baptized in Jesus name in the Book of Acts? I was challenged by this question and can't figure it out.

103
01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:34.000
Um, yeah, so we have a Baptismal formula in Matthew, and it's in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Spirit. Well, hold on. I'm not really quoting scripture. Let me just put it up on your screen.

104
01:05:34.000 --> 01:06:11.000
He says, uh, go into all nations, right? Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit. And there's one name. This is a trinitarian issue that we should highlight. That's why I was like, let me bring it up, because I just said it wrong. The name singular of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now, often we take this as our formula for baptism. Baptism with the formula of, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And I have done this. That is how I have baptized people in the past. I use the same formula. But we also see baptisms happening in the New Testament where it just says they were baptized into Jesus.

105
01:06:11.000 --> 01:07:26.000
Um, there are two answers to this. One is to say, perhaps we shouldn't sweat the formula too much. It's valuable, it's important. But we shouldn't sweat it too much because we realize that if you baptize someone in the name of Jesus, and yet they know, they understand the doctrine of who God is and who Christ is and this sort of thing, then it's the same thing as baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But there's also the realization that the book of Acts is not always giving, um, direct and full quotes. In fact, typically it's expected that they're shortening things on a regular basis. So Acts 10:48 is an example. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and they asked him to stay a few days. This is the command, be baptized in the name of the Lord. Now, it may well be that when they got baptized, they got baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. That that was what it, um, what they meant by baptizing in the name of the Lord. It doesn't mean they literally got baptized and they had to use the formula, I baptize you in the name of the Lord, and then they go under the water. We're putting too wooden of an, uh, interpretation on the Book of Acts in that case.

106
01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:34.000
So I hope that makes sense. I don't give. I don't require a perfect formula, but I see the value of a perfect formula.

107
01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:55.000
What we do require is Right. Theology. So if someone's baptizing in the name of Jesus and they're doing it because they actually deny some doctrine about the Father or the Holy Spirit or Jesus relationship within the doctrine and the idea of God and the Trinity, then, yeah, that's a problem. But not because you said Jesus, but because of the denial that was hiding behind that.

108
01:07:55.000 --> 01:08:36.000
All right, let's go to question number 11. Yeah, it's a bonus question. All right, it's 10 questions, but bonus one. All right, From Victor Swan's last one for today. Happy Friday, Mike. And happy Friday to you, too. Will probably never find every artifact or an original manuscript, but what is on your list of top biblical artifacts you hope are discovered? Israel in Egypt is one of mine. Yeah. Um, it'd be awesome to find more evidence for Israel in Egypt. Um, that would be really cool to find that. And there's a lot. A lot of stuff already related to that. Um, people act like there's just this. Like, oftentimes you'll see online, people pretend that the Exodus. There's just literally zero evidence.

109
01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:49.000
Um, and everybody knows it didn't happen archeologically. And this is. This is blustering, um, in my opinion. So it'd be cool to find that. What would I actually love to find? Um, the Ark.

110
01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:52.000
That would be the coolest thing to find. The Ark of.

111
01:08:52.000 --> 01:09:11.000
Of God. I mean, you've got pictures. Uh, not pictures, really, but an etching of the Romans carrying it away along with the lampstand when they sacked the temple. And it implies that it may have survived and they actually took it away when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

112
01:09:11.000 --> 01:10:01.000
but what happened then? Did they melt it down and turn it into an idol of some kind? Was it destroyed? Some people think it is hiding. There are a lot of mystery theories. It was hiding and the Jews have it, and it is under the Temple Mount. Put a lot of stock in that stuff, to be honest. And some people, it's very. They're very passionate about it. But, um. But I haven't seen the evidence for it. It seems more like rumor to me, and I don't want to base my beliefs on that. But, uh. But yeah, that would be. That would. The first thing that comes to mind is the Ark. That would be the neatest thing. But it's really hard to trust anything that claims to be an ancient relic. Do you know, in the Middle Ages, they. The Catholic Church was very much, um. I mean, Chris, let me just put it this way. In the Middle Ages, because it's not like it's just the Catholic Church. Christians. Christians were very much about relics. There was like this obsession with relics, and it was way overboard. It was like, oh, this is the pinky bone of the dead. Such and such person from the Bible.

113
01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:15.000
They had so many pieces of wood that they said were from the cross that they were selling. Here's a piece of wood from the cross, a splinter from the cross. There were so many. You could have built a house with all the pieces of wood that they were claiming came from the cross.

114
01:10:15.000 --> 01:11:08.000
The relics is big business. Relics and exalting them and getting the clout of them. If right now an Orthodox or Catholic church digs underneath their church and they find a little bone and they go, um, this is Doubting Thomas. This is Thomas finger. This is the finger he used. He was going to touch the nail print. And they're going to now be a tourist spot forever, or people are flocking to that church. It's famous, it's well known, it's going to be well supported financially. The ulterior motives for discovering these things, we have to acknowledge that. So I don't want to be too quick to make the same mistake we know Christians have made for many, many, many generations of just saying, yeah, that's legit, that's real. It excites me, and then being weird about it.

115
01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:59.000
Um, but, yeah, the ark would be cool if the ark was around. I do fear Christians would worship it, um, would get weird about it and forget that Jesus tore the veil open from top to bottom because we are now the temple. Um, and so perhaps it's by God's grace that it's not around may be the case. All right, you guys, that's it for today. I will be with you next Friday for another Q and A. I'm going to tackle the topic of how we know, just for the first question will be how we know that, uh, the wise men, they were not there when Jesus was born. They came significantly later. So I'm going to give you several reasons, and it's not that it's a big theological point. The reason I'm going to talk about that is because it highlights how when you pay attention to the details of scripture, it rewards you, you notice these things, and it's valuable. And then people can't, uh, make bad Joel Osteen movies about Mary.

116
01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:24.000
Did you guys see my review of the Mary movie? JOEL Osteen PRODUCER EXECUTIVE PRODUCER of the new Mary MOVIE Um, but it's, it's, it's not good. And it's not because I don't like Joel Osteen or something like that. That's not the case. It's not good because it's. It's got a lot of problems. I talk about some of them. I'll link that video below in case you still have time and don't know what else to do with your day. All right, you guys have a good one. Oh, I'm going to pray. I forgot.

117
01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:43.000
Father, we ask for wisdom in your word so, uh, that we can know not only what it says and the details and how to analyze this fact or that fact, but. But just like so many questions, so we know how it applies to our lives so we can walk in it. Lord, we want to know your word so we can live your word. And we pray that your holy spirit would help us pull planks out of our eyes and pull.

118
01:12:43.000 --> 01:13:25.000
Pull our eyelids open to be those who look into the perfect mirror of your word. And don't forget what we saw there in our own reflection. Um, always paling in comparison to you, but always being called to holiness. In Jesus name, amen.