WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.000 Welcome to the live stream. Sorry, that was the worst beginning I've ever done for a video. 2 00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:48.000 I, um, still remain unprofessional, as always. Uh, this is a Q and A. My name is Mike Winger. I'm here to help you learn to think biblically about everything. That's my hope. Anyways. I'm not the best Bible guy in the world, but I am a Bible guy, so. And hopefully you are too. The first question we have for the Q and A today is actually from Preston Murphy, who says Psalm 66:18 says, if I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. And Preston's question about this is, does this mean God will ignore a person's prayers if they have active, ongoing sin in their life? How should we understand this verse in context and alongside other scriptures about God hearing prayers? 3 00:00:48.000 --> 00:01:43.000 All right, um, to me, this is a complicated issue. And I don't mean super confusing issue. I just mean there's some layers I want to add here because if I could summarize that, maybe two responses that I think I would have, I would hear from people that would be too single note, too, like two dimensional, too simplistic. One of them would be, um, if you have sin, God won't hear your prayer, which really ultimately starts to feel like we're disqualifying every Christian from praying. Everybody out there in the world, God never hears your prayers. And this also can create a lot of consternation with people because they can start to feel hopeless and feel like, yeah, if God's not going to hear my prayers, what's the point? I give up. It's always the voice of Satan. If you're thinking, oh, I'll just give up seeking God, I'll give up serving and trusting in Christ, I'll just give up. That's always the voice of the enemy. 4 00:01:43.000 --> 00:02:13.000 God's desire and preference and open door to you is always that of restoration and that of forgiveness and that of drawing near to him. Thank God, because we need that every day, all day long. But the other flip side of this is to respond in an overly nurturing way that effectively says to people, you never have to deal with sin, you never have to deal with your own sin issues, that kind of thing. Um, oh, there we go. The number didn't change. I just realized that is, uh, a problem. 5 00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:24.000 To suggest that you can just continue on in any kind of sin and God's going to always treat you the same way is not actually biblical. Now the basis of my salvation, my forgiveness in Christ is purely grace. 6 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:32.000 But my prayer life can be affected by my sin. And that is talked about here. So let's look at the psalm and we'll look at some other verses too. 7 00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:41.000 I want to be biblical in my thinking here. And I don't want to speak for God and pretend that he does things he doesn't do or won't do things he will do. So here we go. 8 00:02:41.000 --> 00:03:11.000 Psalm 66. 18. If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. But God has listened. And the reason is because, of course, he. He has a heart that is yielded to God. He has a heart that is given over to God and is trusting in God. So he cries out, you know, that there is this sort of repentance. Um, you could read Psalm 66, the whole thing and get more of it, but I want to cover other Scriptures as well. So I'll just highlight in the verse that was referenced, verse 18, the word cherished seems important here. 9 00:03:11.000 --> 00:03:54.000 It's not just that a person who has sin in their life in some capacity or another will not be heard by God. That is not what I would teach. I don't think that's what Scripture is teaching here. It is that if he was cherishing iniquity, and if it was, I embrace and hold on to, and will not submit this thing to God. This is the thing that is precious to me. It has become an idol in my heart. The Lord will not listen. Now, if that's true of Psalm 66 and the author in his situation, it certainly can be true of you in your situation. Then we have other scriptures that talk about this too. We have. Um, let me take you to one. Um, think about this. This is New Testament. For anybody who's like, but that's Old Testament. 10 00:03:54.000 --> 00:04:00.000 You never want to throw something out because it's Old Testament. You just want to contextualize it because it's Old Testament. 11 00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:08.000 But here we go. First, um, Peter 3:7. 12 00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:13.000 Sorry, guys, I'm getting there. First Peter 3:7. 13 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:32.000 A word to husbands. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives with understanding, in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as to the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life. And then it gives a reason. And this is what I want to focus on here so that your prayers may not be hindered. 14 00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:55.000 The obvious implication is that if the husband is not honoring God in the way that he honors his wife, in the way that he treats her, and sees her as though in a weaker vessel, she is an equal heir of Grace heirs with you in the grace of life, not some second class citizen in God's kingdom. If he treats her wrongly, then his prayers are hindered. 15 00:04:55.000 --> 00:05:17.000 Now you might just think, well, that just means husbands and wives won't pray together as well if the wife and husband aren't in harmony. And that would be true, but probably not the extent of what's being said in First Peter. It seems to be a statement about, hey, God will hold you accountable husband in your relationship with him if you do not treat your wife well, in particular in the way he responds to your prayers. 16 00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:51.000 So there's a number of these issues that we see in scripture that can hinder our prayers or cause God to close off heaven, so to speak. And we see this in the Old Testament as well and a number of places. Isaiah talks about this. We see that the heavens are like. Like closed is the metaphor that the prophets use. The heavens are closed because God is not listening to the prayers of the people because of their ongoing, unrepentant, sinful things. So he says, no, turn and I'll listen. I don't want your sacrifices anymore. He says in Isaiah, stop bringing your bulls and goats and all this. I'm not interested in that. I want your broken and contrite heart. 17 00:05:51.000 --> 00:06:14.000 So it does happen. God rejecting my prayers because of my harboring of sin in my life. This doesn't necessarily mean that he's rejecting the person. It doesn't necessarily mean they're losing their salvation or something like that. But yes, it's a major issue in their walk with God. That is a real thing and it may be happening to one of you. And if it is, here's my encouragement. Turn your heart to God. 18 00:06:14.000 --> 00:07:28.000 In times when God's like, I'm not going to listen to you. He says this to the people of Israel. He then follows it up by saying something I'll paraphrase along the lines of, but I will, if you will, come rightly to me. He's actually got an arm that's outstretched. Even in Isaiah, that passage, the book that's saying, you know, stop bringing your prayers and your worship and your offerings to me. They disgust me. He says, instead, get your hearts right and then bring them to me and it will be a wonderful, beautiful thing. So even God rejecting prayer is not a full rejection of the person. It is a request that they get this issue right for their own good as well as for the relationship with God. Never believe the voice of the enemy that has you thinking, oh, I'll just give up on seeking The Lord. Oh, forget it. Oh, uh, woe is me. The analogy that I think of is me, when I was young in school, getting a bad grade in a class. You know, maybe we're a third of the way into the year, and I start getting bad, bad, uh, grades because I didn't do my homework. I wasn't paying attention in class. I wasn't doing the right thing. And then I think to myself, forget, uh, it. I'm going to have such a hole to dig myself out of at this point. I'll just say, forget it, and I'll just start getting Fs. And so I got lots of Fs. I, um, failed junior high. 19 00:07:28.000 --> 00:09:02.000 I got a certificate of attendance. We had a very unhealthy home life. And that often translates into bad school stuff because there's nobody in your family, no parent over you, making sure you get your work done