WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:18.000
But just putting this title and thumbnail on this video means it'll probably get less views. Believe it or not, um, abortion is a topic that, uh, people are just tired of in some sense. To be real, it's a hard topic. Um, but these are four verses I think are important. I think you'll find them valuable and refreshing to hear and see these things.

2
00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:26.000
And the first question is, would they abort Jesus?

3
00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:39.000
That's the question. Um, now, based on pro choice logic, like, now follow me here because already I know emotions rise. So try to follow the logic. Even if you're upset, you can do it. I believe in you.

4
00:00:39.000 --> 00:01:16.000
I'm joking with you. But, um, the logic of the pro abortion, pro choice side is that it's solely in the hands of the mom to choose whether or not she will abort her baby. And that this is a moral right. It's like a human right. This is how the logic usually works. And they'll play it out in different ways. They'll say, well, this other being is a parasite. And they'll try to lean on how dependent a baby is on their mother in the womb and then therefore call it a parasite. And parasites can be killed and therefore this human is now a parasite. It's Nazi logic. It's how they killed the Jews.

5
00:01:16.000 --> 00:02:29.000
Um, then you've got the logic of, well, no human has the right to another person's organs. There's another argument that you'll get from the pro choice people which is false. Um, and you can give lots of examples of why that's false. And then they will always ignore those examples. I'm just saying in experience, people who say this, that's not their real belief. Their belief is abortion's okay. They say this to try to stump you. When you defeat it, they don't care. They just move on to other reasons. So you could talk about how a firefighter doesn't have a right to drop a, a person back into the fire because you have no right to use my organs, which my muscles and arms and legs. No, no, he has responsibility at that point because if his relationship as a firefighter and the person is in need, um, then they'll come up with other stuff. But anyways, it'll never stop. Um, as a Christian, I do let Scripture be my guide. And I find that with abortion, there's like this challenging issue. When you're talking about abortion with people, the issue is that there are more emotional and then there are more logical arguments. So the logical arguments are, you know, you don't kill People based on their location, they're in the mother's womb. You can't just kill someone because of where they're at, or you can't kill them because of their level of development.

6
00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:40.000
That is also another thing. This is the logical argument. Okay? So you can't kill someone because they're really old. You can't kill them because they're really young. You can't kill a one year old, so you can't kill a six month old, so you can't kill someone who's three months in gestation.

7
00:02:40.000 --> 00:03:51.000
Or they'll argue logically like, well, what is the nature of personhood? And let's say, sure, this is human, sure this is human life, but, but what is the nature of personhood? And can I rationalize the idea that humans, uh, at a very, very young age don't count as people, even though I know they're a living human being, so it's okay if I kill them? Then there's emotional arguments, right? Um, that's where people, I think usually, actually that's where they become abortion. The emotional arguments are like, um, metal hangers in back alleys. And all these people are going to die from, uh, from the issue of, you know, women who need an abortion and they have to kill their babies. They're going to hurt themselves with these metal hangers in back alleys. Um, that's an emotional argument. It's not statistically realistic, nor is it logically true that I should help someone kill their child because they might hurt themselves while they do it on their own. That doesn't make logical sense. Um, we're not forming our laws around protecting murderers. That doesn't make logical sense. But it's an emotional argument because the emotion is this poor hurting woman and you sort of blind yourself to the baby who she's ripping to pieces in her womb.

8
00:03:51.000 --> 00:04:28.000
Yeah, it's that intense. I have to use these words not because I'm trying to shock you, but because people aren't shocked enough about abortion. They aren't shocked enough. Now, I'm going to share with you specific verses, four verses that I think are pro life verses that actually touch the emotional side and the intellectual side. They kind of touch both. And for that reason I think they might be somewhat persuasive, at least to some people who are open to it. It's hard because if you've been pro choice, you very possibly you've had an abortion or you've supported other people having abortions. You told your daughter, you told your friend, you took your Friend to the hospital, you paid for their abortion, you had your girlfriend have an abortion.

9
00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:40.000
It's very possible with a pro choice person that what they're going to have to do if they realize what they've done, if they admit that it's murder, that now they're guilty in ways that are horrifying.

10
00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:49.000
The reality is they are already guilty like that. And only Jesus can provide forgiveness for them. And he can. And there really is grace and hope. But you've got to face the music.

11
00:04:49.000 --> 00:05:08.000
So it's challenging that. The emotional side is challenging. I know one lady who, she changed her mind on abortion. I did a whole, I've told said this to you guys before. Well, for those who watch like every video and I did a whole message on abortion, uh, at church. We did like a pro life Sunday. It was my idea. So guess what? I was given the pulpit for it. This is years and years ago.

12
00:05:08.000 --> 00:06:34.000
And um, I did this message on pro life stuff and I taught about it all. And at one point I said something almost as a throwaway line, okay, like, meaning I didn't think really deeply about it. I just tossed it in there because I thought maybe this will help someone realize that they're wrong about this topic. Because it didn't matter that I had the scientific definition of life, that I talked about personhood, that we talked about the role of parents to protect their children. And ah, that stuff didn't matter. What mattered was when I said, when you have had a friend lose their child, have a miscarriage, you have said to them, I'm so sorry you lost your baby. You knew it was a great tragedy, your heart broke and you cried for them because you knew what they lost was their child. Not just a parasite, zygote, some non person piece of flesh that looks human and has a beating heart like you. You felt bad because he lost their child. So this woman came up to me afterwards and she said, when you said that, I realized pro choice was wrong, that it was evil because she had memories of a friend who she'd seen lose a baby and she knew in that moment what was going on. And because there was no because, uh, pro choice stuff wasn't in her mind, entangled in that moment. She didn't feel like she had to tell her it wasn't real. She just let what really is true come out. Like, oh, I'm so sorry you lost your baby. You know, and she knew it was a tragedy.

13
00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:57.000
But then later would probably drive a friend to the hospital to have a doctor do that on Purpose, so craziness. But let's look at the Bible verses. This isn't a whole study on pro choice, pro life stuff. I just wanted to preface it a bit. So in Luke chapter one, I think we have kind of the emotional side and some of the intellectual stuff kind of coming together in a way that is helpful.

14
00:06:57.000 --> 00:07:55.000
And um, and I know this view. You guys, you guys can watch this video will most. And sometimes one breaks through. But usually if I do a video where I talk about this, it will get far less views than normal. It'll be under the average for my, you know, for my Q and A videos or for whatever kind of video it is. I expect that going in don't really care that much. Um, views are an ins. Means to an end. They are not an end in and of themselves. So would they abort Jesus? Now let's, let's look at Luke chapter one. Now there were abortion methods back in the day. They had some different things that they would do. There's always been something in society where people could, uh, kill their offspring. Um, they would do it sometimes after the fact. In Roman culture, it was not too, too uncommon, uh, for someone after they've had a baby if they didn't want the baby to just leave it laying on the porch at night. And then there were roaming dogs in the city and that would happen. That was, that was just what they would do.

15
00:07:55.000 --> 00:08:25.000
In the early church, Christians got the reputation of rescuing babies. They would find being left out for exposure and taking them in and adopting them. That was what Christians got their recommendation, their reputation for doing. And the Didache super early Christian document written just around 100 A.D. it's not written by the apostles, though it claims to be, right. People claim it has been, but it is written from early Christians. And uh, it talks about this, that Christians would never do that sort of thing. It's unchristian. Well, here's one of the reasons why Luke chapter one.

16
00:08:25.000 --> 00:09:33.000
Um, I'm going to look at a few verses. So basically we have the birth of John the Baptist and then we have the birth of Jesus. These two individuals that are born just a few months apart, uh, they're six months difference between. Is it six three there? I'm just remembering the numbers wrong. We'll read it right now. So Zacharias, John's dad, he, um, he gets told, hey, your wife's going to have a kid. And then we move over. I'll just skip over to verse 26 where we get to Jesus and uh, Mary and Gabriel. So now in the sixth month. Luke 1:26. The angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. Having come in, the angel said to her, rejoice, highly favored one. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women. But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, and I like this. It's just a very human response. Not a, ah, low response, just a very real response, like she's freaked out, like, there's an angel there.

17
00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:48.000
She's not like, oh, that was so crazy. It's not like a childish freak. She is aware of how important this moment is. This angel speaks to her. Yes, he said nice things to her, but she obviously is thinking, what's going on? What is happening? What does this mean that he's coming to talk to me?

18
00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:55.000
Um, even though he's obviously not coming to hurt her, still, when an angel shows up, it's because something's going down.

19
00:09:55.000 --> 00:11:05.000
Then the angel said to her, do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. Jesus. And he will be great, and he will be called the Son of the highest. And the Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David. I love that we have, theologically, we have the fatherhood of God, and then we, the, you know, the deity of Christ here. And then we have, in his humanity, we have his father David. So we have the God man being referenced. Um, not taught directly here, but definitely this is connected to that, you know, verse 33. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. And that verse right there opens up a whole bunch of prophecy, whole bunch of prophecy about David and the son of David reigning over the house forever and all this. And it just, boom. Um, messianic stuff is happening here, but that's not what we're talking about. So I'll move forward. Then Mary said to the angel, how can this be since I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the highest will overshadow you. Therefore. Therefore also that holy one who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

20
00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:15.000
Now, indeed, Elizabeth, your relative has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.

21
00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:21.000
Now I just want to highlight this little conceived a son.

22
00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:40.000
Um, the niv, I think has a weird reading here that is unlike like so many other translations. But, um, but other than that, what you do have here is she, past tense, has conceived. And what did she conceive? A son. Now she's six months pregnant. There's a six month gap between John and Jesus.

