WEBVTT 1 00:00:01.000 --> 00:00:14.000 All right, we're live. Um, I'm sorry to have, uh, to have this as the first topic for today, but I hope I can help us navigate it well. And it's the topic of, um, first question. 2 00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:20.000 How do Christians navigate the allegations against Wes Huff? 3 00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:44.000 And I gotta admit, um, at the outset, I'm nervous that I myself may not have the full picture here, but I think that the pressures that are on that are not just people. Mike, you have to comment on this. Not that that doesn't pressure me. Uh, you'll understand as I explain my full answer, uh, why I'm a little bit nervous about this, about that I might myself have bias, and I'm trying really hard not to. 4 00:00:44.000 --> 00:01:27.000 So, Wes Huff, let me talk to you about my friend Wes Huff. I love this man, okay? He's done amazing, amazing work for the gospel of Christ evangelism, bringing truth into people's lives, and it's been beautiful. And I've been a total cheerleader, uh, for him from day one. Um, uh, the day he texted me and told me, because we've been friends for years, since longer than you guys have known about Wes. Me and Wes have been friends, and I, uh, still consider him a friend. Absolutely love, um, the guy and his, uh. But these allegations and stuff are serious, and there's truth to them. Okay? There's truth to them, and we have to deal with that. 5 00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:36.000 Um, so I'm going to try to speak truth, which is the advice that I've been giving other people, um, around all this stuff is just speak truth. 6 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:47.000 But I want to give you the context, okay, Because I tweeted out the other day, and this tweet, uh, I'll explain it more later. Um, but this is what I tweeted out. 7 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:56.000 I said, stop defending Wes Huff. You need to wait for more info. And his initial video response is not an accurate account of things that is true. 8 00:01:56.000 --> 00:03:06.000 Um, and I'm going to talk, ah, about that as well. So I'm not going to be able to answer every question for you. I don't have all the answers. But, um, with my friend who I love, and I've cheered him on, I was saying that the day that he, uh, told me he was going on Joe Rogan, I was so excited, and I thought, he's the perfect guy to go on Joe Rogan and represent Christianity. And he was, and he did, amazingly. Um, I remember a friend of mine texting me, like, you know who this guy was? I was like, oh, it's going to be perfect. Like, this is going to be great. And it just amazingly cheered him on and have cheered him on since. And I'm stoked to see his growth online and love the impact he's had for the gospel. And he's made videos and done work, and I'm not calling any of that into question, uh, in any way, shape, or form. Um, if it's. Have it my way, I want Wes to just skyrocket into doing more ministry and impacting more people and changing lives and all the beauty and goodness that's there. Um, but there is a reality that scripture tells us that, um, like a fly in the ointment is a little folly to one who is known for wisdom. 9 00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:18.000 Um, my paraphrase, I don't remember the exact verse, word for word. I could look it up. Uh, we should think biblically about it, right? Okay. Like a fly. Let's find this passage. It's in, um, Proverbs. No. 10 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:36.000 Oh, maybe I. You know, the problem is that we've got multiple versions. Okay, so this passage, uh, is in Ecclesiastes 10:1. It says, um, I'm speaking this as a general principle. 11 00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:47.000 This is not me describing Wes Huff to you. Okay? I'm asking for big brains. Follow me through my whole train of thought here. Don't just grab sound bites and be like, no, no, no, no. 12 00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:58.000 Big principle about human beings is the following. That dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment, or I'll go to ESV a little bit easier. Dead flies make the perfumer's ointment give off a stench. 13 00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:18.000 So you have something that smells great, it's beautiful, it's wonderful, and it says, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor. And, um, that's the danger that we all face, including me, myself. Um, a person can do wonderful, amazing things, but they can also have, like, oh, man, there's a fly in the ointment there. 14 00:04:18.000 --> 00:05:17.000 That really is a hit against that wonderful, amazing thing that you did. Now, um, what happened was, for those who don't know, I don't plan on giving the full recap of everything. This is not a news report. I want to help the Christian church to think biblically about this, and I think that we do need help right now. Okay, so, um, Dan McClellan posted, uh, a video recently. Now, you'd think he's an atheist, but he's Mormon. But he's not really Mormon. That's a whole different discussion. Right? Um, he's basically a critical scholar, and he has made a success making videos in. I'm Going to give this from a Christian perspective, attacking Christian truth and leading people away from faith in Jesus, real faith in Jesus, uh, muddying the waters on what's actually real and true. He's done a lot of harm, uh, spiritually speaking. And he did a video on Wes Huff highlighting an example of what looks like plagiarism from an old paper of Wes's. 15 00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:45.000 And, um, Wes then responded to this by, um, by saying that he did a video. And he said in the video, he kind of said, like, this was the past. This was. I definitely messed up there. Maybe it wasn't really uploaded. It wasn't clear if he was saying it was, if it was really submitted or not as part of his, like, coursework. It was like, maybe a. The impression you got. It was like a rough draft. And, hey, that sounds like a pretty legit explanation. And people ran with it. 16 00:05:45.000 --> 00:06:11.000 Um, the problem is that that explanation was not real. Um, it was not accurate, and it did not give you a truthful picture. And what happened next is Christians all over start piling on Dan McClellan because he's the guy that's trying to lead people away from Jesus, and he's coming against Wes. If Wes didn't have this ministry, I wouldn't come against him. But that doesn't mean he's wrong, uh, about whatever he's saying. 17 00:06:11.000 --> 00:07:27.000 And so people start piling on, and I'm watching this and I'm going, Man, I'm going to share. I have inside information, okay? But I don't know enough to know how much I can even share with you guys. So I'm just trying to be as transparent and honest as I can, because it's the one thing I want to see in this situation that I personally am not seeing. So, um, uh, I think that if you just looked at the video that Dan made and you looked at Wes's response and you looked at them carefully, you would know that Wes was spinning a bit here. Uh, that this was not a good video and that Dan had brought real serious concerns that had more weight to them than was granted in the response. Even though the response in many ways was like, lots of stuff that's understandable. Like, hey, man, that was the past. Like, hey, you learn and grow people. People can be gracious to you. Totally understandable. Yeah. Um, but the reality is that there is more to it than that. Um, and there's some things people have been discovering online. Some stuff you're like, should I trust this? Some random person on Twitter posts, this. That falls along the lines of, uh, taking credit for what other people do. Now, I'm not going to do a whole thing on this right now. 18 00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:31.000 I don't know the full extent. Okay, here's the summary. 