or making it a big deal. So, yeah, I actually failed junior high because of this kind of mentality. It was when I ended up coming to Christ and, uh, getting more serious with the Lord that I started thinking that school was actually maybe an obligation I had between me and God. I should do good for Him. And then my grades started going up and I did better, and I actually graduated with a decent GPA from high school. Um, and by then I had developed some discipline and some study skills and things like that. But this mentality of, oh, never mind, I'll just give up, that is always the enemy. There's always the flesh looking for another excuse to just keep on sinning and act like you're the victim of it. So don't listen to that voice. Yes, your prayers can be hindered. That's definitely a biblical reality. There's other things that can mess up our prayers, too. James says you can ask and not receive. Because you ask or miss that you may spend it on your pleasure. So it's carnal prayers, um, or, um, other things. Like First John 5 says that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. Meaning that God will turn away prayers that go contrary to his will. He's going to say no, and I thank God for that. It's good that he says no, but, yeah, God is not our cosmic vending machine. If you say the name Jesus enough, you get what you want. God's always, always, always there to give you whatever you need. You just have to turn and ask. As if there's never a requirement for your heart condition, because it's very clear in scripture that there is. 20 00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:21.000 So get your hearts Right. Don't give up. All right, question number two from Don Miguel says, biblically, not legally, what constitutes a church? If someone were to host a weekly Bible study and do some volunteer work with just a few people, would that be considered a small church service? 21 00:09:21.000 --> 00:09:49.000 Um, that's a challenge. Um, I don't know if I've ever sat down and personally really tried to, like, get down to the nitty gritty of, like, what's the biblical definition of not the church, but a church, Like a local church. There's some elements that we see in scripture. We do know that the size is not super important because there are groups of people that just meet in a person's home that the Bible addresses as a church. Greet. I think it was nympha. 22 00:09:49.000 --> 00:10:00.000 Where is. Let me find the passage. Um, um, um, Colossians 4, 5, 4, 15 is one of them. 23 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:02.000 Put it on your screen. 24 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:08.000 Um, greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and Nymphus, the church that is in his house. 25 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:11.000 So there's a church in his house. 26 00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:39.000 There's a group of brethren in Laodicea, but personally known to Paul is Nymphus in the church that is in his house, meaning that there's a home church. Ah, just a one small gathering then. Um, Romans 16, verse 4. I'll start at verse 3. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus who risk their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also the churches of the Gentiles likewise greet the church that is in their house. 27 00:10:39.000 --> 00:10:42.000 This is a house church. 28 00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:54.000 Um, we know Paul stayed with them at one point when he was doing tent making. And, um, they have a house church. House churches were normal. Now there's a house church movement, which there should be house churches in the world. 29 00:10:54.000 --> 00:11:23.000 Um, but I'm not one of those who thinks you have to have a certain smallness in order to call it a real church. So that, like, a church with 200, 300 people doesn't count as a real church. I think that that is insulting to the Holy Spirit to say something like that. I know that's a strong phrase. I think it's arrogant to the point of harming the body of Christ to make a claim like that. Um, but certainly size isn't that big of an issue. You don't need 50 people, 30 people to call it a church. 30 00:11:23.000 --> 00:13:14.000 There's a particular group who's fellowshipping together in Christ. Maybe your church is six people who meet in your home, and that can be a real church. Now, at the same Time, we see in, uh, first Timothy that Timothy's appointing elders in every church. Every church gets elders. Now, that would be hard if every church was super tiny and atomized so that there's only like four people in this church and three people in that church, and then two people in this one and seven in this one. If you have a church of two people, yet you have all these qualifications for eldership, there's a pragmatic reason to try to gather together more than just like, uh, three or four people, because you want to try to find qualified people to be in leadership. You also see that there's a lot of gifts of the Spirit. This is like a soft argument for larger than four. You know, a few, more than a few. If you can have that depending on your community and how many Christians there are. Um, but the soft argument goes like this. Uh, in Ephesians, it talks about the gifts of the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians, it talks about the gifts of the Spirit and how important they are and how we use them to nurture and minister to one another. And so it becomes important that we have a variety of Christians in our midst because we don't all have the same gifts. Like, if I was the only guy in your church, it was me and you, we would be missing some major gifts. There'd be a lot missing in our churches. Now, that can be partially met if these local churches gather together on a regular basis and they minister to one another. I'm all for creative thinking and letting the church be expressed in different ways in different cultures and communities. But there's a few things there some people would quote. And you're probably thinking, why didn't. Why didn't I quote it? Jesus, uh, when he says, wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst. Um, and so you might just say, well, then two or three is a church. Um, I don't know if that's what we want to. 31 00:13:14.000 --> 00:14:21.000 When we talk about what could constitute a church, it could be 2 or 3. I agree. When we talk about what is considered ideal and healthy for a church, that's a good question to ask and to say probably two or three are not ideal because of the lack of opportunities for. To raise up leadership, the ability to, um, have the different gifts of the Spirit working in the body of Christ, things like that. And some think that a really, really tiny church is less prone to abuses that you find in larger churches. I don't actually agree. I think tyrants can exist in any size organization. You Know, someone can be their own tyrant of their tiny, own home, little church, and it's just the dad and his wife and his daughter and his son, and that's their church. And that can sometimes be an act. A church that exists, which I would call it a real church, but it may exist because of a desire for him to have hyper control over people's lives, because he has an argumentative attitude and he doesn't want to have anybody else influencing his kids or his wife. And he just wants domination and control. And that could be the reason for that church existing. 32 00:14:21.000 --> 00:15:04.000 So let's just be aware of that. At the same time, it might be that every church in his area is actually apostate. And so he has to start a little home church because he's doing the right thing. So life is complicated. There's. There's a few elements though. Yeah. Um, church is the. The word. The word ecclesia means gathering. So it cannot be one. There needs to be a gathering. The nature of the gifts suggests that we want a number of people there at least enough where you have the gifts able to flow in different people's lives. And then the qualifications for leadership, the fact that you actually even appoint elders. Why do I need an elder if there's only two people in my church? It's not really as significant. 33 00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:09.000 Um, but it implies that the average church was larger than that, I think. 34 00:15:09.000 --> 00:15:15.000 Hope that helps. All right, let's take the next question. 35 00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:28.000 Carissa Scubovius says, what an interesting last name. Carissa Scubovius. Sounds like you're gonna compose some sort of musical piece. 