23
00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:55.000
She's six months pregnant. So at the six month mark she has a son. Now a non person cannot be called a son, John. This is the logical argument, right? John the Baptist is a son while he is still in his mother's womb.

24
00:11:55.000 --> 00:12:10.000
Not a zygote or blastocyst, not an embryo. None of the other stages are worried about. These are just different ways of talking about a daughter or a son at a different age. So here he is a son.

25
00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:33.000
Now let's read more. I know you might. There's going to be pushback from people who are already thinking of reasons. Remember your reasons why you push back. Because these other verses are probably going to answer those reasons that you have. Maybe you're thinking, well, yeah, but I'm only support abortion before the six month period. As if that's what this verse was teaching. Actually, it doesn't say now that he's six months in her womb, he has become a son. Actually, it says she conceived a son.

26
00:12:33.000 --> 00:12:53.000
The conception is what happened at the moment of him becoming alive. Right where sperm and egg come together. That's conception. And she has conceived a son, meaning that from the moment of conception, John was her son. That certainly seems implied, but there's other verses as well. Let's go to verse. I'll read through to verse 41.

27
00:12:53.000 --> 00:13:26.000
Um. For with God nothing is impossible. Then Mary said, behold the maidservant of the Lord, Let it be to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her. Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste to a city of Judah and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. So Mary and Elizabeth come together and they meet. And this is a glorious meeting. What a neat way to open the Gospel of Luke. And it happened when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

28
00:13:26.000 --> 00:13:44.000
The babe leaped in her womb. What does that imply? Agency. Here's another thing with the I just want to show that there's a consistent treatment, there's a consistent treatment of this John in the womb as a person who has agency even before he's born.

29
00:13:44.000 --> 00:14:36.000
That's consistent with the pro life ethic. That's consistent with the. And by the way, some of you guys have, you might be thinking about debates between pro life and abolitionists and all this I have not vetted. I don't even know what all those debates are. I've heard this is just a side issue for those who. Maybe that's on your mind. The abolitionist side. I don't really fully know. I agree that, uh, it should be abolished and I agree that we should even penalize people who commit abortions once we can pass laws to do so. That seems like an absolute no brainer to me. That's not a debate to me in my mind. Um, however, and you can even build a biblical case for that. God punishes those who cause their children to pass through the fire, that kind of thing. But, um, but there's, there's times where the abolitionists actually argue against passing certain legislation that I think would be beneficial and they have their reasons for it. And I'm not, I don't take that stance. So where am I, where do I fit? I don't know.

30
00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:43.000
Um, so when I say pro life, I mean you don't kill babies in the womb. I don't mean whatever debate's going on between those two groups.

31
00:14:43.000 --> 00:14:52.000
I just mean what I mean. So the baby leaped in her womb and Elizabeth's filled with the spirit. The leaping in the room is an agency or personhood thing.

32
00:14:52.000 --> 00:15:23.000
You don't have leaping in her womb in response to a wonderful greeting as like. Well, it was an involuntary spasm. Some pro choice person, you're listening, going, I think it was word of a spasm. Spasm. Babies bounce around all the time. It was just a coincidence, you know, it wasn't like uh, something the baby did in response to something that was happening in the world around the baby. But that's exactly what it says. Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary and the babe leapt in her womb. Meaning there's a cause and effect here, but let's read on because it gets more specific.

33
00:15:23.000 --> 00:15:35.000
Then she spoke out with a loud voice and says, blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. But why is it granted to me that the mother of, of my Lord should come to me?

34
00:15:35.000 --> 00:16:09.000
This is the third verse I wanted to show you. There's one more. The mother of my Lord. Who is Mary? Mary is currently with a three month gestation going on. She is currently at that moment the mother of a specific person, the Lord. She is the mother of Jesus. It is actually Jesus who has personhood that she is the mother of. And the thing is that Mary is the mother not of God's divine essence. Mary is the mother of his physical body, of the humanity of Jesus. She is the mother of that.

35
00:16:09.000 --> 00:17:00.000
So Jesus in his humanity has personhood not just because of some divine, oh, maybe Jesus, you couldn't kill him in the womb. But it'd be different if it was a normal human Jesus. It's his humanity that Mary has a motherhood relationship with. And so the fact that she's called a mother at three months, not will be a mother later on, and that it is in fact the Lord, that she's the personhood of Jesus. To me this is such a powerful, powerful argument against any kind of pro choice views that many people have, despite what Scripture says. Let the Bible change your mind on this. I know it's horrific. I know it's absolutely horrific to think, wait a minute, that means the thing that I did was evil and wrong. That means the thing I supported, I encouraged, I paid for, I told that person, came to me and I told them, yeah, you should just abort. It'll be way better for your life. Don't worry, it's just a clump of cells. You did that. You can be forgiven.

36
00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:08.000
Absolutely you can be forgiven. But you got to face up and call it what it is. Let the word of God correct you here. That'd be my encouragement.

37
00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:18.000
And then verse 44, the last verse, it says, for indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb from. For joy.

38
00:17:18.000 --> 00:17:22.000
Now John is being described as having emotion.

39
00:17:22.000 --> 00:17:46.000
The babe leaped in my womb for joy. I did a little bit, tiny bit of research on this and there is at least some people make a case that, um, we have good reason to think that babies will actually respond when their mothers respond to something or when there's outside stimulus that is being perceived by the child and that they can actually have emotional type responses. Happiness, joy, that kind of thing.

40
00:17:46.000 --> 00:18:13.000
And so here we have John leaping in the womb for joy. And so here's you were like, where's the more emotional side of things? I want you to imagine that abortion takes a baby that could leap in the womb for joy, A baby whose very existence inside that womb turns that woman into a mom, as Mary said of Elizabeth said of Mary, that that turns her into a moment the mother of my Lord.

41
00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:33.000
And abortion kills that baby, takes away the motherhood of that mom, takes away a person inside the womb. That's how Scripture seems to outline the issues. And when it comes to Jesus, I think modern people would have wanted Jesus killed.

42
00:18:33.000 --> 00:18:49.000
They would have counseled her, uh, even. Elizabeth, Elizabeth, you got, you're really old, you know, you're not going to be able to take care of this kid very well. Your husband's old, he's getting more frail. He's got some kind of problem where he's mute. He can't even talk anymore. Elizabeth, maybe it's better for you just to, uh, abort this child.

43
00:18:49.000 --> 00:19:32.000
Mary, you are young. You're just getting your life started. You're engaged, you're not even married yet. And here you are, you're going to be pregnant now. This is going to make your, your whole family is going to look shamed. It's going to be so embarrassing for you. Oh, the emotional trauma that you'll go through, Mary, in your life, when people always whisper behind your back about this little baby that you had outside of your marriage and how it was from the Lord. No one's going to believe that. You should probably just abort this baby. It's probably better for you. I just care about you so much. Don't worry, don't worry. It's not a real person. And besides, this baby has no right to use your organs. Besides, this baby's just a clump of cells. Besides, this is just for your own mental well being and health.

44
00:19:32.000 --> 00:20:12.000
You should probably just abort this little Jesus. Mary, this is just the society we live in. We live in a horrific, barbaric society and we always have. And it is Christianity that is trying to pull people out of that. But Christians, you have to hold fast to scripture and actually stand on biblical morals. And it works easy if you pick a side of public policy or politics and you just never confront them with the area where they're accounting, going against God. It's a lot easier to get along in the world. And so if you're more liberal leaning, maybe you're not super liberal, but you're just liberal leaning, you're going to be really strongly compelled to compromise on the topic of abortion.

45
00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:24.000
Um, even saying things like, well, I personally believe it's wrong, but I wouldn't push my personal values on you, which is laughably tragic, um, to say such a thing.

46
00:20:24.000 --> 00:21:15.000
I personally believe it's wrong that my neighbors be beating his wife to death, but I won't push my values on them and call the cops or pass a law to prevent that sort of thing from happening. That's just insane. But it's all emotion based um, on the conservative side, there's other issues where you'll be, you'll be pressed to compromise your own religious beliefs. Especially right now. I think ecumenism, the idea of just sort of like, ignoring the differences between different religions and, um, acting like, um, the people that Trump's inviting to the White House are all, like, just good Christian people. Trust me. No total creeps and scam artists there. That sort of thing. It's, oh, well, now you've touched the golden cow. You know, you can't do that. So, um. All right, well, now that I've shared that and I've guaranteed myself a really low view video with. Because the algorithm does not like when I do this.

47
00:21:15.000 --> 00:21:37.000
Um, let's go to question number two. Um, just gonna go that in your live chat. My name is Mike Winger. If you guys don't know me, my agenda and goal is to help you learn to think biblically about everything. It does not mean that I'm the guru of scripture. I'm just one of a number of people who is doing that in life. Um, and hold on, I'm just going to bring up this.

48
00:21:37.000 --> 00:22:38.000
We do have all 10 questions for today, so thanks, guys, for sending those in. I'll go through them now. Start with question number two. All right, Just so I can comment on videos, that is the name of the person's YouTube channel. If someone commits a sin against you, abuse, etcetera, are you also owed justice? Can Jesus forgive the justice you are owed? Or was the sin committed only against God and not you? The sinner is now saved. Um, one of the old ways in which people would talk about this is, uh, there's the debt to, uh, debt before God and then debt to society. And they're not the same thing. They're not the same thing. So the debt to society could be something like I, you know, joyride, I stole your car. I drove it, skidded around and crashed into a building for fun, and then left your car there abandoned. So I've done damage to property, I've terrorized the neighborhood, I've stolen your car. I've caused whatever harm that that's brought to your life.