19 00:07:31.000 --> 00:08:04.000 I don't know the full extent of how much my friend has been guilty of immoral plagiarism versus, like, especially in teaching, in ministry, online apologetics. You borrow from people all the time. Nobody cares. Okay? It's not like every time you mention something that someone else thought, you have to say it. Nobody thinks that in online ministry or in traveling and speaking and stuff like that, you don't want to wholesale just constantly be borrowing a bunch of people's stuff to. At some point, it becomes a moral issue. Um, but there's some flexibility that's there for sure, um, that I think most of us understand. 20 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:40.000 Um, but when it comes to academic coursework, it's a whole different ball of wax. And if it's not just failing to attribute something from one person to another, but actually seemingly intentionally taking their content and altering it in a way to disguise it as your own, that's a really significant problem, um, academically speaking. Um, so what I'll say is, you can tell I don't want to have this. I don't want to be talking about this right now. I feel like I have to. And I'll tell you why as I go along. Because Wes made a statement just now, and I think it's insufficient. 21 00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:45.000 And I feel compelled to have to do this. And I really hope it doesn't hurt our friendship. I love the guy deeply. 22 00:08:45.000 --> 00:09:14.000 Um, but here's the thing. When I see the Christian apologists, Christians online, defending Wes using words that were not entirely true, I see us all joining in on a problem. And now, as evidence comes forward and as truth comes more to light, the embarrassment that will be caused for Christians is going to be hard, and it's going to be spread out much further than just with Wes. Now, that embarrassment is not irrecoverable. 23 00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:30.000 Um, it's not like a crucify the guy. It's nothing like that. But we need to speak truth and we need to walk in wisdom. And what we have here is we have people defending Wes publicly who didn't even look at the evidence. They didn't even look at the evidence. And they're publicly making, uh, accusations about Dan or somebody else online. 24 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:33.000 And so I had tweeted out the following. 25 00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:58.000 Um, I'll look at it real quick. I said, stop defending West Huff. You need to wait for more info. That was my counsel to you guys. I didn't want to tell you more. Okay? This was after I had talked to Wes. This is after I had engaged. All right? I said, stop defending Wes. You guys have to wait for more info. His initial response is not an accurate account of things. I know that much for sure. 26 00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:17.000 Um, I didn't want to share what I knew more than that, because I wanted Wes to share it. I wanted that to come out that way. Um, and that was what I was trying to wait for, because I don't want to be the source. Okay? I'm not looking. But the accusations, the pushback. Many of you are upset with me because of that tweet. Many of you are mad at me. 27 00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:34.000 Um, very mad, I might say. Mike. Uh, uh, I despise you, Mike. You are a, uh, bleepity bleep. Um, all kinds of. I've never. At least in the past year, I checked. I haven't lost so many followers as when I put up that tweet, um, in one moment. 28 00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:37.000 And so what you don't understand. 29 00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:49.000 Gosh, I hate to. This is a weird way for me to talk. I don't normally speak this way. I want this to be helpful for the way that Christians engage online. Right. And you are engaging online a lot. And it does matter how we represent Christ. 30 00:10:49.000 --> 00:11:01.000 Um, we have to be truthful, and we have to be honest, and we cannot pervert justice, what scripture says, and be partial. Like, scripture says we can't do those things because it will pervert our witness. 31 00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:23.000 If our thing is Christianity is true, and then we're willing to publicly defend things that aren't true because one of our team members is caught in an embarrassing moment, then that says something about us. And so I wanted to spare you, so I took the slings and arrows of you being mad at me of a bunch of people unsubscribing and all that, which is fine. It's fine. 32 00:11:23.000 --> 00:11:28.000 Uh, but that reaction was because I was trying to save you from your own embarrassment. 33 00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:40.000 Um, because I didn't know that there was. I knew what I knew what I said in the tweet. I knew for a fact that his initial responsibility was not. Not an accurate account of things. Since then, Wes has removed that response video. 34 00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:52.000 Um, it's, uh. It's not on his YouTube anymore. Um, he briefly removed his YouTube channel. Then he put it back up. Put most of it or a bunch of it back up. I don't know how much is back up now compared to before. 35 00:11:52.000 --> 00:11:59.000 Some of it back up. And, um, that response Video was not there. And that's good. 36 00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:15.000 Um, that's good because it wasn't honest. So, Wes, then, just within the past hour, he made a public statement. Um, and I'm going to read that public statement to you guys, then we'll talk about it, and then I'll move on to other things. Okay. 37 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:50.000 This is his public statement. This is what I was hoping and waiting for, was him to come out and share. And he says, um, and I'm just going to speak super transparently. I know I'm going to get reamed for this, too, but I don't see any other moral way to conduct myself right now. Silence is not an option. Why? Because me, Mike Winger, I endorsed Wes. I've endorsed this man. I have encouraged him. I have encouraged you to believe him, to listen to him. I didn't just recommend a resource he made. I endorsed Wes. Okay? Full endorsement in the real sense of the term. Been his friend. Um, I've promoted his ministry, celebrated his victories and all that. 38 00:12:50.000 --> 00:12:55.000 So here I feel as though I'm responsible to speak truth. 39 00:12:55.000 --> 00:13:10.000 So Wes says, I take the concerns about plagiarism in my written work seriously. Honesty and integrity matter deeply to me. And not correctly crediting others work in any setting fall short of those standards. That's true. That's all true. Um, as far as the. These things matter, they're very important. 