36 00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:43.000 She says, how, uh, does John 79 work alongside John 3:16? Could John 17:9 be a valid point towards limited atonement? I do not want to believe limited atonement, but I see verses like this in wonder. 37 00:15:43.000 --> 00:16:03.000 Let's look at it together for, um, those who don't know. Sorry. I think you hear me crush my cough drop. I'm very rude today. I apologize. John 17, 9. For those who don't know, limited atonement is a doctrine that flows from the ideas of Calvinism. Um, the whole tulip thing, the five points of Calvinism. M. 38 00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:53.000 Some, um, oppose that framing, but it's helpful. So limited atonement is the idea that Jesus's death on the cross was only a payment or, or even intended to be a payment for the elect. That is the atonement that the cross made and, and purchased and offered. All of the above was only for the elect. This creates a strange situation where you can't actually know for sure if Jesus died for someone. So I couldn't necessarily say to a random stranger, I know for a fact Jesus died for you, because on limited, limited atonement, he didn't actually die for the non elect. And what I'm really saying is Jesus might have died for you if you are elect. Limited atonement is the least popular doctrine in Calvinism to my knowledge. 39 00:16:53.000 --> 00:17:33.000 Next, um, to double predestination, probably the next least favorite but limited atonement of, of Calvinists, if you pull them together, a significant number would actually reject limited atonement but still be Calvinist. Although I will say limited atonement logically seems like it does flow from Calvinism. I think you can make an argument logically if regeneration precedes faith. If, if that much is true, you start to snowball into limited atonement. Because just the way that facts work, that's my. I really see Calvinism as one point, not, uh, expressed five different ways, not as five points. But you do need to express it those ways or people won't understand what you're saying. So John 17, nine, here's what it says. 40 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:53.000 I am praying for them. I'm not praying for the world, but those whom you have given me for, they are yours, all are mine. All, uh, mine are yours and yours are mine, and I'm glorified in them. This idea that Jesus is not praying for the world, but praying for those that the Father has given him. 41 00:17:53.000 --> 00:18:04.000 I think you would be reading limited atonement into this for a couple different reasons. I'll give you the first one. Um, Jesus here says who he is praying for. He does not say who he is dying for. 42 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:12.000 Catch that he is saying who he's praying for. He's not saying who he's dying for. It's exegesis to insert. 43 00:18:12.000 --> 00:18:34.000 I am not dying for the world, but for those whom you have given me, that's a really significant change in addition to the passage. Now it can be true. If this is the only verse we had, it can be true that Jesus didn't die for the world, he only died for the elect. But that isn't what this verse is saying. That's my point. That's not what this verse is saying. He's praying for them, not for the world. 44 00:18:34.000 --> 00:19:25.000 Right. Now the, another problem with this is we're going to take the categories of them being, and we're going to interpret that as elect, and we're going to interpret the category of world as non elect. And I don't Think that's how Jesus uses the term here? I don't think that's how the, the term is typically used in scripture in the New Testament. So I'll give you an example there. Um, is, there is a transitional movement from people who are in the world to people who are now not in the world. People who are part of the world, who are then no longer part of the world. Ephesians talks about this because there is this transition, the New Testament movement from world to not world. Right? When you were in the world, the lust of the flesh, these things. Now you're not of the world. 45 00:19:25.000 --> 00:20:06.000 This is an evidence that the phrase the world is not, um, um, a term that means the unelected. Because we have people who are elect who move from world to not world, from not Jesus to Jesus's. And that seems consistent here in John 17. 9 when he says I pray for them, he's praying for his current followers. Now those followers go out into all the world and they make disciples. And those disciples go from the world to become part of the US that Jesus is praying for. That transitional movement means that you shouldn't read elect and not elect into John 17. 9. I believe there's another thing, um, here as well. I'll mention one John chapter two. 46 00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:58.000 Um, this I think is probably one of the strongest verses against limited, limited atonement. I have a video on this. I'll link it down below after the stream. On First John 2 and limited atonement, it says, my little children, I'm writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Again, you can't take world as being non elect, damned from eternity. You cannot take that. And I know that phrase damned from eternity is not a phrase that I would typically hear a Calvinist use. That's my phrase. Okay? That's how I think that they're uh, being viewed in that system. Um, brothers with Calvinists love him. We actually agree on most things, right? But no, I don't agree on this. And there are good, I think good biblical reasons why I don't. 47 00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:24.000 So Jesus is the propitiation, right? He made a payment to deal with the wrath of God and the sin of man. He is a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Now some will try and take this as the whole world of the elect. And now they have a really interesting definition of the word world in 1 John 2. 2. World means elect people who are not yet saved. 48 00:21:24.000 --> 00:21:29.000 That is not what world means. Go look up the word world every time it's used in First John. 49 00:21:29.000 --> 00:22:05.000 Um, I wonder if I. This would be actually really difficult to do during a live stream, but, um, here we go. Uh, first John 2:15. Do not love the world or the things in the world. For if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the eyes, the lust of the. Wait. This is clearly not elect people. These uses of world in 1 John chapter 2. They're not elect individuals that happen to be, you know, not yet in Christ. Um, first John 4. 4, verse, uh, 4 and 5. 50 00:22:05.000 --> 00:22:14.000 Uh, you are of God, little. Um, hold on, let me back up a little bit. This is the spirit of Antichrist which you've heard was coming and is now already in the world. 51 00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:42.000 The elect, non Christians. That's not what he's being taught there. You, uh, are of God, little children, and overcome them. Because he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. They speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. There's the world and there's us. The us are the saved ones. The world is the not saved ones. Not just the elect, not yet, you know, brought into Christ ones. That's not what it means in First John. First John 5. 5. 52 00:22:42.000 --> 00:23:17.000 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world, our faith. He who, who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, this is part of that transition. You become transitioned from the world into Christ and you overcome and you are no longer part of it. But, yeah, I just don't see it there. Guys. I. I respect, uh, my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I don't demonize it, but, um, I don't think this works at all. Now you, Carissa, I missed this, but in your question, you said, how does John 17:9 work alongside John 3:16? 53 00:23:17.000 --> 00:23:30.000 That I did not answer. So let's go to John 3:16. 54 00:23:30.000 --> 00:24:10.000 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. This, of course, is that transition stuff. I was Talking about, uh, I think this just helps confirm that John in the Gospel of John is not using the word world at any point to refer to, um, the non elect or later on in one John to refer to the elect who are not yet regenerated. That's not. This is just a demonstration that, uh, an idea is being pushed onto a text, I believe. 