49
00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:47.000
But when I got put in handcuffs, I got drug over to the police station, and there I was, just torn apart.

50
00:22:47.000 --> 00:23:07.000
I started thinking about what I've done because I've never had to deal with consequences before. They show me pictures of the family whose car I had stolen, and I got to hear about how it hurt them. And then the chaplain came and visited me in jail, and he talked to me about the Lord, and I gave my life to Jesus, and I'm so repentant. I'm so, so sorry.

51
00:23:07.000 --> 00:23:14.000
Does that mean I don't have to do time or don't have to pay back for restitution what I've done? And the answer is no.

52
00:23:14.000 --> 00:23:23.000
Um, that is not the case. Now, it is always the, um, prerogative of the person who was hurt to forgive the debt.

53
00:23:23.000 --> 00:23:56.000
But there is still oftentimes a proper payment for something that has already been forgiven. Uh, now immediately, I know Catholics are going to be like, boom, that's purgatory, Mike. I've got videos talking about purgatory. Purgatory is expiation of sin. That's the doctrine, the actual Catholic doctrine is that you are suffering to pay the penalty for your sin. It is not merely temporal consequences, as often Catholic apologists will pretend. I'll just say that out. Throw that out there for those who you're part. You understand, uh, this is a really big deal. Purgatory is about expiation of sin.

54
00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:16.000
And if you, if you will defend it as, oh, it's just temporal consequences of sin, that is deceptive, that is misleading, and that gaslights the Protestants over this issue of purgatory that we've been talking about for 500 years. Um, so, um, the idea of temporal consequences, yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. That's absolutely true.

55
00:24:16.000 --> 00:24:56.000
If I was to do, um, this, and I was really repentant and I could be forgiven by God, I would naturally want to pay back. Even though they were like, I forgive you, Mike. You, you crash my car, you did this. I would work my fingers to the bone to pay back everything it cost them and probably then some more and try to make it right as much as possible. That kind of seeking to bring restitution to people, that is an evidence of actual repentance is, I want to bring restitution. I don't just want to get out of jail free card. If I wanted just to get out of jail free card, then there's a good chance I'm just using the biblical teaching of forgiveness to manipulate people.

56
00:24:56.000 --> 00:25:01.000
So abusers do this. I've been dealing with abusers and abusive ministries a lot recently.

57
00:25:01.000 --> 00:25:43.000
Just this year. It's kind of a whole year thing and that sort of thing. Um, they often use forgiveness as a weapon, right? So a woman has been abused by a leader, and she comes in and she's like, yeah, he lied to me and then he took advantage of me. And then they say, well, will you forgive him, will you repent? And they do this weird little meeting where the guy's like, oh, yes, I exhibit whatever qualities of I'm sad and sorry that you would like me to exhibit. And then she is. The end result of the meeting is that she's supposed to not tell anybody. And he just continues on as always. No big deal. I've heard of pastors counseling women who were assaulted by a leader.

58
00:25:43.000 --> 00:25:52.000
Not, um, to call the cops under the guise of forgiveness and grace. That's an abuse of grace. It's an abuse of forgiveness.

59
00:25:52.000 --> 00:26:16.000
So in Scripture, there's some examples of this. Um, God says, um, to Israel. I'm trying to think if I can find the actual verse. It's really interesting. Um, I don't know if I can find it.

60
00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:20.000
Trust me, bro, it's in there.

61
00:26:20.000 --> 00:27:06.000
Um, maybe, actually, if I'm not able to find this particular one, I can actually talk a little bit about Lamentations, the Book of Lamentations. Here's a great homework for you. Read the book of Lamentations and see that, um, Lamentations is a book where they're grieving over losing everything because of sin, yet there's a cry of thankfulness to God. You know, because of his mercies. We're not consumed, we're not going to be completely destroyed because of God's gracious kindness. And there's this. If you read Lamentations, it's very short little book, but it's after the destruction of Jerusalem and being carried away to the Babylonians. It comes right after the book of Jeremiah. Basically, he warns and mourns, and they don't listen. And then, boom, destruction. And then Lamentations is written.

62
00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:26.000
And they go through this, and he's crying out, and he's basically saying, you know, these little hopeful moments come out. Some of the most beautiful, beautiful, hopeful things about the promises of God are there, but it's in the midst of suffering for sin that they're not paying for their sins, like they're expiating those sins, but they're suffering because of their sins.

63
00:27:26.000 --> 00:27:58.000
And so they're going through that. And he said, and it says, you know, if it wasn't for the Lord's mercies, we would have been completely eradicated and destroyed. That his mercies are new every morning. Great. Is your faithfulness. Like, some of these songs you love come from this book. It's pretty crazy. Um, there is a passage in the Old Testament that says where he says that, um, he's going to forgive them, but he will still punish uh, their iniquity, man. Where is this verse?

64
00:27:58.000 --> 00:28:04.000
Uh, I'm not sure. So I don't want to spend two minutes looking for it. That's all it would take. But that's a lot of dead air.

65
00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:36.000
So the, the idea though of, yeah, I'm going to forgive you, even though punishment will still come as a result of this. That is something that does happen in scripture. Now, God is the judge. He's the one who can punish. I don't punish people, but I may ask for restitution. Okay, so I'm not like, I forgive you, but I'm going to punish you. It's not that, but there's a few things I can do when someone sins against me in some significant way, even though I forgive them. One, I may not be able to trust them in the future. That's just reality. Sometimes you can't trust them. You've learned a lesson and you should not forget it because it's important.

66
00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:39.000
Now you might be like, well, God forgets our sins.

67
00:28:39.000 --> 00:28:46.000
You're talking about trust, not forgiveness. That's about forgiveness. Trust being earned. That's a real thing. It has to be earned.

68
00:28:46.000 --> 00:29:24.000
And you've got also the desire, uh, for restitution. That is not a bad thing, that is not a sinful thing. That is appropriate. And a society of Christians who rejects all restitution because they just immediately forgive everything, they actually can do an injustice culturally because they're not solving and fixing and making right the things that have been made wrong. So I think that it's important that we still seek restitution. I can forgive a guy who broke into my house, but I can still call the cops and have him thrown into prison because that's the right thing to do, that's appropriate, that is proper justice. So I think that this is different.

69
00:29:24.000 --> 00:29:36.000
So that metric of debt before God and debt before man, or your forgiveness before God and your restitution before man being two separate things I think is helpful in that.

70
00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:49.000
And, um, anytime in the New Testament where you see consequences for sin, you know there's a guy who's sinning. Kick him out, he says, and after a season, if he repents, you can bring him back, but you can verify that it's real.

71
00:29:49.000 --> 00:29:55.000
So, yeah, that's my thoughts on that question. Let's go to the next one.

72
00:29:55.000 --> 00:30:05.000
Katie Riggs says, what would you do if you had to choose between a Calvinist leaning church and a church that believed women could be elders? Both churches are otherwise healthy and doctrinally sound.

73
00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:10.000
Um, here's the Problem with that?

74
00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:12.000
Um, Katie, these are not.

75
00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:16.000
They're sort of two very separate kind of doctrinal issues.

76
00:30:16.000 --> 00:30:24.000
So there's probably some Calvinist leaning churches out there that are actually egalitarian.

77
00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:28.000
So it just seems a little strange, like Calvinism does not create.

78
00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:34.000
Calvinism in the structure of itself is not a complementarian or patriarchal view.

79
00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:42.000
It's just that, uh, those views tend to be with the Calvinist view, that they do tend to go together.

80
00:30:42.000 --> 00:30:59.000
It's just this is difficult for me. So like, I don't know, I'm probably giving you a hard time and I don't mean to, but I don't know anything about this other church except that they ordain women. And the only thing I know about this other church is they don't ordain women and they lean Calvinist. But what does this other one lean?

81
00:30:59.000 --> 00:31:08.000
How do they handle the gifts? How is their children's ministry? Ah, what's the missions thing? Is the pastor an arrogant fool?

82
00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:17.000
Is he like humble and Christ loving? There's too many factors for me to make a decision based on that. There just are, um, there's just too many factors.

83
00:31:17.000 --> 00:31:44.000
Sorry, Katie, I can't answer the hypothetical. I have to know more. Plus here, here's the danger of me answering your hypothetical, Katie, is somebody will listen to me and they know a bunch of stuff about two churches. One's Calvinist leaning, one's egalitarian. But there's a whole bunch of other factors. They know, but they might listen to me and make a decision about which church to go to based on my answer. I will say this. I don't think that Calvinism will hurt your marriage, whereas egalitarianism, I think, will probably hurt your family and your marriage.

84
00:31:44.000 --> 00:32:00.000
I know I'm going to get roasted for saying this. I don't say this because watch my series. If you guys see my Women in Ministry series, I became stronger, uh, against egalitarianism as a result of this. Not just as it relates to leadership and ministry, but especially as it relates to the home.

85
00:32:00.000 --> 00:32:24.000
When you teach egalitarian principles in the home, I think it undermines some of the health of the home and the family and that it specifically argues against the biblical doctrines of headship. Oh, Mike, we don't argue against headship, we teach headship. No, you reinterpret headship and you argue for your version of headship, which means like source. And you think that this has something to do with Zeus and rivers and has nothing to wrong.

86
00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:37.000
And I talk about all that in this series. Um, and then you go down to argue against the actual definition of headship that Paul has inspired by the Holy Spirit when he describes the nature of marriage. So, like, the nature of marriage is a big deal.

87
00:32:37.000 --> 00:32:48.000
Um, whereas I don't think Calvinism, especially a common leaning church, is going to be presenting those kinds of threats in a pragmatic way to your. To your marriage.