40 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:19.000 Um, he goes on and says, I'm committed to full accountability, and I'm walking closely through this with my pastor, Church elder board, and the Apologetics Canada board of directors. 41 00:13:19.000 --> 00:14:04.000 And, um, do I think that's true? I do think that's true. Okay. And I do have some inside info. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe that this is what he's doing, so I'll share that. Um, but I have to be transparent, though. You'll understand, because I don't believe that this was the best post from Wes, but this idea of full accountability and walking closely, basically, hey, my church, hold me accountable. Take a look, and I'll be accountable to you. But my ministry that I work for, hold me accountable. Um, and his school is going to hold him accountable. Um, and so that's something we can wait on. And this is one of the reasons why I was just saying, let's just wait, Christians. Let's just wait. Just slow down and wait. People say what they want to say online. Just back up, back off and wait. Truth will come forward. 42 00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:05.000 We can wait. 43 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:12.000 He says, right now, my family's priority is caring for our young daughter as she Recovers at home following her recent hospitalization. 44 00:14:12.000 --> 00:15:02.000 Um, I was actually personally, uh, attacked hardcore for posting Stop defending Wes, uh, while his daughter was still in the hospital. Now, when I posted that, I had spoken with Wes that same morning, and I knew that his daughter was going to be okay, that, um, she was still there, she hadn't been discharged yet, um, and prayed for him and prayed for her. And people, uh, don't know that, but it was just this thing of, like, no, there's a rule, Mike. But the thing is that I knew that the video was not transparently honest and that people were embarrassing themselves and setting themselves up for ridicule from non believers because of the way they were defending Wes online based on information that wasn't accurate. So I was like, I can't wait. I gotta tell my friends. I gotta tell these people who trust me. And I knew I'd take a hit for it. Um, and I did, and I probably still will even after this video. But this is true. 45 00:15:02.000 --> 00:15:50.000 So he says, right now, my family's priority is caring for our young daughter as she recovers at home following her recent hospitalization. I very grateful for the support and prayers we received. I will be stepping back from further public comment while the Apologetics Canada board conducts its thorough review. And now the spotlight is going to be on Apologetics Canada, that they would do a thorough, uh, and careful review, and that they will find things and take care of them. So why do I say there's anything lackluster? Uh, Wes is going to. He's going to be getting accountability. He's expressing that he cares about these things. He pulled that video down. People don't realize he pulled the video down, a lot of them. So you could stop using that as a defense for him, um, and just say, yeah, so we just wait. And I agree with the wait. But here's the thing. 46 00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:57.000 Wes knows he's guilty of a certain degree of plagiarism. That is not insubstantial, that is not inconsequential. 47 00:15:57.000 --> 00:16:01.000 Um, and that's not here. 48 00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:08.000 And there's no comment here about, hey, that video that I did, that was not accurate. I was downplaying things. 49 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:58.000 Um, and so I don't think this is a crucifixion offense. I don't think this is like, uh, let's destroy Wes and his ministry for it. That's not what I'm saying. I just am talking about honesty and integrity in the Christian space. We're supposed to be lights. Let's try to have that kind of honesty and Right now, we can represent Jesus well, by the way in which we handle Wes by saying, we love you, we support you, but we're also calling for truth and transparency. So I was hoping Wes would just say what I know is true, which is, yep, I have committed an important amount, a worthwhile amount of plate. It's not inconsequential, guys, um, and I'm going to be accountable, and the rest is fine. I'm going to be accountable to my church, to my ministry directors, and of course, his school, which is not about his public ministry, but that'll take care of itself. 50 00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:08.000 Um, so what I'm worried about is this post here leaves people in the dark about the reality that it's just ultimately true. 51 00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:36.000 And now there is the problem that there's still tons of people accusing Wes of a million things, because guess what? He's got a lot of haters. There are people that are jealous of him. There are people that just don't like his religious views. And so they were going to try to exaggerate or gloat or mock and to be petty and cruel. But, um, as Christians, we should not do any of those things. We should just say, okay, let's speak truth clearly. There is a fly in the ointment. 52 00:17:36.000 --> 00:18:36.000 Truth, honesty, accountability. That is the path forward. Doesn't have to be the end for the, uh, amazing Wes Huff, who is amazing. I mean that genuinely. Like, I love the guy, he's amazing. Um, doesn't have to be the end for him, but there needs to be the two things, and this is where we're at now. There needs to be a discovery phase where he shares transparently. And I'm trusting this is happening now behind the scenes. Okay, I do think this is happening where he's going to transparently share with those in authority over him. This is the whole story. And they're going to conduct, I pray, a reasonable Christian path of repentance, uh, restitution for any harms done and forgiveness, and then see what comes next. Um, that's my hope and my prayer. I'm sorry, I know you can hear. I'm struggling with my words because this is just a really hard thing for me to talk about and say and share. And I didn't want to share this. I wanted to share his post saying, I did it. 53 00:18:36.000 --> 00:18:38.000 It's just a question of how much. 54 00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:55.000 Um, and it's important that we, I think, as Christians know, it's not a. It's not a negligible nothing burger where you just one paper. You failed to Cite properly or something like that. There's more to it than that. I won't share more, but I do know there's more to it than that. 55 00:18:55.000 --> 00:19:31.000 And I'm not going to be bringing you a bunch of updates on this. This is just my encouragement. As Christians, um, we need to represent truth. So I'm grateful for Dan McClellan. Thank you, Dan. As much as you know, I'm opposed to so much of what you do, and I think it brings harm and I think it's spiritual darkness is what you're doing a lot of the time. And I know that. I know how. I know how you hear that. I know you don't respect that at all. That's fine. Uh, I'm just being honest. Okay. But thank you that you brought something that was true and was a real concern and it brought to light in Wes's life and I hope that, um, it can be fully addressed and dealt with soon. 56 00:19:31.000 --> 00:19:49.000 So, um, yeah, I'm not crucifying him. His life's not over. And I pray to God his ministry is not over. Um, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a season of accountability and honesty and statements that come off like, um, come on, Wes knows what he did. 57 00:19:49.000 --> 00:19:54.000 So I don't know why there's a lack of transparency that's there. 