55 00:24:10.000 --> 00:26:18.000 All right, number four. And for those of you Calvinists listening, you're welcome to push back on this. I haven't personally heard a rebuttal that I thought was sufficient to this issue of limited atonement. Um, and I will link my video below. If you'd like to respond not just to my Q and A kind of off the top of my head answer, but respond to my well thought out, prepared, more thorough answer. I will put my video down below and you guys are welcome to look at it and even share why you think it's wrong. And I won't copyright flag you for using footage in order to respond. Okay, that's not going to happen. All right, let's see. Jaden, mine or Milne says, my girlfriend recently told me that God told her to break up with me. She got us promise bracelets. That promise that we will get married is what she heard really from God. Well, Jaden, I, I do not know if what you heard was really from God. Um, I would have no way of knowing that you guys got promised bracelets. In my experience, promise bracelets are more about promising to stay faithful and chaste until marriage. I've never known them to be a promise that you will marry that person as if it was a marriage. I mean, that's effectively like a marriage. I promise to be your bride or your husband. Um, I've never known them to be that. And I think that making a promise bracelet into a unbreakable commitment to marry in the future would seem to me to be an unwise thing for a young couple that is just trying to figure stuff out and they like each other and they care, they feel very passionately. But that would seem like, uh, an unwise thing. Now I say all this, Jaden, the heartbreak of having someone who you're thinking you're going to marry break up with you is really, really rough. That's really tough. And it's going to take you probably a lot of time to try to process it. And I would just encourage you to just give yourself some space and give yourself some time, but you can't hold over her head. You have to marry me because of some promise. It just doesn't work. You just can't do that. Did she really hear from God? I have no idea whether she did or not. You don't want to marry someone who doesn't want to marry you. That is not going to go well. But you're dealing with grief, sorrow. 56 00:26:18.000 --> 00:26:50.000 It feels like a death to lose a relationship. It feels like this thing. The two would hopefully one day be one and kind of start a new life thing together that. That died. That's how it feels. It's really rough stuff. So I would encourage you to be patient, give yourself some space and time. Try not to act out in the strong emotions that you and everybody else feels. If they're in your situation, that's normal and it will get better over time. But yeah, um, don't know if Sherry from God, I wouldn't have any way of saying that, but I would encourage any dating couple not to. 57 00:26:50.000 --> 00:27:08.000 Out of the emotions of your heart, out of your intense desire to show each other that you love and you care for and you're committed to each other to make like a covenantal promise about marriage before you're ready to make a covenantal promise about marriage. That is. Marriage is a big, big deal. 58 00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:40.000 It is a big, big deal. Don't create extra steps of pre marriage marriage, if you know what I mean. I wouldn't recommend that. That's just my personal human wisdom. I don't think that that would be a great idea. Now, in the Old Testament, even in New Testament times, there was absolutely betrothal. Betrothal was different than promise bracelets for a couple reasons. Uh, for one thing, now it doesn't say that you have to, um, do betrothal, but it could happen at various ages. It could happen in a variety of ages. A betrothal and then a wedd. 59 00:27:40.000 --> 00:28:13.000 But a betrothal is not a promise bracelet. The betrothal's parallel is engagement. We get engaged, I proposed, I made a commitment, I gave you the ring. In our culture and you said, I do. Now we're engaged. That's the equivalent of betrothal. It is not promised bracelets. And then we have engagement later. Adding these extra layers can create a situation where a young person jumps into a bigger commitment than they should wisely be making. The nice thing about engagement is you go to the dad, you go to the mom, you say, hey, can I have your permission to do this? 60 00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:27.000 Is this in the community? Are we really ready to make this step? But a promise bracelet, nobody even is aware. Did you go to her parents? Can I give your daughter a promise bracelet? And have her promise that she's going to marry me. They would have said no, most likely, if they were wise. 61 00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:32.000 This was probably something that's not a great idea for young couples to do. 62 00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:39.000 Shooting really straight and honest with you, Jaden. I'm sorry for your heartbreak. I really genuinely am. 63 00:28:39.000 --> 00:28:53.000 Yeah. Let's go to the next question. This is from Carlos Lopez. And we have all 10 questions for today. We. I know you guys are like, wow, Mike, you're, you're flying through. It's like half an hour in and you're on question five. This is, this is a world record. 64 00:28:53.000 --> 00:29:22.000 Going for a world record today in all reality. I'm so just being a human with you guys. I'm so incredibly busy right now. Just every moment I can. I'm working on stuff. And I've started so many different investigations into different leaders and ministries that are problematic that I'm juggling all at the same time. And, um, I just need to get back to other work. 65 00:29:22.000 --> 00:29:38.000 So here's a shorter video for you. Shorter by, by my definition, not by anybody else's. Carlos Lopez says, are agape and phileo love synonymous in Greek? Um, that's a good question, Carlos. Now we hear that. I'll read the rest of your question in a second, buddy. But we hear this all the time. 66 00:29:38.000 --> 00:31:33.000 Um, in the Bible, there's agape love and then there's phileo love. And then you might get people to say, no, no, there's even more. There's eros love, and then there's other ones too. You could give like five different words for love in the Greek. And the answer is, it depends on context. But mostly people make too big of a deal about the particular Greek word for love that we see in scripture. Um, so let me read the rest of your question. Um, and, oh, and usually people think of phileo love as like brotherly love, like Philadelphia, this city of brotherly love. Of course, of course that's because it's phileo and Adelphos. Philadelphia love and brother are in the city name, not just the word phileo there. But then they'll say agape is like self sacrificial love. Um, it's not totally wrong to say that, but it is overused, is my short answer. But John 3:19, you said and 12:23 use Agape for loving, darkness and men's praise respectively, while John 5:20 uses Phileo to describe the father's love for the son. And herein you see the issue. If we call um, agape, um, like God's Love, you know, because. Because in First Corinthians 13, when Paul's like, love is this and love is that and love is this and does this and it doesn't do that, he's using agape there over and over again. Does he mean the word agape has a new definition that, or maybe a known definition to the Greeks at the time that means this and everybody knows it? No, he doesn't mean that. He is just describing for them what godly love is like. Now he could have put phileo there if he wanted. He wrote agape. And maybe agape has a slighter, a slight stronger connotation than phileo in some cases, but it's, it's just not so hard and fast as wherever agape appears, you have God's love. 67 00:31:33.000 --> 00:32:41.000 Another example beyond what you mentioned in John 3:19 and 12:43 about agape being loving darkness, was when Paul says, demas has forsaken me, having loved the world. That's also agape. He agaped the world. Um, that's a butchering of the word agape. But he agaped the world, you get what I'm saying? And that was what Demas did. That is agape, like Demas loved the world. Now when I first read this and just first started many years ago, using a concordance to look up some Greek terms, I was like, what word for love is that? Because I had been taught that all these different words for love mean very different things. And so I looked it up and I saw Demas, agape the world. I thought, wow, right? Probably like agapeo or something. But I saw that and thought, wow, Um, I guess it means he loved the world the way God loves us. No, that's not. Oh, maybe he self sacrificially loved the world. He loved the world and he's given himself up for this unworthy thing, the world. And that kind of works. But maybe I'm just reading too much into the word. Maybe I'm just reading a bit too much into it. 68 00:32:41.000 --> 00:33:10.000 There's one case that some people use, which is when Jesus is restoring Peter and he says, peter, do you love me more than these? And it's, you know, it's agape and phileo. So if I remember right, and I could get the details wrong here, but if I remember right, it's peter, do you agape, uh, me more than these? And Peter's like, I phileo you. And then he says, do you? Says it again, do you agape me more than these? He goes, I phileo You. Then Jesus says to him, peter, do you phileo me? And he says, lord, you know all things. You know I filet o you. 69 00:33:10.000 --> 00:33:29.000 Is this potentially a downgrading where Jesus says, you acted like you love me more than everybody else, but you realize you do love me, but that your love for me is not as strong as you thought it was. So you went from agape love to phileo love. But I will accept you, Peter, even though your love for me isn't as perfect as you claimed it was. 70 00:33:29.000 --> 00:33:36.000 I like that interpretation. I think it brings light onto the text. But I'll tell you the truth. 