88
00:32:48.000 --> 00:33:03.000
Um, so let's move forward. I feel like I'm starting fires. I'm summarizing briefly things I've taken a long time to explain in a lot of detail. My Women in Ministry series. I'll link it down below. You can spend the next 44 hours going over it. Something like that. It's crazy long.

89
00:33:03.000 --> 00:33:11.000
Um, I don't remember how many hours. It's like all the Lord of the Rings movies and then a little bit more, um, extended editions.

90
00:33:11.000 --> 00:33:32.000
No, no, no. That was just one video. Anyways, let's go to number four, Dilly. Ah, Guy. How should we understand the high places? In Second Chronicles 15:17, and others condemn the kings for not tearing them down. But in 1st Samuel 9:12, Samuel attends and blesses a sacrifice at a high place. All right, let's look at both those verses.

91
00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:43.000
2 Chronicles 15, 17.

92
00:33:43.000 --> 00:34:22.000
Um, repeatedly. When you go through 1st and 2nd kings, 1st and 2nd chronicles, you'll repeatedly have this, like, assessment. It's almost like Yelp reviews on the kings of Israel. So, uh, or a king of Judah, depending on in the north or the south, the kings of Israel in the north. They always get a bad review from the Lord. As far as how they did, they were all. Every one of them was lousy. Every, Everyone wicked. All of them bad. The kings in the south, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad. But oftentimes in these reviews, it'll list some things they did and then it will always highlight. Did they get rid of the high places? And most of them don't. Right? For the most part they don't. So maybe they were even a good king, but they didn't do that.

93
00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:28.000
Um, so here is, uh, um, Aces review.

94
00:34:28.000 --> 00:34:41.000
It says, but the high places were not taken out of Israel. Nevertheless, the heart of Asa was wholly true all his days. This is the. But this is the bad thing that Asa did. He. Or failed to do. He didn't get rid of the high places. What are the high places?

95
00:34:41.000 --> 00:35:12.000
The high places are, uh, to my understanding, the high places are pagan places of worship. They are idols and locations for worshiping false gods other than the God of Israel. They're, uh, not primarily places to worship the God of Israel, but false gods. So you go there and you're worshiping Asherah, and you're worshiping BAAL and you're worshiping Molech, and you're worshiping these other different gods. That's what you're doing in the high places. And God wants the. The kings of Israel to get rid of those things because they do have an actual theocracy.

96
00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:38.000
And you, you must enforce the worship of God in an actual theocracy, which we will have again when Jesus returns, but not before Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my servants would fight. That is because we are not creating a Christian government, although we want our government to be more Christian. We're not trying to create an actual. This government is enforcing the theocracy of God.

97
00:35:38.000 --> 00:35:48.000
The other verse you have was 1st Samuel 9:12. Let's look at that verse.

98
00:35:48.000 --> 00:35:52.000
Um, I'm going to back up a little bit.

99
00:35:52.000 --> 00:35:55.000
Let's try to get a little bit of context here.

100
00:35:55.000 --> 00:36:20.000
Okay? This is about Saul being chosen to be king. It says there was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abeel, the son of Zeror, son of Beccarath, son of Aiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth. You know, we can't do this anymore. I could not list the last five, six males in my line. Do you know that? That's interesting. Of course, my dad was adopted, so I couldn't actually list his actual dad's name, to be honest.

101
00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:22.000
Um, his birth dad.

102
00:36:22.000 --> 00:36:38.000
Um, and he had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward, he was taller than any of the people. Now, the donkeys of Kish, Saul's father, were lost.

103
00:36:38.000 --> 00:37:04.000
Donkeys of Kish is not a football team. Um, they're just donkeys. So his. The donkeys were lost. So Kish said to Saul, his son, take one of the young men with you and arise. Go and look for the donkeys. And he passed through the hill country of Ephraim and passed through the land of Shelashah, but they did not find them. And they passed through the land of Shalem, but they were not there. Then they passed through the land of Benjamin, but did not find them.

104
00:37:04.000 --> 00:38:06.000
You know, you get the feeling when you read these little sections that if a careful study of these different locations and the backgrounds would just give you different little nuggets of cool stuff that you would learn just the way it's written, um, but verse five says, when they came to the land of Zuf, Saul said to his servant who was with him, come, let us go back, lest my father cease to care about the donkeys and become anxious about us. But he said to him, m. Behold, there is a man of God in this city, and he's a man who's held in honor, and all that he says comes true. So now let us go there. Perhaps he can tell us the way we should go. Hey, maybe this man of God will tell us where the donkeys are, right? Before we give up. It's interesting that this comes not from Saul. Um, uh, excuse me, not from his. When we came to the land of Zef, Saul said to his servant, who's with him, come, let us go back, right? But the servant is the one who says it. It's not Saul. He's like, hey, let's go to this man of God. I don't know if there's a hint here that Saul is. Is less aware of spiritual things and, um, less concerned about them possibly at the time. Maybe it's a.

105
00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:24.000
A slight little one of those things you look back at in hindsight and you go, eh, maybe that was a sign, you know, uh, good coffee today, by the way. Just so you guys know, verse eight, the servant answered, saul, again, here I have with me a quarter of a shekel of server of silver.

106
00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:46.000
Oh, yeah, this is verse seven. I bounced around. Then Saul said to his servant, but if we go, what can we bring the man? For the bread in our sacks is gone, and there's no present to bring the man of God. What do we have? So probably this is part of the reason why Saul's like, let's get out of here. We got no more food. And the servant answered, saul again, here I have with me a quarter of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God to tell us our way. So the servant's going to give his own money.

107
00:38:46.000 --> 00:39:02.000
Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he said, come, let us go to the seer. For today's prophet was formerly called a seer. Interesting that there's an editorial type note here to say, hey, there's a change, uh, in terminology that happened over time.

108
00:39:02.000 --> 00:39:16.000
And Saul, by the way, people nowadays will make a big difference between prophets and seers and the charismatic movement. They'll be like, this person's a seer and this person's a prophet. And here's all the big differences between them and Here they're just. The text is like, yeah, it's just there were just different words for the same thing.

109
00:39:16.000 --> 00:39:20.000
And Saul said to his servant, well, said, come, let us go.

110
00:39:20.000 --> 00:39:32.000
So they went to the city where the man of God was. As they went up the hill, uh, up the hill to the city, they met a young woman coming out to draw water and said, is the seer here?

111
00:39:32.000 --> 00:40:02.000
They answered, he is. Behold, he is just ahead of you. Hurry. He has come just now to the city. Because the people have a sacrifice today on the High Place. As soon as you enter the city, you will find him before he goes up to the High place to eat. For the people will not eat till he comes, since he must bless the sacrifice afterward. Those who are invited will eat now, go up for you will meet him immediately and um, talk about special status. I wonder if there's anything else in the text that we get about the High Place.

112
00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:19.000
Um, so they went up to the city. As they were entering the city, they saw Samuel coming out toward them on his way up to the High place. So they actually talk to him before he goes up to the High place?

113
00:40:19.000 --> 00:40:31.000
Yeah. Verse 19, Samuel said, answered Saul, I am the seer. Go up before me to the High place, for today you shall eat with me, and in the morning I will let you go. Um, and he's going to tell them where the donkeys are.

114
00:40:31.000 --> 00:40:37.000
Interesting.

115
00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:56.000
I'm just reading through here. Samuel took Saul and his young man, verse 22, and brought them into the hall and gave them a place at the head of those who had been invited, who were about 30 persons. And Samuel said to the cook, bring the portion I gave, I gave you, of which I said to you, put it aside. So they cook a special portion he gets to eat. Kind of like the prophet's portion sort of thing.

116
00:40:56.000 --> 00:40:59.000
Mhm.

117
00:40:59.000 --> 00:41:01.000
It's really interesting.

118
00:41:01.000 --> 00:41:36.000
You know, I want to study this one more on my own, but off camera. I guess it takes too long. There's. Let me survey for us. What options will we have? Um, like what are the potential things that you would then look in the text to see if you've got any, any sort of indication one way or the other. So one of them would be to say, um, oh, well, this was an approved High Place. Uh, this was somehow appropriate and good. And maybe evidence for that would be that Samuel's involved. And Samuel's a great prophet. He's. He's a prophet who doesn't really have downsides. He's one of those very rare characters in the Old Testament who's pretty much all good stuff about him.

119
00:41:36.000 --> 00:41:47.000
Um, and you could say that. You could say that, well, this is some sort of. But a pushback against that could be that God specifically told them, like, don't be sacrificing stuff. And other places, like, you sacrifice stuff here.

120
00:41:47.000 --> 00:41:58.000
And then it would be, well, you know, under what conditions and which sacrifices might have happened outside the temple. Could this be one of those sacrifices? Okay, that's another trail to look into.

121
00:41:58.000 --> 00:42:05.000
I'm a little. I'm open to that, but I'm not suspecting I'd find something there personally. Okay. I'm just talking, thinking out loud.

122
00:42:05.000 --> 00:42:38.000
Another option is that Samuel was up there worshiping some false pagan deity. And that he's up there and he's like, hey, Saul, come. Come worship Baba Boogu. And we're gonna. We're gonna praise. I could have used, like, an actual deity. But we're gonna. We're gonna make a sacrifice to this false God. Why don't you join me? And then I'll anoint you king over Israel. And then it would make Samuel, um, not like a little compromise, but. But downright evil, misleading. He's taking a king of Israel, and he's leading him up to an altar where he will offer a sacrifice to a false God.