58 00:19:54.000 --> 00:20:17.000 But that's all I'm going to say about that. Guys, that's the lamest question I've ever answered and I'm going to move on to your guys questions. Let me just see if there's anything else. Oh, yeah, I wanted to share with you. Think biblically about everything. Um, Scripture tells us the following things. I already told you. It tells us not to pervert justice, not to have favoritism in giving and dispersing of justice. That's a very important thing Scripture tells us. 59 00:20:17.000 --> 00:20:48.000 Um, but also this verse that I've been sitting on for a while now. Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Well, there's actually a lot of evidence. Okay. It's already in the public space. If you were interested in it, you would have already found it. If you didn't look at it and you had didn't even look at evidence that was presented and you were defending, then you should stop and say what caused me to attack based purely on tribe, without even looking at evidence or even thinking about it. 60 00:20:48.000 --> 00:21:14.000 Um, as for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all so that the rest may stand in fear. And this is for leaders, not who make a mistake or who blow it, but there's like a persistent problem of sin. There's a sense in which they're supposed to be corrected publicly. It humbles them, it helps them be accountable, and it brings restoration to the body and it stands as a warning to all of us. Because I'll tell you what, a bunch of people are going like, I hope I haven't messed up like this, you know, and you're reassessing and you're going to be cautious in the future. 61 00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:28.000 So I think Wes can. From what I, what we do know, I think Wes can recover from this and Wes can be okay. And Wes can have a fruitful, wonderful ministry impacting and continuing to do amazing things for God. 62 00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:35.000 But I'm asking, as I've asked him as a friend, uh, humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and he'll lift you up. 63 00:21:35.000 --> 00:22:00.000 So God help us. Sorry for the question. I feel bad about it, but I feel compelled that this is the right thing to do. Um, all right, so question number two. Listen, we're going to go to your guys. Questions. My goal here is to try to help you learn to think biblically about everything, even if it's hard. And you've already given us your questions today, so I'm digging into them. 64 00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:16.000 Right, hold on, let me just enlarge this right now. All right, Das of Christ says, if Jesus did not have a sinful nature, was he tempted the same way or the same intensity as usual? 65 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:23.000 Uh, man has internal craving and external temptation, but Jesus only external temptation. Hebrews 4:15, Romans 8:3. 66 00:22:23.000 --> 00:22:56.000 Um, okay, so you're giving, um, uh, a summary of somebody else's theological principles of how they hash this out, that Jesus has an internal craving, uh, or, excuse me, had external temptation, but not internal craving. And here's where it gets difficult and complicated to sometimes answer these questions. So, for example, um, was Jesus ever tempted with same sex attraction? Um, a strange question that can seem irreverent to ask. We're just trying to understand theology here. Um, I doubt it, okay? 67 00:22:56.000 --> 00:23:01.000 I very much doubt it. That is actually not a normal temptation that most people experience. 68 00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:09.000 But what about when Jesus was hungry and he was tempted, Turn these stones into bread? 69 00:23:09.000 --> 00:23:17.000 Isn't it an internal temptation that he was hungry, that he felt hunger, that he felt a desire for food internally? 70 00:23:17.000 --> 00:23:58.000 Here's where I say it gets complicated because the distinction between internal and external temptation to me seems a little bit wonky. Um, so, yeah, was he in the garden when he was weeping, sweating great drops of blood was what was Jesus being tempted with at that moment? Um, only external temptation. I mean, he was definitely going to go forward, but there was a trial that was there and there was a battle that was internal. I'm m just saying there was a battle that was internal. Um, but the thing you want to avoid with saying that Jesus had internal temptation is the suggestion that he had something sinful in him. 71 00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:28.000 And so the way that I've tried to understand this, and maybe I'm wrong, is that Jesus had, uh, desires that were natural human desires that are not sinful in and of themselves. The simple desire, but the context can make them sinful. Desire for food is not sinful, but to do so when fulfilling the will of God is not eating, then it would be sinful to act out that desire or to feed into it in an ungodly way where it just becomes this like sort of ungodly fantasy or harboring some sort of rebellion against God. Um, I have a video on this. 72 00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:44.000 I'll try and find it. It was when I was in my Mark series and I was talking about Jesus being tempted by the devil and I went into it in a lot more detail. So hopefully there's a few thoughts that help you on that. Because we know that the biblical passage is Jesus was tempted in all ways we are. So there was temptation in all the ways you are. 73 00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:47.000 Um, but without sin. 74 00:24:47.000 --> 00:24:52.000 So never did temptation become sin. We know that. 75 00:24:52.000 --> 00:25:08.000 And then how to parse that out with, well then what was this? What was the temptation like? What were the limits of it? That's challenging. As long as you draw the line of. But never sin. He never committed a sin internally or externally of any kind. That's the firm theological boundary you don't cross. 76 00:25:08.000 --> 00:25:26.000 Okay, let's go to the next question. This is running bear77 who says, um, how old will the very young or old on earth be in heaven? Will the baby become an adult? Will 90 year olds become younger? Thanks. 77 00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:32.000 Um, yeah, we don't actually have to my knowledge, a biblical answer to this question. 78 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:40.000 What, um, we do have is two things I'll say about heaven is it's an ideal state, right? We're in ideal state. 