71 00:33:36.000 --> 00:34:00.000 The Greek scholars I've heard talk about it, they use this as an example of one that's not real. They're like, no, no, no. It's just variety and language and this and that. So I'll respect their expertise and pass that on, even though part of me is like, but I like that. And it kind of makes sense of the passage. But they're the ones saying, no, no, there's nothing there. Um, so to me, that. That's now an open question. As I've looked into that more, I've thought, is that even there? 72 00:34:00.000 --> 00:34:22.000 Don't read too much into agape and phileo. If you want to talk about brotherly love, just talk about brotherly love. Don't attach that to a Greek term. Do you want to talk about God's love? Just say God's love. You don't have to attach that to the word agape. It's. It's not necessary to do that, even though it's useful. Um, yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, let's go to the next question. 73 00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:32.000 Joshua Friebel says, how do non sapien hominids? 74 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:54.000 I'm obviously the best person to ask about this question, so I'm glad you guys came. You came to the right place. Right. Because I Googled the word hominid that one time, so I'm ready to go. So how do non sapien hominids. Neanderthals or Neanderthals. How you pronounce it? Denisovian. Florence Floresian. Uh, how do you pronounce that one? Florean floresientis. 75 00:34:54.000 --> 00:35:07.000 I don't know how to pronounce that one. Floresiensis. All right, how do they fit into creation? Do they have the imago dei? Are they or are they animals? Uh, Joshua, Um, it is a good, valid question, and it's actually important, and I understand how it's important. 76 00:35:07.000 --> 00:36:08.000 So while I'm probably not qualified to really give you a straight answer, I'LL talk about it for a minute and help everybody kind of understand it a bit more. There's debate when you look at population, um, genetics, when they're looking at these things. So I've been told, um, reliably informed, that there's debate over, um, which ones of these bones that look kind of human. Right? They're not Homo sapiens, but maybe they're other humanoid human. They're not monkeys. They seem pretty human. Are they really human? So within this debate in these controversies, Neanderthals is one that I've heard, or Neanderthal is one that I've heard debated about, specifically where they go. It's not really a human or it is really a human. And you have, especially the young Earth. Old Earth have taken different perspectives on this, although I think people maybe are swinging more towards more generally affirming the humanity of Neanderthals. I'm not sure that was my impression. 77 00:36:08.000 --> 00:38:20.000 Um, are they in God's image? Okay, are they related to Adam and Eve? Uh, was there another population outside the garden in some sense? And were they perhaps not in God's image, but they were humans? And then if this stuff gets super complicated super fast, if you're thinking that you are perhaps, uh, especially trying to. So if you're young Earth, you think Neanderthals, um, and most of these are all humans. They're all just different, slightly different humans. If you are Old Earth, then you may be thinking, well, they all physically descended from Adam M and Eve. We're going to put Adam and Eve really, really, really far back. And then they're all humans. Or you're thinking, well, they didn't all descend from Adam and Eve, but they all interbred with Adam and Eve's descendants. And then you're going to think, well, maybe they're not really humans. They're outside the garden. They have these populations of people that perhaps aren't really in God's image. Maybe only their offspring, their descendants, when related to Adam, you know, genetically, they are human and the other ones are not. And others say, no, no, that's wrong, you can't do that. And then they're going to start to look at Genesis and try to, like, figure out how it doesn't mean what it seems to mean in a straightforward sense. Maybe it's more allegorical or it's. Or it's more, uh, typological, that kind of thing. Archetypal. This is a super complicated subject. But if you ask me, people are answering the question to get down to the nitty Gritty of it. Joshua people are answering the question of what a Neanderthal is or Denisovian or the other word, Floresciensis. I've never heard of that one. Um, anyway, not that I remember. They're. They're answering this question based on their theological commitments played out in their. In their historical reconstructions. They're not looking at these bones and being able to determine through an observation of bones whether something's in the image of God or not. They have a theological statement in their mind. They have the ideas theologically. Then they've got their historical reconstruction in the garden, the garden descendant. Related, not related. Um, interbred, didn't interbreed. And then they're using these as ways of answering the questions, which means you are very far away from a simple interpretation of scripture at that point. 78 00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:42.000 That is where a lot of that seems to exist. That doesn't mean everybody's out there. Nobody has any scripture to support their view. That is not what I'm claiming. But I do think a lot of that is, um, a human assessed historical reconstruction combined with their view of image of God and their view of Genesis 1. 79 00:38:42.000 --> 00:38:46.000 And then putting these two together and sort of trying to connect the dots. 80 00:38:46.000 --> 00:39:00.000 That is going out on a limb for anybody to do that and they should at least acknowledge this is very conjectural. Let me not base my entire faith on this. This is my conjecture about what I think may have happened here. 81 00:39:00.000 --> 00:40:12.000 There's a lot of wild thinking, a lot of weird thinking. There's also a lot of Christians really trying to faithfully understand Scripture and how to integrate that with their understanding of m historical and prehistoric. Prehistorical studies say, go for it soberly. Think about it and let me know what you find. That's my attitude. Number seven. JJ Drummer boy says, love your ministry. Have you ever heard the theory that the apostle John might still be alive and be the second witness in the tribulation? I found the arguments interesting as conjecture. I have heard that before, believe it or not. JJ Drummer boy. I have heard that some say, well, John never died. And the fact that John never died is part of this, um, sort of eschatological view that he will show up in the end times and be a very vocal witness of Christ before his return. In fact, he is one of the witnesses that we might say in the book of Revelation, where you have two who stand up and have this Elijah like ministry. And maybe one of them is Elijah who was taken up and brought back. The other one's John, who just never died. I've heard this before. Um, I think it is. 82 00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:21.000 I wouldn't personally say it's interesting as conjecture. I would think it's so far reaching as to be easily dismissed. 