123
00:42:38.000 --> 00:43:13.000
Um, the third option, which is where my default view would be, is that Israel, especially if this coming. This is coming, um, out of the Book of Judges. Okay. And then you get into first Samuel during that season, every man did what he did, what was right in his own eyes. And there was a lot of stuff going on that was not God approved. And it's a lot of stuff that's complicated. It's a mixed bag. It's not, um, 100% evil. It's not 100% good. And sometimes it's this mixed bag where there's parts of it that are wicked and parts that you understand. You go, no, that seems like it was good.

124
00:43:13.000 --> 00:43:20.000
Um, that happens a lot in the Book of Judges. And then it continues on into Samuel.

125
00:43:20.000 --> 00:43:57.000
It's possible that Samuel was going up to a high place, that that should not have existed, but that he was doing so to honor the God of Israel and that it was a compromised thing. And maybe. Maybe in that very instance, there's a picture of the. Of the ministry of Saul, of his actual time as king, that it's both good and bad, that in some ways he does great things, and he also does bad things. And that. That's sort of, uh, a maybe. Maybe his introduction to this stuff. Is like a picture of that that maybe may be the way it is. There's a lot of mixed bag stuff going on. This whole section of scripture, Eli, the guy who's the high priest before, um, Samuel comes in and he becomes a prophet.

126
00:43:57.000 --> 00:44:12.000
He seems like he's doing mostly a good job, but he doesn't keep his sons from abusing the people. And so God kills his sons and he. And he. And he says, your line is going to end. But Eli wasn't all bad, but he had some major things that were disqualifying.

127
00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:35.000
So it just can, uh, be complicated. There's some thoughts on that. I think those are the options. I think that, um, I would go with my explanation unless I could be persuaded that there's a particular exception where the phrase the high places is usually all negative. But there were some high place things that were used for God that were considered. Okay.

128
00:44:35.000 --> 00:44:40.000
Um, but I haven't heard that case made. And if it's in the text, I just missed it.

129
00:44:40.000 --> 00:44:47.000
So let's go to the next question number. What are we on 5 Cinco. Anonymous question.

130
00:44:47.000 --> 00:45:12.000
My wife had several partners before our marriage. I wasn't around, but I feel like I have to forgive the men. Am I being weird? How do I bring this to God? Because I'm still losing sleep ten years later. Um, yeah, I think that this is a counseling question and that you should really meet with someone and talk to them in person and unpack this. Right? So you want to unpack.

131
00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:15.000
Why are you still losing sleep over this 10 years later?

132
00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:19.000
That's what you want to unpack?

133
00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:28.000
If you were counseling with me, which I don't. Guys, I can't possibly even answer my messages on my inbox, let alone meet with the people in council. It's just not possible.

134
00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:36.000
I, um, try to be involved to some degree in my local church, but I sort of limit it there because otherwise I will die.

135
00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:41.000
Ask my wife. I've tried to do everything a number of times, and it was really not healthy for me.

136
00:45:41.000 --> 00:45:44.000
Um, so I give up on that.

137
00:45:44.000 --> 00:46:09.000
But m. My thought is, this is in general. Let me speak in generalities, and you can decide if it applies to you or not. Um, if it's an issue that was that many years ago and you still feel it's unresolved, then I would want to come to the realization of why do I still feel this is unresolved? Is it because, um, I have to do something to fix it? Maybe if I go to each of these men and I go, I forgive you.

138
00:46:09.000 --> 00:46:45.000
Um, I Don't think that's going to help the situation personally. But I think that what you might be doing is you're trying to find some way of flipping a switch in your own mind to fix the problem, like me. Let me get over this. This would probably cause marriage troubles between you and your wife. If we're completely honest. Maybe there's trust issues that are there. That is something, you know, if. But if it's all. If it's all previous to marriage, if your wife has been faithful, then you kind of need to let it go for the health of your marriage and for you to honor and love your wife. Like, you need to let it go. This was before you're married. This is not a betrayal of your relationship with her.

139
00:46:45.000 --> 00:46:57.000
Um, but talk to someone. Meet with the pastor or just anybody in your church who you or a Christian or even a paid counselor, somebody you think might have the wisdom to help you work through this.

140
00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:08.000
I really would encourage you to keep chasing it down. I'm glad you asked the question. I apologize that the format of online, it doesn't let me answer you really well. And I'm always scared. You guys have to understand this.

141
00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:49.000
The words that I say, even when I say things like, all right, consider this, maybe I'm wrong. I'm just worried that as those words come out, the person listening, that they. They look at me in an unrealistic fashion, like, I'm just. Like, I'm not just another human talking to you, but I'm like, oh, that's Mike Winger. Or that's this person who has this special role and a special place that I'll take whatever he says and run with it. And what I'm telling you is, don't take whatever I say and run with it. But I'm worried you will. So I'm always concerned. My counsel in these tough situations that are brought up will not be healthy and good. I can't do this perfect analysis, give you hard and fast answers, totally change your life when I know one sentence about you.

142
00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:59.000
So I'd encourage pursuing other people who can help you work through this and ask questions at, uh, 10 years, you've probably already done some of this, right? But 10 years is a long time.

143
00:47:59.000 --> 00:48:23.000
Try to figure out why you're still unresolved. And my fear is that this is possibly hurting your marriage, that that may be hurting your marriage. Something that you might feel bitter towards your wife about. I'm not saying you do. I'm, um, not accusing you of anything, but anybody in your situation that would Be a concern for them to work through. All right. I hope some of that helps. Man. Counseling people like this is.

144
00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:39.000
It's like. It's a little bit dangerous. And I can always make it look good. I could just make all these people do this all the time online. I can make a bunch of proclamations about you. Well, you need to be delivered from this, and you have to do this. And there'd be some group of people that would think, wow, what a man of God with such discernment. When I hear that stuff, I think reckless.

145
00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:43.000
Reckless in playing games with people's lives who are looking to you for good advice.

146
00:48:43.000 --> 00:48:45.000
My advice?

147
00:48:45.000 --> 00:49:13.000
Counsel with someone locally and start thinking about how this unresolved issue is affecting your wife, not you, so that you can see it as a husband who wants to provide and protect. Those would be my words of advice for you. Okay, go to question number six. And this comes in from Sandra Arian. Hi, Mike. Thank you so much for your ministry. You're very welcome, Sandra. I'm super, super blessed that I even get to do this. It's amazing.

148
00:49:13.000 --> 00:49:35.000
Um, I have a question. Why does 1 Samuel 13:1 have different meanings in different translations? Okay. And you give new King James and Niv as examples. So we will just look at that together and see what we see. First Samuel 13:1, back to Samuel.

149
00:49:35.000 --> 00:49:37.000
And here we go.

150
00:49:37.000 --> 00:49:40.000
Um, this is the new King James.

151
00:49:40.000 --> 00:50:06.000
Saul reigned one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose for himself. 3,000 men of Israel. 2,000 were with Saul in Mitch Mash, or, uh, McMash. M. McDonald's mashed potatoes. And in the mountains of Bethel. And a thousand were with him, with Jonathan and Gibeah of Benjamin. The rest of the people, he sent away, everyone, every man to his tent. So in the new King James, it says he reigned one year, and when he had reigned two years.

152
00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:12.000
Right. So that's how it's written. Now, you already get, like, how that feels a little strange in English.

153
00:50:12.000 --> 00:50:17.000
Why say he reigned one year and when he reigned two years?

154
00:50:17.000 --> 00:50:20.000
That's a strange thing to say in English.

155
00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:37.000
I'm just guessing here, but when I've looked into these things in the past, it's often just like, well, the Hebrew is a little bit hard to translate here. You know, there's even a little footnote right here where it says, yeah, I did not cheat. Okay, I didn't know this, but it says Hebrew is difficult.

156
00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:54.000
And they don't mean Hebrew is difficult in general. What they mean is the Hebrew of this verse is difficult and they're trying to figure out how to translate it. It's just the way it's written is difficult for them to translate. And, um, that is often the case for translation.

157
00:50:54.000 --> 00:51:14.000
So then there's some references to. Check out these other verses, um, where it talks about the length of king's reigning. Okay, now let's look at the NIV. So remember that Saul reigned one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel, the NIV says Saul was 30 years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel 42 years.

158
00:51:14.000 --> 00:51:16.000
Totally different, right?

159
00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:18.000
Completely different.

160
00:51:18.000 --> 00:51:28.000
That's not just. You don't have one year. You have his age. He was 30 years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel 42 years.

161
00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:39.000
Now, this says the footnote here. And always good to read footnotes when you have questions like this probable reading of the original Hebrew text. The Masoretic text does not have 40.

162
00:51:39.000 --> 00:51:44.000
I can help illuminate what that means a little bit.

163
00:51:44.000 --> 00:51:46.000
All right.

164
00:51:46.000 --> 00:51:51.000
How do I not make this too random?

165
00:51:51.000 --> 00:52:21.000
Um, when they're translating our Old Testament, they have these source texts. Okay? There's just one Hebrew, you know, book that they're translating into English rather. They have in the past tons of ancient manuscripts that have Hebrew in them. And they group. They put these in groups because some of them read all the same way. And a couple of them read a little different here and a little different here. It's really complicated. It's called textual criticism. And it's how they examine the text to try to figure out what was the original reading.

166
00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:42.000
They're not all in agreement. They're not all the same. This does not put your Bible in doubt. But there are times where there's a particular verse, you know, for the bulk of the Scripture, where there's no debate at all. But there's times where there's a verse where they're like, wait, does it say this or does it say that? A, uh, common example in the New Testament is where you might say, well, did it say Jesus, or did the text say Lord Jesus?