79 00:25:40.000 --> 00:26:22.000 And so by implication, when you look at heaven, right, you look at the description of it and there's, there's light and there's no more sorrow and there's no more pain. Um, there's just goodness. Um, so we will be at a good age. You might say you'll be at a good age. Uh, what is that? Well, I don't know, it's probably somewhere between, you know, just. Just become an adult versus, like mid, mid, late twenties or something like that. Somewhere in that. I'd imagine it's somewhere in that range as far as physically. But here's another kink, the second thing I wanted to mention, which is, um, as you experience your eternal glory, you experience it with a new body. 80 00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:53.000 You are transformed, your body's transformed. And it's not the same body. It's from the same body. It's the same material that is transformed into the new body. But, yeah, you have a glorified body. So we don't really know quite what that glorified body will be like and how concepts like age will play out. So I don't really know. We can speculate. And my speculation is you'll be a good age. Um, not perpetually two years old, because being two is fine, but being stuck at two seems like not a good age to be. Yeah. 81 00:26:53.000 --> 00:27:01.000 Um, you know, before I go on, guys, I just want to stop and lead us all in prayer. We'll pray for the situation with Wes and all that, because it's just. I can't get it out of my head. 82 00:27:01.000 --> 00:27:56.000 Um, um, so please pray with me. Uh, Lord God, we lift up Wes and pray that you bless him. Lord, thank you so much for the great ways you've used him. We pray that, um, the accusations that are coming his way that are not true, that they be shown to be not true, they be demonstrated to be false, that those who want to take advantage, like, uh, vultures, like piranhas, um, that they would be shamed ultimately. Um, but we pray that for anything there that is true, that there would just be accountability and a path forward through it and, uh, just honesty and humility. We pray for Apologetics Canada that you give them wisdom as they have a heavy burden on their shoulders to process this well and to find truth and share it. And we. We pray that Wes would be as I do believe he's being, as I do believe he's being, is just transparent and open and real with them. And may, um, this be for his own sanctification so you can use him more in Jesus name. Amen. 83 00:27:56.000 --> 00:28:00.000 Amen. All right, what am I on? 4. 84 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:04.000 Number 4. Sorry, this is so sad to talk about this on the stream. 85 00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:14.000 So sad. But I was just convicted that the best thing to do is just complete transparency and honesty. Um, that's the best thing we can do, I think. 86 00:28:14.000 --> 00:28:24.000 So. Atheist one says, hey, Mike, if Jesus is using hyperbole, why do some translations use the term maimed or crippled in Matthew 18:8? 87 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:36.000 Uh, let's first, I'm going to read the rest of your question, but let's first look at Matthew 18:8, and then we'll get a better context for your question. 88 00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:50.000 So here Jesus says, I'll back up a bit. We really should get verse seven, too. He says, woe to the world for temptations to sin, for it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes. 89 00:28:50.000 --> 00:29:11.000 And if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And he goes on, if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. 90 00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:21.000 Okay, so the question is, right, like, people in church history have literally at times gouged out eyes, removed hands, or removed other things. 91 00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:41.000 And that has happened as a attempted solution for sin, thinking maybe they're just obeying Jesus. Um, I'm convinced that is not true. I've read a video where I think the title was something like, before you cut your hand off, or before you guide your eye out. Something like that. Uh, where I talk about this when I went through, um, Mark. I think it was Mark. Or was it 20 questions? I don't remember. 92 00:29:41.000 --> 00:30:11.000 Anyhow, what is the deal? The question is, if it's hyperbole, as I think, why do some translations use the term maimed or crippled in Matthew 18:8? Okay, so we have instead of, um, uh, if your hand or foot cause you to sin, cut it off sort of way, it's better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet be thrown into the eternal fire. Um, then we have, like, say, New King James. 93 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:18.000 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter life. I mean lame or maimed. 94 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:26.000 Niv. I'm looking for one that maybe makes your point here. Um, maimed, Crippled. 95 00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:28.000 Rsv. 96 00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:30.000 Maimed. Lame. 97 00:30:30.000 --> 00:31:31.000 They seem pretty consistent, these translations, so I'm not quite sure if I'm catching the thrust of the question, but I will say, um, you end your thing by saying, how would the unlearned of Jesus's day receive this? Aren't you eunuchs an example? Okay, uh, why think it's hyperbole? And would the original Audience know it's hyperbole. Um, I think that they would. I think that Jesus spoke in hyperbolic language multiple times. Uh, some examples are like when he says, how can you say to your brother, help me remove the speck from your eye when you have a plank in your own eye. Um, nobody's ever had a plank in their eye. Um, plank is like. It's like what it sounds like. It's a whole big old. It's like a two by four, you've got a plank in your eye. Um, clearly hyperbole for the sake of teaching a lesson. There's, uh, other elements though, that suggest it's hyperbolic. And one way, you know, people are hyperbolic is when they say things like, I literally died. And you go, okay, you're being hyperbolic. Why? Because it's obviously true. You didn't die. Well, there's some things that are obviously true about this. 98 00:31:31.000 --> 00:31:39.000 Um, if your hand or foot causes you to sin, does your hand or foot cause you to sin? 99 00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:54.000 No. Your hand does not control things. Your foot does not control things. Your hand and feet don't cause you to sin. This is hyperbole. Because, uh, the hypothetical is something that's simply not real. It's an example to tell you, deal with sin. 100 00:31:54.000 --> 00:32:09.000 Deal with sin, Cut off sin, not your hand. Then you have the solution. Cut it off and throw it away. Like as if I'm like, I cut my foot off. And now that sin I'm struggling with won't happen because I threw my foot in the trash. 101 00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:36.000 It's obviously not true. Just like when you say I literally died. You didn't literally die. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. Then he says, and notice this, uh, the next one gets even more hyperbolic in a sense, because if your eye causes you to sin, which you might be thinking, oh, lust, right, Tear it out and throw it away. But why am I only tearing out one eyeball? 