83 00:40:21.000 --> 00:40:37.000 Let me give you the scripture that I think most clearly supports this. Um, find it here. John actually talks about it. 84 00:40:37.000 --> 00:41:34.000 Sorry guys, my typing is not so good at the moment. Um, Jesus speaks with Peter and okay, we'll back up a little bit and we'll see why this is relevant. Um, Jesus restores Peter. Interestingly, I just was talking about earlier in this passage, which I love when that happens. So now we're looking later in this passage. This is the fileto and agape stuff which hopefully remembered correctly. And then verse 18, Jesus tells Peter something about his fate, his future fate. He says, truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go. Kind of a parable type statement of Jesus. Very cryptic. But we know what it means because verse 19 tells us. 85 00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:36.000 There we go. 86 00:41:36.000 --> 00:41:43.000 This he said, Jesus said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God. 87 00:41:43.000 --> 00:42:39.000 Peter was going to die as a martyr to glorify God. That's what Jesus is showing him. You're going to give up your life as a martyr, which is actually pretty wonderful in the sense that Peter had just been afraid to lose his life and he denied Christ three times. And there may have been this lingering fear, what if Peter's in danger again? Will he deny Jesus again? And Jesus affirms to him, you're going to go to be martyred in my name. That's the affirmation which is an encouragement because Peter knows that he's, when he follows Jesus now he's following Jesus to his own death and then his own resurrection as well and his restoration, all of the above. Um, but then Peter's like, hey, what about John? Like, I'm gonna die. What about this guy John? Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, lord, who is it that is going to betray you? 88 00:42:39.000 --> 00:42:44.000 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, lord, what about this man? 89 00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:50.000 I mean, a lot can be said about this. Why is Peter asking about John? Is he just curious? 90 00:42:50.000 --> 00:43:10.000 Um, does he, does he think like, well, if I'm going to die, what about John? Is there like a rivalry thing going? Like, what is the reason for this? I Don't know. I don't want to read too much into it. Um, but here, verse 22, Jesus said to him, if it is my will that he remain until I come. What is that to you? Now, now, follow me. 91 00:43:10.000 --> 00:44:22.000 This is where it sources from. This is where the idea that John would never die until Jesus returns. The second Coming, it comes from this. Jesus says, if it is my will. He doesn't say it is. He says, if it is my will that he remain until I come. What is that to you? You follow me. He says, it's none of your business. In the book of Acts, chapter one, uh, we get the same information, the same response from Jesus. They ask Jesus, will you now restore your kingdom? And he says, it's not for you to know the seasons and the times. The Lord isn't the Father has in his own authority, but go into Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and all the world. Basically go to all these places and preach the gospel. That's your job. Don't worry about the timing of my coming. That's the message here. He says, don't worry about it. What's it to you? But there started to become a rumor, and John acknowledges this in verse 23. And here's why you need to ignore this conjecture. So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die. And what does John say about it? He go, does he say, that's right, he's not going to die? No, he says, yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die. He said, if it's my will that he remain until I come. What is that to you? 92 00:44:22.000 --> 00:45:47.000 It is the epitome of misusing scripture to quote this passage as support that John won't die till Jesus comes, because he literally has this quote from Jesus and knows that already. In the early church, it was already a myth that John was not going to die till Jesus returned, creating weird expectations about the timing of Christ's return, creating weird expectations about the lifespan of John. And all you're seeing now is an ancient man, misinterpretation of Jesus being propagated by people today that John will still be alive at the second coming. I think that's absolutely distorting scripture. Now, I have actually heard one of these prophets, um, one of these people who, um, is part of that whole, like, we'll just call it the Nar Circle, right? Uh, which I don't usually use the term, but it's a valid term, can be used validly. I just usually avoid it for, uh, Rhetorical reasons to have more effect where I want to have effect. But, um, the NRR type group, right? The hyper charismatic, the signs and wonders, apostolic sort of circle of preachers and prophets and all that. I've heard one of them tell a story about how he met John. And John was thousands of years old, and he actually talked with him in some vision he had, which, of course is just evidence that that guy is a loon and a deceiver. But I'll talk more about loons and deceivers in future videos. For now, we will go to the next question. 93 00:45:47.000 --> 00:45:53.000 Lost Hillian has a question. Should we still do oil anointing today? 94 00:45:53.000 --> 00:45:59.000 Elders, uh, praying for the sick and anointing them with oil. What would that look like? 95 00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:08.000 So let's look at where we get that from. James, chapter five talks about, if you need prayer, let me find the spot. 96 00:46:08.000 --> 00:46:49.000 If, uh, anyone. Is anyone among you suffering, let him pray. Is anyone cheerful, let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. Then it says, the prayer of faith will save the sick. Which I think this faith. My interpretation. This is absolutely Mike Winger's interpretation. It's not. The super obvious meaning of the passage doesn't mean that's not what it means, but it's not super obvious. My interpretation is that that prayer of faith is the prayer where God gives you an awareness of faith for healing in that moment. Um, it doesn't mean that God will always heal when people are sick. I know God doesn't always heal when people are sick. Even in scripture, he doesn't do that. 97 00:46:49.000 --> 00:47:11.000 The Bible doesn't promise that. But verse 14, it does say, sick, call for the elders, let them pray. Anointing him with oil seems like we should do it. I think that's a pretty open and closed case. Anointing with oil is a good thing to do in prayer. It's symbolic. Now, some think, well, the anointing with oil here was actually medicinal. 98 00:47:11.000 --> 00:47:14.000 And some interpret it that way. 99 00:47:14.000 --> 00:48:15.000 Um, they will say that what Paul's actually doing here is not encouraging a spiritual practice of anointing with oil, but a physical, medicinal practice. And how would you interpret if that's the case? Maybe the word anointing here means you're rubbing oil into somebody, they got a headache, they have a knee injury, they've got something wrong with them. I don't see how you wouldn't anoint when someone has the flu, would you, in fact, some people would tie this into the essential oils craze, which definitely got blown out of proportion. Any value of essential oils was definitely exaggerated. I think that some can be fruitful. Um, I've benefited from some, believe it or not, but most are probably just a big fat exaggeration. Um, but anointing with oil in the name of the Lord. And that's my personal opinion, all right, that's nothing to do with scripture, just my, my personal opinion about the, uh, essential oils cult. Um, I'm joking, I'm joking. I feel like. I feel like I just lost my whole ministry right now. 100 00:48:15.000 --> 00:49:11.000 While I'm at it, allow me to tell you that the idea of the Daniel fast is not a health and wealth routine. Um, but anyways, anoint with oil, some would say, well, that means you using medicinal oils as people are ill. And so then it's just an encouragement to use medicine that is possible. Okay. But we also know that oil was used in a lot of symbolic ways in scripture. We see that frequently. And the fact that oil was used in these symbolic ways I think suggests that that would be the natural understanding they would have. Um, we see, um, also in Mark that the disciples anointed with oil, many who were sick and healed them. That shows there is a miraculous healing that was coupled with oil, which implies the oil was not medicinal. In Mark 6, 13. Let me, let me take you to that passage because I think that it is relevant. 101 00:49:11.000 --> 00:49:30.000 So this is miraculous healing. You look at the whole context. This is Jesus sending out, um, the, uh, the disciples, two by two, they're going to go out and six groups of two, so that the 12 go out. They do miracles, right? They went out and proclaimed that people should repent. And they cast out, by the way, that's part of the gospel right there. 