167
00:52:42.000 --> 00:53:12.000
Because, uh, it seems that scribes, when they're copying over, say, the Gospel of Mark, they might add the word Lord in front of Jesus as a way of revering Jesus, but it didn't originally say Lord. Now, there's other places where Jesus is called Lord in Mark plenty of times. But there's also later scribes who would add Lord because they were just sort of trying to honor Christ. It's kind of like how people will capitalize, um, certain words when they're talking about, um, religious things, they'll always capitalize a certain word, you know, because they're honoring God by doing that.

168
00:53:12.000 --> 00:53:15.000
Sometimes that's a cultural thing that didn't exist earlier on.

169
00:53:15.000 --> 00:54:05.000
Uh, so when it comes to the statement of the Masoretic that you have on your screen right now, I know it's a little hard to read, um, but right here, I wonder if I can highlight it. There we go. The Masoretic does not have 40. The Masoretic is the typical go to. This is like a source of Hebrew texts, like a group. And it's the typical go to for when we're like, what did the Old Testament originally say? We usually think the Masoretic has it right, but sometimes we'll look at other, a Greek translation or some other source for the Old Testament and we'll go, ah, well, this, this copy has it slightly differently. And for these reasons, maybe we think this one is right. What you're seeing between the new King James and the niv, it seems, is one of those disagreements. The new King James says, we're going to follow the Masoretic, this particular Hebrew reading where it says he reigned for one year and after two years.

170
00:54:05.000 --> 00:54:10.000
And the. Then there's the Masoretic that has the word 40 in there.

171
00:54:10.000 --> 00:54:13.000
So he reigned for 41 years.

172
00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:16.000
Oh, and then they're trying to construct a sentence.

173
00:54:16.000 --> 00:54:46.000
This is the major explanation of the difference. And even the new King James acknowledged, uh, I'll go back to the new King James here. The Hebrew here is difficult. It is difficult. And the English doesn't really make a lot of sense. So he reigned one year and when he reigned two years, I mean, it makes sense. Sense. It's just non intuitive. It's not that it doesn't make sense. It's not intuitive to write that way. But if you had the word 40 in there, he reigned 41 years. Or Saul 41 years reigned over, over Israel.

174
00:54:46.000 --> 00:55:04.000
He reigned for. Well, I guess it'd be 42 years. So let's read the NIV again. Saul was 30 years old when he became king and he reigned 40 over, uh, Israel for 40 years. Now where do they get the father 30 from? They say a few late manuscripts of the Septuagint. The Hebrew does not have the word 30.

175
00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:26.000
So they're using sources that have the word 30 and have the word 40. And that explains the difference with the NIV. They're not getting it from the Masoretic. They're getting it from, at least in the first case here, the septuagint which is a. I know this sounds complicated. It's a Greek translation of the book of First Samuel that, like, predates Jesus. It's from. It's pretty old.

176
00:55:26.000 --> 00:55:29.000
Um, and sometimes they will go with the Septuagint.

177
00:55:29.000 --> 00:55:38.000
So modern, like niv, esv, modern philosophy of translation is. Is not.

178
00:55:38.000 --> 00:57:01.000
They don't lean as much towards just picking a winner. Masoretic, always. Right. But they will actually look at each individual passage and they will have more of what's called an eclectic translation, where they go, hey, um, you know, we think that this is all right, but we think that this stream here actually has an original thing, and they'll insert it and then they'll put a footnote so that, you know, all this in a good translation. All this should be totally transparent. The footnotes should provide you with information, at least enough to give you an idea of what's going on. And most translations do provide proper footnotes that do this. Well, not the passion translation, which is, um, a bad piece of misleading translating work if it's. If you can. You can't really call it a translation, but I have videos on that. So I hope that answers your question. I know this gets a little hairy because we're just delving right into what is actually a whole discipline, a whole scholarly discipline called textual criticism. I do think you can trust the text that's before you. And does the NIV have it? Was the 30 years old when he became king and he reigned over for 42 years? Or was it that after two years of reigning, he did this thing? I don't know for sure, but I tend to lean towards the newer translations, as much as I know that that bothers even many of my own audience. We can agree to disagree on this and still be brothers.

179
00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:17.000
Um, but I would tend to lean towards the newer translations. I'm curious, though. ESV says this one more thing and we'll move on to the next question. Saul lived for one year, then became king. And when he reigned for two years over Israel, Saul chose 3,000 men. How interesting.

180
00:57:17.000 --> 00:57:26.000
So the ESV takes the same source text as the NIV, which is why they're dealing with one year and two year and not 31 years and 42 years.

181
00:57:26.000 --> 00:57:35.000
And, um, they just translated a little differently. Instead of Saul reigned for a year, it's he lived for a year for one year, and then became king.

182
00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:44.000
It's just saying how long it was after the previous events before he became king. And after two years of reigning, he does the following.

183
00:57:44.000 --> 00:58:05.000
Then they have this footnote Hebrew. In the Hebrew, it says Saul was one year old when he became king, and he reigned two years over Israel. Some Greek manuscripts give Saul's age when he began to reign as 30 years. This is giving you a little bit more info. This is why the Hebrew is difficult. According to the niv, the direct straight translation is that Saul was one year old.

184
00:58:05.000 --> 00:58:11.000
Now, nobody thinks Saul was one years old, not the person that wrote it, not the people who translated it.

185
00:58:11.000 --> 00:58:18.000
Um, that he was a one year old when he, when he became king. So then the question is, well, what do they mean by that? Why is it worded that way? What is the definition?

186
00:58:18.000 --> 00:58:52.000
Then you get these diverse translations translating his work. All right, question number seven, not sure says, does Matthew 24:36 imply that the Holy Spirit does not know everything? How does that work if the Holy Spirit is God? I've been struggling with the Trinity lately. Thanks for your ministry. I've heard different answers on this question, but I'll share with you mine. I think it's pretty simple. And because it's so simple to me, I worry people will think that I'm just not thinking.

187
00:58:52.000 --> 00:59:17.000
Maybe they're right. Uh, I'll just present it to you and you can make up your own mind about what you think. Okay, so we. This is super famous passage. Jesus speaking here, and he talks about, uh, not knowing when his return is going to be. So Matthew 24:36, he says, concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father of heaven only.

188
00:59:17.000 --> 00:59:24.000
Nor the Son, but the Father only. Now, usually people ask questions about this. They're referring to like, why didn't Jesus know? And does he know now?

189
00:59:24.000 --> 00:59:46.000
Um, maybe he knows now. In Acts, chapter, uh, one, it seems implied that he might know at that point. I mean, theologically, I lean towards wanting to say he does anyways at that point, but others will say this is more, this is all parable. I think it's inspirational, inspiring philosophy. His view, and I hope I don't get this wrong, but it, uh, was a while ago I saw his video on this.

190
00:59:46.000 --> 01:00:20.000
I think he views this as, as parable that it's, it's not that the sun doesn't actually know, it's more of a parable. Um, and I, I think the Son just effectively closes, closes his eyes to not see something he could know. He chooses not to because he's submitting to the Father as part of the Incarnation. But he has the capacity to. He just chooses not to as well. Part of his Incarnation. Um, then you have the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit know? Now, some will conclude confidently from verse 36 that the Holy Spirit does not know the day or the hour because it says only the Father.

191
01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:25.000
Only the Father. Um, the.

192
01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:55.000
I. I have a problem with that view. I think we're assuming too much. In the text, the Holy Spirit does not come into the conversation here. It could simply be the Holy Spirit's not being talked about, and there are categories given. So it's no one knows. But then there's specific ones. Not the angels, not the Son, the Father. Only the Holy Spirit is not brought up there. So when we say no one knows and we're given categories, the angels and the Son, that is not exclusive inherently of the Holy Spirit. And we also know that Scripture says the Spirit searches the mind of God.

193
01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:59.000
Um, I wonder if I could find that verse.

194
01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:05.000
Uh, First Corinthians.

195
01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:19.000
Let me pull it up for you guys. Just a sec here. Seeing bounce around a little bit.

196
01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:36.000
Um, yeah, let's just look at this and say. Now I want to quickly say I'm going to a different book of the Bible, talking about different things. And so you have to keep that in mind. This is not written as commentary on Matthew 24, because I don't want to do the thing where you just pull verses out of context and smash them together.

197
01:01:36.000 --> 01:02:10.000
So this is a. A possibility here. Um, First Corinthians, chapter two, verse 12. Um, these things, we also speak, not verse 13, rather, uh, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but with which which the Holy Spirit teaches. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they're foolish to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him, but we have the mind of Christ.

198
01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:16.000
Um, there's a different verse I was looking for that's relevant.

199
01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:21.000
Um, I thought it was right there.

200
01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:23.000
Did I read past it?

201
01:02:23.000 --> 01:03:03.000
Oh, I read. I read past it. Just a sec. My bad. Okay, I can do this. I can do this. I can handle this. Come on. Okay. Um, I'll just start verse 10. But God. Same chapter, First Corinthians, chapter 2. But God has revealed them to us through his Spirit. Okay, so here we have God referring to the Father as the Word. Just God on its own. Often, but not always often. Will designate. Uh, I don't even want to say often, like, it's most of the time, but it happens a lot where God just references the Father, um, has revealed them to us through His Spirit. Okay, so now we have the Spirit, the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things. Yes, the deep things of God.

202
01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:07.000
For what man knows the things of a man except the Spirit of the man which is in him.