102 00:32:36.000 --> 00:33:16.000 Because whatever I look at with this eye, I can look out with this eye. But the solution is given as one eye being removed. Like, if you take it non hyperbolically, you're suggesting that the things I desire, riches, materialism, um, or lust. These things I can solve by finding out which eyeball is causing the lust and the materialism and stuff. And gouge it out and throw it away. And then he says, it's better to enter life with one eye than with two eyes be thrown into the hellfire or the hell of fire. Um, so I think it's obviously hyperbole. Obviously hyperbole. 103 00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:39.000 If it was more literal, it might have been like Gao Xiao, both eyes. That might have been maybe. But it's like hints in the text that he doesn't mean it that way. But there's more. When scripture confronts people for lust, even in the New Testament, after the teaching of Jesus, they're never counseled to cut limbs off. Where is in First Corinthians where Paul says, like, cut your feet off or gouge your eyes out. Why do you guys all still have eyeballs? 104 00:33:39.000 --> 00:33:44.000 Where does it say this? Where is the example of anybody doing it after Jesus taught it ever? 105 00:33:44.000 --> 00:33:54.000 Um, in the New Testament, it doesn't happen. It's not meant to be literal. So I say this strongly because I fear there is one person out there who's maybe a little bit. 106 00:33:54.000 --> 00:34:05.000 Their processing is a little bit weak, and they're looking at this and they're thinking like, this will be the thing. And they're desperate to deal with sin. And they think, if I just do this, it'll go away and it won't solve anything. You'll just be maimed or crippled. 107 00:34:05.000 --> 00:34:08.000 Um, you won't be actually better. 108 00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:31.000 So Jesus did describe how we deal with sin, and he says, deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. Paul says, we should reckon the old man dead, and then we should put on the new man who's growing in righteousness. Right? We need to reckon the old man dead and put on the new man. That's what we need to do. There is a spiritual thing of walk in the spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. 109 00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:39.000 It's not removing things. It's about a spiritual discipline of moving that mode of my behavior to being focused on Jesus. Lord, I'm about you. 110 00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:45.000 I'm going to honor you, I'm going to seek you, I'm going to do spiritual things, and I'm then not going to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. 111 00:34:45.000 --> 00:34:52.000 So don't chop off your arm. Number five. Let's go to five. 112 00:34:52.000 --> 00:34:55.000 Did Jesus have gifts of the spirit? 113 00:34:55.000 --> 00:35:05.000 Wouldn't gifts imply these were given to him? If he did, how would this idea square with these things? Being in his divine nature, wisdom, teaching, mercy, etc. 114 00:35:05.000 --> 00:35:18.000 Um, so let me change your question to make it something I can answer a little more question confidently. Um, let me see if I can find a passage. 115 00:35:18.000 --> 00:35:26.000 Um, here it is. Luke 4:14. 116 00:35:26.000 --> 00:35:36.000 Um, okay, so instead of asking, did Jesus have gifts of the spirit, let's ask if he did things by the power of the Spirit. 117 00:35:36.000 --> 00:35:43.000 Okay, similar, but slightly different. Different wording. Right. Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee. 118 00:35:43.000 --> 00:36:30.000 And it was not until this moment, after Jesus's baptism and the Spirit descended upon and stayed upon him, that he went and he began doing miracles. And so does he do miracles by the power of the Spirit? And my answer is that yes, there is a yes there. Now, I'm not saying what some have said where they're like, so he did all his miracles as a man. No, I think that wording is weird and wrong. Um, that's not what I'm saying. But Christ had the power to do any miracle he wanted. He had the power, but at least some of the time, part of the time, at least a significant chunk of the time, per the text of Scripture, he does things by the power of the Holy Spirit. 119 00:36:30.000 --> 00:37:43.000 Now, just distinguish between Jesus, his power versus he's the Son, right. Versus the Spirit's power, the Father's power versus the Spirit's power. These things are muddied in scripture, I think, intentionally, because I'm not trying to, like, clip the boundaries between the members of the Trinity. I'm not trying to do that. But there's just a simple idea that Jesus did, wait, not doing miracles until he had been baptized, received the Spirit, Spirit descends, and then he goes out and he starts doing miracles and he starts doing amazing things. Now, does that mean he never did things by his own power or his own command? No, um, not at all. Actually, when Jesus casts out demons, he seems to do it purely on his own authority, but he's also doing it with the Spirit, because he was. If by the Spirit of God, I cast out demons, when they were saying, you cast out demons by Satan, he goes, well, then Satan's divided against himself. So. So it's both. He's doing these things by his own authority, by his own power in one sense, but he's also doing it by the power of the Spirit. So you might say Jesus did not engage in the use of his divine power, whether it's his own or that of the Holy Spirit, which is also in another sense, his own. 120 00:37:43.000 --> 00:38:03.000 Um, until he received the Spirit. And then he's seen as doing things in the power of the Spirit, but not to the exclusion of his own power. That's my answer. You may feel it's muddy. I'm just trying to make. Because our task with theology is not make a nice little logical paradigm. It's account for all the biblical passages. 121 00:38:03.000 --> 00:38:08.000 That's the real task of theology account for all the biblical passages. 122 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:33.000 So that is the kind of theology I engage in. That's what I'm interested in. That's what you've benefited from. If you've enjoyed some of the videos where I explore a theological principle, I want to make sure I say all of these are true. Now let's understand how they work together. So, yeah, I see Jesus doing things, um, by his power, in his own name, but he also does things in the name of the Father. He also does things by the power of the Spirit. It's Trinitarian. 123 00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:37.000 Number six. Um, so. 124 00:38:37.000 --> 00:39:03.000 Oh, uh, I'm sorry, uh, you were also asking, uh, does that mean he's, like, using a power he was given that he didn't have? No. See, that's why I wouldn't put it that way. Jesus always had the power. He didn't use it. He didn't choose to use it when the Spirit descended. He chooses to use his own power as well as, um, uh, just the power of God, which, uh, is his own power. Again, I'm not trying to cut lines between those things. All right, number six. 125 00:39:03.000 --> 00:39:35.000 How can we biblically help someone who seems close to correction, um, closed to correction, and unwilling or even unable to consider another perspective? When and how should we persist, and when should we step back? Okay, this is the classic dilemma, what you're dealing with. When somebody won't even listen, then they won't even incline their ear. Um, it's considered folly. They're acting like a fool, right? Like, I won't listen to those who are trying to correct me, trying to guide me, trying to give me wisdom. I won't even consider what they're saying. They're closed off to truth. 