102 00:49:30.000 --> 00:50:33.000 And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil. Many were sick and healed them. This was not a prolonged. Takes three weeks healing. This was instantaneous. It seems like just the way Jesus did. They were doing what Jesus had done, prayer, healing. They included oil in this, which implies the oil was not medicinal in nature. It was symbolic in nature. What does oil represent in scripture? It seems to represent, um, something being consecrated to God. Or it could represent the work of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit himself can be represented by oil. We see this in scripture. And so, yeah, I do think that James 5 is a suggestion. When I have a more official time of prayer for somebody, hey, can you come to my house and pray for me? I'm really Sick, not just they walk up and they're like, hey, pray for me. I just usually pray for them. But if it's like, hey, make a trip to pray for so and so, they're very sick or they have a serious illness, when it's more serious, I'm inclined to use oil. I don't care what kind of oil. I don't need special olive oil from the olives in the garden of Gethsemane. I don't need to turn this into a relic situation. 103 00:50:33.000 --> 00:51:02.000 Just oil. Just use oil. It's probably nice to have oil that maybe has a nice smell. And, uh, I would recommend leaders. You don't need to put a ton of oil on the person. I don't need to pour it on them. Um, there's no command about that, so why not make it convenient? The person, if they're anointed, they don't have to leave the oil on for the next three days without. Without washing it. None of that stuff. Just keep it simple. Would be my extra biblical encouragement to you on those things. 104 00:51:02.000 --> 00:51:06.000 Question number nine, Juan Jimenez. 105 00:51:06.000 --> 00:51:11.000 Deuteronomy 22, verses 28, 30. Oh, let me mention real quick. I'll back up. 106 00:51:11.000 --> 00:51:47.000 There isn't any requirement in scripture that suggests that the lack of oil in prayer means there won't be a healing. That is not something that's there. So I don't want to treat the oil as, oh, that's the missing key. I got prayer, but I didn't get oil. I don't want to do that. Jesus healed people all the time without any oil being present, it seems. So I don't want to make this sort of like strict legalistic kind of rule about it, but I want to follow what scripture says about it. Okay, question number nine. And one more cough drop. 107 00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:56.000 Yeah, this cough is not going away. I don't know what it is. Anybody else out there? You got a cough for like a month, it won't go away. It's like, I'm almost sick. 108 00:51:56.000 --> 00:52:13.000 Kinda weird. All right, Juan Jimenez, Deuteronomy 22, verses 28 through 30. And the NIV uses the word rape. Okay, so we're going to have that. That's going to be the topic of discussion. 109 00:52:13.000 --> 00:52:31.000 Uh, for this question, there's your spoiler. But other translations imply consent. Is this a legitimate translation error? Thank you for your ministry. Thank you very much. I have read some stuff on this. I've actually read a few different things on this. And my opinion, in short, is that the NIV got it wrong. 110 00:52:31.000 --> 00:52:36.000 Um, see, I'll read to you in the niv. 111 00:52:36.000 --> 00:53:08.000 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and, um, rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father 50 shekels of silver. Wait, this is not the passage I was thinking of. Let me, let me reset my brain here. Ignore what I said before. Let me read through it. Um, he shall pay her father 50 shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Um, this is not the passage I was thinking of, which I have more information on. Um, okay. The new King James. Let's just compare translations here for a second. 112 00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:25.000 If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and he seizes her. That's the word that the NIV translates as rape. New King James says, seizes her and lies with her and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give the young man's father 50 shekels of silver. She shall be his wife. 113 00:53:25.000 --> 00:53:48.000 And, um, of course, it's up to the father if this is actually going to happen. If you read the whole passage, um, esv, if a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed and seizes her and lies with her, and again we have the word seizes her. So there's like an aggressive taking action that is being discussed to seizes her. You, you wouldn't normally describe two people being together intimately as and then I seized her. 114 00:53:48.000 --> 00:54:03.000 That's not, that's not the term you would normally use. It does imply a taking, right? That is definitely implied. That's in there. Um, is it fully, you know, R, A, P, E? 115 00:54:03.000 --> 00:54:06.000 I guess I'm not sure. 116 00:54:06.000 --> 00:54:32.000 I'm not 100% sure I should do more work on this passage. It's really relevant because this is one of the passages that, like the atheists know by heart and is used to try to demonstrate that the Bible is doing, doing something evil and twisted. Now, they will typically do this ignoring the cultural situation, ignoring things like, for instance, when Absalom slept with his sister, he seized her. He took her and took advantage of her. She said, don't do this. And he did it anyway. 117 00:54:32.000 --> 00:54:37.000 That would fit a reasonable definition of rape. 118 00:54:37.000 --> 00:55:09.000 So when Absalom did this, um, not Absalom, um, the other one. What's his name? I forget right now. He seized her. And then afterwards she says, what you've done? They were half siblings. She's like, what you've done is wrong. But now go to my father and like betrothed to me, this was actually her preference. Okay, now you m may not understand this, being a western person, but this was her preference that they actually just get married. And it was the most legitimizing thing she could experience at that point. 119 00:55:09.000 --> 00:55:11.000 That was her actual preference. 120 00:55:11.000 --> 00:55:21.000 He kicks her out, says he hated her more than he ever cared for her, ever loved her, kicks her out, and things go downhill after that even more. 121 00:55:21.000 --> 00:55:48.000 Um, it's hard for us to realize that this might actually be the woman's preference. Now the father's involved and he can reject this, but the point is the man has no rights. That's the point. The man in this scenario has zero rights. He does this to this girl, he has no rights, he has no control, he has no say in what happens next. In fact, no matter what she does, if she cheated on him, he cannot divorce her all his days, ever. 122 00:55:48.000 --> 00:57:16.000 The man has lost his rights permanently in this relationship with this girl as a result of his action. And of course it's up to them, the father, um, if he's going to actually receive this or not. Typical fathers care about their daughters and are going to do the thing that's best for her. So I think that this gives the girl all the power in the situation, gives the family that was offended as well. The power in the situation gives the man who committed the thing zero power in the situation. Um, is the NIV correct with rape? It's definitely not like just okay, I should say definitely. It doesn't seem to me reasonable on the surface to think that this passage is referring to simple consensual interactions. Right, there's he seized her and he alone is penalized. She is not. The implication is the man did something seriously wrong, not that they did something seriously wrong as a couple. It doesn't say she can't divorce him. If this was mutual, you'd expect it to go both ways. Or she can't leave him. I mean she, uh, divorces was really men. Ah. Could divorce not women back then under their laws. Um, Jesus. Well, gosh, this is getting so complicated. So I'm going to link below my video on marriage and divorce. It's like a three plus hour video. Not on, excuse me, not really on marriage, on divorce and remarriage. Everything in the Bible about those topics of divorce and remarriage, men, women, all that stuff. I'll link it down below. But I'm going to move on to the next question, which is number 10. 123 00:57:16.000 --> 00:57:38.000 Randy Wertinger says is Claiming our charitable donations on our taxes, receiving our reward on earth. Um, absolutely not, Randy. It is absolutely not. Let me please encourage your heart in this, okay? It's noble to want to give to the Lord and not receive in return. 124 00:57:38.000 --> 00:58:08.000 When you claim your charitable donations, you are not getting back any money that you gave to the church. You aren't receiving any money back. The way it works in our tax system is let's say I made $100 for the year, which hopefully you make more than that. But let's say you made $100 for the year and you gave $10 of that to the church. And then you can claim now the government's going to tax maybe $30 out of your 100. Let's just say it's 30. I don't know what it would be, but let's say it's 30. 