203
01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:10.000
Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

204
01:03:10.000 --> 01:03:56.000
And we have. And you're like, but is that really the Holy Spirit? Well, now we have received not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God. So this is the Holy Spirit, the one who indwells believers. And this is about our relationship with Him. So the Holy Spirit knows the things the Father knows. That's the implication here, that by natural. By natural virtue of his just who. Who he is. He, the Father, the Spirit, they know the same things. And this theory, theologically could be said of the Son. The Son knows the things the Father knows too, unless he intentionally and willfully closes himself off to that knowledge. How do you close yourself off to knowledge, Mike? Well, you. You do it all the time. You can plug your ears. And now I cannot hear what's around me. Now I have the capacity to hear what's around me. I'm choosing not to hear it. I can close my eyes and I cannot see what's in front of me. I have the capacity. I have. I have sight.

205
01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:03.000
I'm just choosing not to see. Jesus has omniscience, but he is simply choosing not to know, not to access that knowledge.

206
01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:11.000
That's my understanding of Jesus. And if that is in fact the case, it's another reason to think the Holy Spirit does know.

207
01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:29.000
So my possibly too simplistic answer to your question for a lot of people here is just that when Jesus is talking about this stuff and he says, no one knows except the Father, not even the Son, not even the angels, nor the sun, that the Holy Spirit is simply not being discussed.

208
01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:32.000
But the Holy Spirit does know.

209
01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:38.000
That would be my interpretation of that passage for you to think about. All right, let's go to the next question.

210
01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:45.000
Question number eight, says J. Hammond.

211
01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:59.000
How do you interpret Ephesians 5, 22 in Colossians 3:18, and respect of a new Christian woman whose husband has not come to Christ yet and is not supportive of her decision? Wow. Okay, that's challenging. Um, let's look at the passage, though.

212
01:04:59.000 --> 01:05:12.000
Ephesians 5:22, and the situation is a new Christian woman whose husband has not come to Christ yet and is not supportive of her decision.

213
01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:22.000
Let me read this, and then I'll probably share with you you a verse that was written specifically for that, which is not in Ephesians or Colossians, but one that's specifically written for that woman.

214
01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:31.000
Uh, wives, submit to your own husbands as to the lord. Okay, Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18.

215
01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:34.000
Wives, submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord.

216
01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:37.000
Um, if, uh. Sorry, I meant to put that on screen.

217
01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:56.000
Um, I just want you to know, um, this feels like one of those things where it's a tangled mess. Um, if I have to give a short answer, I'm going to say you just do what it says right here. Right? You just follow what Scripture says. You submit to your husband as is fitting in the Lord. Doesn't. Doesn't mean that they have to be Christians.

218
01:05:56.000 --> 01:06:06.000
They have to be your husband. That's the qualifier. And it's fitting for you and the Lord to do that. And husbands, love your wives. And if they're not Christians, you don't get out of that.

219
01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:11.000
You have to love them and not be harsh with them. Not be harsh with them.

220
01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:13.000
That's a big deal.

221
01:06:13.000 --> 01:07:15.000
So you have to do that regardless of whether they're Christians or not. That's the short answer. But there's obviously, you know, questions of, uh, abuse and questions of other things like that. That. Those, those questions should be answered and they should be tackled carefully and thoughtfully. And we have to realize that there are. That submission is not 100% submission. Submission and every single possible thing. And, uh, it's. It's. They're not, they don't become your God or something like that. Um, but I have teaching on this kind of thing. What, what I often hear people do is they focus on the, on the, on the situations that are exceptions to the rule of submission as a way of invalidating the rule in its entirety. That's what I would want to oppose and be able to do both. Let's talk about the rule. Let's establish it. So I'm going to link below a video that, where I taught through this carefully on Wives submit, what it means. This is not part of my Women in Ministry series. That's a theological debate. This is like practical what I think the Scripture means. As I was teaching verse by verse through Scripture and I came across the wives submit passage. Right. What does it mean? But I also want to give you the following.

222
01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:18.000
So here's first Peter 3.

223
01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:25.000
Um, likewise, wives, this is specifically going to talk about women who, whose husbands are Not Christians.

224
01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:46.000
This is the passage I'd give to you or any woman who's like, hey, I'm saved. My husband's not. Likewise wives, be subject to your own husbands so that even if some do not OBEY the word, I.e. they're not Christian, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives. Your witness to your husband is the yes, you can talk to him about Christ, and you should. But.

225
01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:54.000
But your primary witness, your ongoing witness. Witness is going to, in this case, be your conduct as a wife who is going to honor God in your marriage.

226
01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:07.000
That's the thing that's going to be the witness. And if you think I'm going to with. Not that you do think, but if anybody thinks I'll withhold my wifely submission to my husband because he's not Christian, you're defeating your witness to your husband.

227
01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:11.000
You're actually hurting your witness.

228
01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:13.000
That should not be used to encourage abuse.

229
01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:18.000
Um, I've talked about that ad nauseam.

230
01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:38.000
And yet there are those listening who will interpret me as though that's exactly what I'm doing. And even though I give specific examples of abuse and examples in Scripture of women not submitting when it was good Abigail and her moron of a husband and, um, how she is seen as the hero in the passage where she does not submit.

231
01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:43.000
Um, she talks bad about him, she goes behind his back. She does what he doesn't want her to do.

232
01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:58.000
She does all. And she's considered the hero because it was appropriate. I talk about all that. I've gone through all that. Um, so anybody who wants to push back on this. Well, Mike, you're enabling abuse. Like, well, how about you actually listen to what I say because you're just being triggered now. You're not actually listening.

233
01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:12.000
Sorry, guys, I sound defensive. Um, I've been doing this for a long time now, so I already know there's gonna be literal videos clipping me and talking about this stuff. That's just what happens. It's weird. It's a weird world.

234
01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:47.000
So verse two, it says, when they see your respectful and pure conduct, do not let your adorning be external. The braiding of the hair and putting on of gold jewelry or the clothing you wear. But let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. This is not chauvinism. This is nobility among women. A, ah, gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. Our culture teaches women that this is weakness and God sets it up as beauty.

235
01:09:47.000 --> 01:10:49.000
This is how holy women who would, uh, who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by submitting to their own husbands. As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord, and you are her children. If you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening, then it goes on. Likewise, husbands, abuse your wives all you want, because that's exactly what complementarianism teaches. Oh, no, no, I'm sorry, that's not what it says. Live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life so that your prayers may not be hindered. Paul is not politically correct, but you shouldn't be either. Um, I'll link below that video on why I submit and what it means, and I'll link my Women in Ministry series below, which is this massive ongoing series, or it's done now, but this master series that was ongoing for like two years. This, that series, I go through all the arguments, I go through every major egalitarian thing I can find that I thought was worth addressing, and I cover it all, and I don't want to do it again. So I'll just link it below. It's all there, footnotes and everything. Okay, let's go to the next question.

236
01:10:49.000 --> 01:11:07.000
This one comes in from Jeremiah west, who says, when the Galatians quickly deserted the gospel. Galatians 1:6 did quickly refer to the time after Paul left to when they heard false teaching or how easily they turned once they heard the false teaching.

237
01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:13.000
Um, let's look at the passage right now, Galatians 1:6.

238
01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:24.000
And he says, I'm astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and returning to a different Gospel.

239
01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:26.000
Wow.

240
01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:39.000
Um, the word quickly. So here's a easy study anybody can do. Um, you just look at it in different translations. So you can use your web browser for this or a Bible app, or just have some Bibles out.

241
01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:49.000
Well, Galatians 1:6, ESV. Quickly, um, then in New King James, so soon.

242
01:11:49.000 --> 01:12:02.000
Okay, well, quickly could mean, um, that they were Christians for a long time, or at least proclaimed Christ for a long time, although he seems to be talking about the real Christians there.

243
01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:15.000
Then when you heard false teaching, you quickly gave into it. But when he says so soon, if it translated so soon, it implies it's from the time he last left them until now. Like, wow, that happened fast.

244
01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:25.000
So that seemed to be implied, at least in the New King James. In the niv, it says, quickly. You are so quickly Deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ. The rsv.

245
01:12:25.000 --> 01:12:28.000
Um, quickly.

246
01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:34.000
Um, in a King James version is in Philippians.

247
01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:38.000
Sorry, let me get us there. Galatians 1:6.

248
01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:48.000
Looking at different translations can clue you. And even if you guys don't know Hebrew or Greek or any of that stuff, you can clue you in where there are, um, debates and where there are not debates. And this can give you some wisdom.

249
01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:53.000
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you onto the grace of Christ.

250
01:12:53.000 --> 01:13:20.000
Um, okay, so the word itself, the way it's translated more often, it would lean me towards thinking that the Galatians are, um, from the time Paul preached until the time that they were falling away, that happened fast. Not from the time they got false teaching till the time they received false teaching and believed it, that that was happening fast. It seems that was from. And the other reason to think this is the context of the verse. I'm astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you. There's an event.

251
01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:29.000
God called you in the grace of Christ. That's the thing. And then now they're turning to a different gospel. So the bookends of the events themselves. Here, I'll put that on the screen.

252
01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:47.000
They seem to show, um, you were called, now you're deserting. And that happened quick. So it was the distance between those two events. That's the thing that happened quickly. Now the thing that not everybody can do or can easily do is to do like an exegetical study on the text.

253
01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:56.000
And this is always precarious to do online live. Um, because it's just, It's a laborious and slow process.

254
01:13:56.000 --> 01:14:06.000
Um, uh, takeos is the. Is the word you probably can't read that. It's used 28 times in the New Testament.

255
01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:21.000
Um, BDAG is like a go to resource for this. And here, this is a long. Words like this, any kind of word like this that's versatile, you're going to have lots of definitions. So, um, it's the whole page. It's everything on your screen.