126 00:39:35.000 --> 00:39:58.000 That's foolishness. Well, here's your dilemma. You guys know the passage. You already know where I'm going, right? You know where I'm going. A lot of you know where I'm going. Proverbs, chapter 26, verses 4 and 5. Here's your don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him. That's the danger. You're going to deal with this person. And you might, like, talk to them according to their own folly. 127 00:39:58.000 --> 00:40:16.000 You may be trying to address the error that you're seeing present. Don't answer them according to his folly. Don't do that, though, because you know what? You're going to be like him. You end up getting sucked in. You start being the one who's acting arrogant and proud because they're acting arrogant and proud. And Flesh hooks flesh, as one of my old teachers used to say. 128 00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:17.000 Um, M. 129 00:40:17.000 --> 00:40:30.000 So verse five then helps you out answer a fool according to his folly. Wait, what? Lest he be wise in his own eyes. See? Uh, but that's the problem. If you don't say anything, you leave him to himself. If you do say something, you become like him. 130 00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:55.000 Hence the trouble of the fool. It is hard to answer fools if you. It is very difficult to answer your question because it's challenging both ways. How do I go at somebody biblically when they seem closed to correction and unwilling or unable even to consider another perspective? Well, I go at them with wisdom. I recognize that this may be a bad moment. This might be a good moment. 131 00:40:55.000 --> 00:40:57.000 You just need to be wise. 132 00:40:57.000 --> 00:41:22.000 And wisdom is not just about policies. It is sometimes, but it's about seeing the situation as it is and doing the right thing. Um, so some examples in Scripture, um, Jesus tells the apostles, I'm just going to give you some examples you can try to sort out if it applies to your situation. He tells the apostles when they go out preaching, uh, that if they attempt to share the gospel with someone and they reject it, just move on. 133 00:41:22.000 --> 00:41:27.000 So there's a sentence which you go like, hey, I tried. I told you a thing. You didn't listen. I'm moving on. 134 00:41:27.000 --> 00:41:37.000 You move on. That's one of the harder things for us to do, is moving on. Uh, but sometimes that's what you do. You say your peace, you share the truth, and you move on. 135 00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:41.000 Another, um, piece of wisdom is Jesus with Herod. 136 00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:52.000 Jesus with Herod. So he's brought before Herod. Herod the king. Right, Herod. Well, he's not really king at the time, but he's wanting to examine Jesus. Pilate sends Jesus to him while he's during his trial time. 137 00:41:52.000 --> 00:42:07.000 And Herod asks Jesus questions. He wants Jesus to say things to him. He's probably doing it for his own entertainment. In a weird way, Jesus won't answer Herod. He won't even talk to him. Jesus goes before Pilate and he has a conversation with Pilate. 138 00:42:07.000 --> 00:42:31.000 There's just wisdom. There's wisdom in knowing, like, when to talk to somebody, when not to. There's times when Jesus confronts and rebukes people who get mad at him and hate him for it. And it was wise to confront and rebuke them. And there's other times where a mob is coming against him and he quietly disappears and they can't find him. Because sometimes it's wisdom to say, he's going to hate me for this, he's going to turn and come against me. 139 00:42:31.000 --> 00:43:15.000 I'm just going to back out. Um, so there's a phrase by Jesus where he talks about the difference between him and John the Baptist. And John the Baptist was known for fasting and stuff. And Jesus disciples were not known for fasting while he was there. And he goes, you know, they're not going to fast while the bridegroom is with them. And he says, wisdom is justified by her children. And it's a phrase I really, really like. I really like this phrase because wisdom sometimes means doing it one way in this scenario and doing the opposite thing in a different scenario. And if someone was asked you why, you're like, well, that was what wisdom entailed. Wisdom entailed a confrontation. Wisdom entailed a quiet retreat. Wisdom entailed a series of questions. Wisdom entailed just praying for the guy. 140 00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:34.000 All these things are possible. Then loop in proverbs, loop in all the scriptures about these things. Like a gentle answer turns away wrath. They're getting mad at you. They're proud. You tell them, look, I'm sorry I've offended you. I don't mean to offend you. I hope you know I'm only sharing this with you because I care for you. And then maybe they just get diffused a little bit, and you tell them the truth. 141 00:43:34.000 --> 00:43:40.000 Um, bring in as much wisdom as you can. You'll need it for those situations. 142 00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:42.000 Number seven. 143 00:43:42.000 --> 00:43:50.000 Do you have any advice on how to be a patient and godly wife? Oh, I'm very good at that. Yes. Very skills. 144 00:43:50.000 --> 00:43:55.000 Um, sorry. I'll try to answer you as best I can. This is from Diana Arussu. 145 00:43:55.000 --> 00:44:02.000 So be a patient and godly wife while my husband is going through drug withdrawals. Oh, my goodness. God, uh, bless you and keep you safe. Mike. 146 00:44:02.000 --> 00:44:11.000 Um, yeah, uh, that's really heavy. Um, I think that there's. 147 00:44:11.000 --> 00:44:18.000 In a situation like that, um, you try to show continued support. 148 00:44:18.000 --> 00:44:21.000 You, um, keep in mind that there's a difference between. 149 00:44:21.000 --> 00:44:28.000 In the military, they put it this way. I'm just being very honest here. In the military, they put it this way. They say, um, salute the rank, not the person. 150 00:44:28.000 --> 00:45:10.000 I don't quite agree with that. But there's something true in there, where you continue to show as much respect as you can to your husband because he's your husband. Not always because he's doing things that are worthy of respect. And where you do this as unto, um, the Lord, where you go, lord, you are the ultimate one I'm respecting. And because the rank, the role this person has. Husband. In my life, I'm going to show respect in a way of honoring you, God. I'm going to try and continue showing that respect. And you guard your heart in that regard. Um, with drug issues, there's sometimes you have to do things that you normally wouldn't do as a wife, where you're checking in or you're kind of almost like mothering in a way. 151 00:45:10.000 --> 00:46:30.000 Um, and there may be issues with finances. There may be issues with you having to have a different bank account even. Normally, I would counsel people against that, but sometimes with certain scenarios, you're like, oh, no, no, it's actually not safe. If someone had a gambling addiction, maybe it isn't safe for them to, um, have a joint bank account or maybe for them to control it. Um, so you got to use a lot of wisdom and prayer. I would encourage you to network with women