125 00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:42.000 When you claim that 10%, the government says, I'm not going to tax you on the 10%. So instead of taxing you 30 on the 100, I'll tax you, say, 27 on the 100. That money you gave to the church still goes there. The money that you give to the government is less because the government wants to incentivize charitable giving, and it sees charities as having a positive impact in the community. So it says, if for money you donate to charity, we will not take a portion of that money. You will simply keep it. You're not making money by doing this. You already made that money. They're just taking less of it. 126 00:58:42.000 --> 00:58:55.000 You're just deciding between whether you get to keep keep your money or the government gets to take your money. That's really the question that you have with your tax forms. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think you're pursuing. 127 00:58:55.000 --> 00:59:19.000 If you give, um, your, uh, ten bucks to the church, and then the government doesn't tax you $3 more out of. In addition to whatever else they're going to tax you, that is not going to be your reward. It's not like you're really making much out of that. But this is your money that. That's not getting taxed. You're not making money. You already made that money. It's in your bank account, and the government's taking it away. That's the nature of taxes. 128 00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:37.000 So, yeah, I don't. I don't think there's. You should feel any guilt about that whatsoever. Let's read the passage you mentioned, Matthew 6:1 5. Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in Order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your father who's in heaven. 129 00:59:37.000 --> 00:59:45.000 If I report my charitable giving, am I doing this in order to be seen by people? No, I'm doing what's legally required. 130 00:59:45.000 --> 00:59:48.000 Um, as I file my taxes. 131 00:59:48.000 --> 01:00:33.000 It's not a braggadocious thing. No tax assessor. There's nobody in the IRS's agency who's at his cubicle, who pulls up your report and he goes, wow, look at that. Randy gave a lot of money to charity. What a great guy. And then you're like, I lost my reward. I don't think that's what Jesus is getting at here. We don't have to be paranoid. Verse 2 says, Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as do the hypothes, the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Notice that this giving is to the needy. It's not just giving to ministries. There are some ministries that are very well off that don't need any more money. And we just keep giving to these giant, bloated ministries. Sometimes. Sometimes. Okay. 132 01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:50.000 I like the idea of finding ministries out there that people aren't that aware of or just give money to people, you know, who need it. You know, there's a lady who's got single mom, and she's trying to afford groceries and rent, and you're just like, buy her groceries and you never tell anybody. 133 01:00:50.000 --> 01:01:17.000 I think that's a great thing to do. Giving is not just two ministries. As a Christian, it's giving to the needy as well. And ministries. Good ministries, good churches, rather have, hopefully, a benevolence fund. And we, you know, my church, they take an offering for benevolence. That's just for this. Hey, let's pay for that person. Their car broke down. They can't afford it. This person needs food. This person needs some medical care. Let's take care of their needs. I think it's a good thing. The church should be taking care of the poor. 134 01:01:17.000 --> 01:02:20.000 Sound no trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you that they have received their reward. What you're not doing is reporting your taxes. There is not for those purposes. It's fine. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your. You. Your giving may be in secret. And your father who sees in secret, will reward You, I think that that's um, totally consistent with reporting on your giving. Now if you feel guilty by reporting on your giving and getting a tax cut for, for the donations you make, can I offer one final solution? If you feel guilty about that, report on it. Get every dollar of savings you can from the government and then give that money to the poor. There you go. Win, win. You know what I mean? You gave away, you received no reward. You didn't get any of your money. Even back of the money that you would have been giving to the government. You, uh, actually just funneled it over to a needy person and to help them. So there's my last ditch incursion to you. 135 01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:30.000 The government's gonna give you a tax break. You should take it. Use it for something good at least. All right, that is it. Onto a BONUS Question number 11. 136 01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:56.000 Sometimes we do bonus questions, especially if I don't go for like an hour and 40 minutes. It's still, still a long video, I admit it. But bonus question from Channing. Chill, says Mike. Huge fan. Nice uh, to hear from you. Channing, quick question. Matthew 20 says that Jesus came to serve, not to be served. Given this, how would you rate our Messiah's basketball abilities on a scale of 1 to 10? 137 01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:19.000 But I'm, um. Yeah, I get it, I get it because he's. Did he serve? Did he get served or was he right? Obviously he would have dominated and he would have served everybody. They all would have got served. End of story. He would have scored 77 points minimum per game. Minimum maybe 777. Not even sure it's one of the one or the other for sure. 138 01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:31.000 Seven rebounds every game. Do you guys see my shirt? I think the sun's trying to kill me. If you know what this is, then you know. Actually the young people know what it is anyways because Mario is still popular, so. 139 01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:47.000 Alright, guys, look, that was it. I am still deep in research and studying and I have some videos coming out soon. Some of them, in fact, some of the stuff I'm researching I cannot tell you about because once the people who I'm looking into knew about it, they would do things that would make it hard for me to look into it. 140 01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:50.000 So I'm just gonna surprise him with videos all of a sudden. 141 01:03:50.000 --> 01:04:40.000 So, um, some stuff I can tell you, but I'll just save it. Video coming out soon, I hope. First of a number of videos that's gonna be meant to deal honestly and openly with abusers in the church that should long ago have been exposed and were not and to also focus on ministries that enable abusers and fail to properly deal with them when they're found out. And I will mention two by name right now, which is one is, um, Morningstar Church, which is Rick Joyner, absolute abuse enabler, uh, absolute, absolutely evil handling of abusers and putting people in front of them and, um, basically causing people to become victims and, um, in a different way than Rick Joyner Bethel, uh, church in Redding, California. 142 01:04:40.000 --> 01:06:15.000 But I've got lots of witnesses I've been interviewing and talking with, and I'll be sharing pieces of evidence over the next months. There's several other things. I just can't talk about them yet. So appreciate your guys continue prayers as I do that. That's very serious stuff. I don't take it lightly. I don't do it for clicks and views. Um, it's actually, if anything, it slowed down other things that would probably benefit me, clicks m and views wise more than this. Um, but anyway, I don't have to prove that to anybody, so I'll just close this in prayer. Uh, Father God, we thank you for your holy word. We thank you for your goodness and we pray for. Right now, I think that the church, especially the Charismatic church, is in kind of a crisis, but it's a good crisis because eyes are being opened and lights are being turned on. And we pray that would continue and that it would result in, um, all the very sincere and godly people that are part of it, the Charismatic Church, to become empowered to step up and create health and proper accountability and victim care and, um, integrity from the top of the ministries down. In Jesus name, amen.