256
01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:26.000
You can read that on your own. I'll let you guys just zoom in.

257
01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:32.000
Um, yeah, the main definitions are to a very brief extent of time with a focus on speed of action.

258
01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:41.000
Uh, the other main definition pertains to a future point of time that is subsequent to another point of time was focused on brevity of interval rather than on speed of activity.

259
01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:49.000
Um, um, if I had to guess, I would say that Galatians might be in that category.

260
01:14:49.000 --> 01:15:04.000
Um, Maybe, maybe not. Here they suggest Galatians 1:6 falls under this category. A Favorable. Since quickly, at once, without delay, soon. I don't know why. I mean, that wasn't favorable. Galatians 1:6, they suggest. But that wasn't favorable.

261
01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:11.000
Oh, yeah, they put it down here again in a remonstrative sense. Too quickly, too easily, too hasty.

262
01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:19.000
Anyway, I hate doing word studies on camera. It's super boring and would actually involve me just sitting here staring at a screen for long periods of time.

263
01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:26.000
So let's go to the next question.

264
01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:28.000
Number 10. Number 10.

265
01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:38.000
Andres Padron says, is there any historical data on biblical Christianity outside the Catholic Church before the Reformation?

266
01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:45.000
Um, yeah, but I just want to say data or data? That's the real question we have here.

267
01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:47.000
Data or data?

268
01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:49.000
H.M.

269
01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:50.000
m.

270
01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:58.000
Um, you know who's got an interesting video on this I'll recommend, since we're coming to the end of my video. You guys can go watch this one if you want.

271
01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:02.000
And it's Gavin Ortland.

272
01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:15.000
Um, there's so many videos and I don't know, I have no idea what it was called. I'm gonna find it.

273
01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:21.000
Um, I would recommend Gavin stuff. You know, he focuses on Gavin Ortland.

274
01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:36.000
G a V I N and then Ortland is O R T L U n D. Gavin focuses on a, uh, lot of Catholic stuff. And he's doing with Orthodox stuff as well. He's a Protestant. He's a convictional Protestant. We're not the same, but we're in the same basic camp.

275
01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:50.000
And what Gavin does is tends to focus on historical stuff. And so he's a good source for this sort of thing. He spent a lot of his time researching and learning the history side of things, which I think is important.

276
01:16:50.000 --> 01:17:03.000
Um, if I speak very frankly with you guys, Catholic, uh, and Orthodox will take the most egregious advantage of people who don't know history. And they will recast history in ways that are simply not true.

277
01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:16.000
There were whole groups of people trying to go against the Roman Catholic Church before the Protestants ever happened. Uh, there's the whole schism thing. And there's stuff that very early on where there just isn't a Roman Catholic Church. It doesn't exist.

278
01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:49.000
There is no pope in Rome in the first century. There isn't even a single bishop who's in charge of the whole city. Whereas in other cities, like further east, there really there were already one bishop over a whole city. There was a bishopric there, but there's in Rome. It doesn't exist in the first century. It comes later that there. The Roman Catholic version of history is. Is wrong. Um, it's not 100% wrong in every way, but it's. But it's wrong. If I find the video, I'm thinking of, um.

279
01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:52.000
Yeah, this is it. This is it.

280
01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:53.000
So.

281
01:17:53.000 --> 01:18:02.000
Well, there's a couple different ones I'll point to.

282
01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:04.000
I'll, um, point to the Waldensians.

283
01:18:04.000 --> 01:18:14.000
So the Waldensians is a group that were, like, historically, they were kind of like as. And actually it's how Gavin puts this video. I'm putting it in the live chat here. Just give me a second.

284
01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:16.000
Gavin puts it this way.

285
01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:32.000
And we're about done with this video. If you guys want to jump over there. I don't. I don't blame you. Go for it and have fun. These are forerunners for the Reformation. These are people who are before the Reformation, like 12th century. And then he tells you the whole story of it. There's a number of different people.

286
01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:45.000
The history is complicated. It's not as simplistic as the Catholic apologists will often want you to think, or even the Orthodox. And it's important to know this with Protestants. When we look at church history, we are not saying church history is Protestant.

287
01:18:45.000 --> 01:19:35.000
We're not saying that. And it's important that, you know, the nature of our movement is such. We don't need it to be Protestant. See, Catholics need it to be Catholic. Orthodox need it to be Orthodox because they're the ones claiming we're the ones carrying this apostolic extra biblical teaching, and we have it, and we've always had it, and it's always been the same, and we have the authority to declare it. Now, Protestants aren't claiming that. So I don't have to have this. This, like, perfect line, you know, heading down that. I don't have to work the history. I don't have to massage the history. I don't need the Church fathers to be Protestant. The truth is that if they're not Catholic or if they're not orthodox in the same sense as modern Orthodoxy, then Catholic and Orthodox are the ones that are having a problem, not me. I don't need them to be Protestant because Protestantism doesn't claim to be that kind of thing.

288
01:19:35.000 --> 01:19:38.000
So that's important to realize.

289
01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:54.000
Um, yeah. Anyways, I hope that that helps. Um, I just want to close out by giving you guys. I usually give you, like, a little bit of, like, update on what's going on with things. Um. Oh, and I have a bonus question from redneck fishing. I'll answer in A second.

290
01:19:54.000 --> 01:20:36.000
Um, so, quick update. So there's, there's still a lot of things in the works. Um, I am the tortoise, not the hare. I know I take much longer than even I think when I'm going to do stuff. So just please be patient. We're currently around a week or so out from the Bethel video that I did with Elijah Stevens, and we're waiting on Bethel to respond. And I'm hoping they respond positively. I admit I'm not expecting it because there's a long history of other kinds of responses, but we're hopeful and want to provide every opportunity for that. So there's a 30 day window here where I'm not going to be creating content. There's tons of stuff I could do right now. I'm waiting to see if Bethel responds. As soon as that 30 days is up, then I'll move on to other things.

291
01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:47.000
If they respond, it has to be a real response of real accountability and transformation and change. And I'll say that as bad as things were in that Elijah video, I, um, think things are worse.

292
01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:52.000
But I was letting it just be Elijah sharing his information.

293
01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:55.000
I think things are much worse, actually.

294
01:20:55.000 --> 01:21:06.000
And, um, we'll come to that stuff later. So, I'm sorry. Um, it's icky stuff. Those of you who are like, Mike, I used to love your content. I can't stand it anymore, or you're not teaching the Bible enough.

295
01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:43.000
Um, I understand those sentiments. I don't like doing this. And it's only going to be for a season, and then I'll move on to other things. But for the season, probably just this year, I want to do this stuff. And then maybe occasionally I'll do a little thing here or there. But I do not want this to be a regular thing for me. I don't like looking into it. But I look around and I go, look who's there to raise their voice for those who need their voices raised. It's too easy to oppress people and be, uh, an abusive ministry that lacks accountability because all you have to do is protect whoever's on stage. That's all you have to do.

296
01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:50.000
But if that infects the church and it's a culture of COVID up, that's what we've got going on right now. So I have other videos coming soon.

297
01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:58.000
Um, I won't announce them because as soon as I announce them, people start calling people to try to stop, stop them from happening. So let's just say I have other stuff coming.

298
01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:06.000
Just be patient with me. All Right, Last question. Bonus question. This comes in from Redneck Fishing. Who says, what's your favorite Star wars film?

299
01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:15.000
Well, I mean the, the most recent three were so good, it's hard to even pick between them. They were so amazing.

300
01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:32.000
No, guys, don't unsubscribe. They're terrible. Um, great visuals, but it was like the ring in the pig snout kind of thing. Um, the, uh, my favorite, I don't know, man.

301
01:22:32.000 --> 01:23:02.000
Two or three, maybe episode. I'm sorry, episode four or five maybe, uh, of the original trilogy. My age alone means that I like the original trilogy the best. Okay. If I'd seen it as an adult, maybe I wouldn't think it was that great. But I watched it through kids eyes, so I have like that kid nostalgia. There's movies that you love. Like, I love Never Ending Story, the film. For some reason, because I was a kid, if I saw as an adult, I'd be like, meh. But you know, certain things hit you as you're a kid and you may as well enjoy it.

302
01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:10.000
So. Yeah, probably, probably the episode four or five, maybe four.

303
01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:37.000
I don't know. I'll have to watch them again and decide. All right, well, thank you guys. Let's pray. And uh, everybody can go on and watch that Gavin Orland video, which I will link in the video description as well. I highly recommend it. Pretty interesting stuff. All right. Father, we pray for, uh, wisdom in our lives, for grace and patience. We pray for this movement that is actually being successful, that is successful exposing a lot of abusers and a lot of toxic culture, um, cover up culture that's going on in churches right now.

304
01:23:37.000 --> 01:24:30.000
And we pray that you would help, help us help your church to, to properly deal with people. Um, to not overreact, to not become mobs with pitchforks. Um, just putting everybody in the same bucket like anybody with any issue is the same as everybody with the worst issues they've got. But we would just have wisdom and discernment, that we could extend grace and kindness. That we would have a hopefulness and forgiveness offered, but without a naivety about it. That we would be, uh, wise as serpents, but as gentle as doves. Help us, Lord. And we pray that this would all be for the furtherance of the gospel. That when the world and other disenfranchised Christians see believers rising up and causing accountability, that even though it will not, it will not perfectly fix everything, that they would have a restored trust in the genuineness of Christ. In Jesus name, amen.

305
01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:32.000
Amen.

306
01:24:32.000 --> 01:25:00.000
Catch you guys later.