in your church. Please talk to women in your church, more than just one. And don't just find a partner for commiseration, although that can be a very helpful thing. Find somebody who, you know, who can challenge you and tell you, like, here's the path. Here's the path that's difficult, but it's a path that honors Christ. And find that person in your fellowship, if possible, or your family. If someone loves the Lord, um, and speak with them, honor as unto the Lord. Um, but if there's drug withdrawals and there's things going on there, you may be in a situation where you have to make decisions you normally would not make, but it's for safety. It's for their safety, for your safety, for your children's safety. And that may be a reality. And that doesn't mean you're being disrespectful or you're being rude or cruel. You're only doing it for the right reasons, not because you're angry. Um, and pray, pray, pray. The Lord would give you all the fuel you need and all the courage you need. 152 00:46:30.000 --> 00:46:35.000 Um, you can represent Christ in this. 153 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:57.000 We shall have more to share with you. God bless you, Diana. We pray. Lord, we pray you bless Diana and give her wisdom, give her calmness, give her peace, give her a path forward and to know how to conduct herself. We pray for her husband that he would fully go through these withdrawals, he would fully recover, and that he would see the path that keeps him clean and on the straight and narrow. In Jesus name, amen. 154 00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:03.000 All right, number eight. Um, how do we use the Bible to determine what primary or secondary issues are? 155 00:47:03.000 --> 00:47:14.000 Oh, um, well, there's some clues in Scripture on this. I'd like to spend more time thinking about it, but I'm live, so I'll have to just give you what I can think of. 156 00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:57.000 So in Scripture, there was, like, for instance, Paul, um, and Barnabas have a disagreement in Acts over whether Mark can join them on a mission journey. Mark, it seems, has dropped the ball. Maybe he was cowardly or maybe he was something else. Uh, he dropped the ball on an early mission trip. Paul doesn't want to take him on another one. Now, Paul and Barnabas argue about it, and they end up going different ways in ministry. But it's not the kind of split where you're like, they're mad at each other, they hate each other. It was just Barnabas is like, um, I'm taking Mark with me. And Paul's like, I won't go with him. I can't trust him right now. And who was right? We don't fully know. Um, but they go different ways. That is a sad split, but it's not like a bad split. Like a bad, bad split. 157 00:47:57.000 --> 00:49:03.000 But notice this. We don't have Paul publicly rebuking. We don't even have Acts telling us who was right or wrong, because this, while it mattered, was a secondary, tertiary issue. Yeah, they disagreed. They even had gone different ways. But we're not even told who's right because the text is showing us that it doesn't matter as much who was right. In this scenario, we're just recording what happened later. Paul says, uh, as he writes a letter, he's like, send Mark to me for he's useful to me in ministry, which is beautiful. Um, then, uh, we have Paul and Peter in the Book of Galatians, in chapter two, Peter and Paul have an encounter where Peter is, uh, Paul's been hanging out with Gentiles, right? Peter visits Galatia, and he's hanging out with Gentiles. He's eating with the Gentiles, which was a big thing for you to eat with the Gentiles. I don't know if he ate whatever food was in front of him or if he tried to eat more kosher. We don't know. But he ate with the Gentiles. Then Jews came from Jerusalem who were very strict in their adherence of the law. And they get there, and Peter separates because they're not going to eat with Gentiles, and he eats with the Jews, not the Gentiles. 158 00:49:03.000 --> 00:49:27.000 In response to this, is this a big issue or a small issue? All he did was move over to a different table. Ah. Uh. But it was what it meant, right? In response to this, Paul gets up in Galatians 2 and rebukes Peter to his face in front of everybody. And he goes, you being a Jew, da, da, da. And he basically calls him a hypocrite. But it says why he does it. I should bring the text up. It says why he does it. 159 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:48.000 I'll tell you what triggered Paul to actually do this. Um, when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed, right? He was at fault. It wasn't the end of his ministry. It was just something that had to be addressed publicly. I hope you understand. 160 00:49:48.000 --> 00:50:03.000 For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself from fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 161 00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:28.000 So it's a real problem because it relates to the gospel. The gospel shows there's no Jew or Gentile, right? There isn't. The Gentiles are sitting there with this open question, are we supposed to get circumcised and obey the law now? And then Peter's, like, eating with them, and they're thinking, oh, we're good, we're good, right? And then the Jews come and Peter separates, and now they're like, maybe we're not good. And other Jews leave too. And they're like, maybe we're not good enough to eat with them. 162 00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:37.000 The signal was, jesus alone does not get you clean. You need the law. That was unintentional, but that was the signal. 163 00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:46.000 So Paul tells you why he said something. When I saw. What did he see? That they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel. 164 00:50:46.000 --> 00:51:32.000 I said to Peter before them all, and he calls him out. He calls him out, if you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles, which he was doing before, not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? And then he goes on and gives a whole, like, cool speech about, you know, living in Christ and all this beautiful stuff. So there's one example of how every error was not handled or every disagreement was not handled with the same treatment. And how what triggered Paul was that it was not accurate according to the truth of the gospel. And we never get warnings about things like we do with the gospel. The gospel meaning like how you get saved, Who Jesus is how you get saved. Those, like, core things where you're like, this is a, you end up in heaven or you don't kind of issue. Those issues are always treated so differently than others. 165 00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:40.000 Um, and we have Paul saying in Galatians, like, if anyone preaches to you another gospel, the one we preach, let him be accursed. 166 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:41.000 Big deal. 167 00:51:41.000 --> 00:51:58.000 Um, but there's other times where there's errors and they're like, you need to fix this instead of the high level of accursed. So the concept of primary doctrine or essential doctrine versus secondary, it does seem to be present in scripture. It's not always easy to figure out where to draw the line. It's not. 168 00:51:58.000 --> 00:52:31.000 Um, but we know one line is very clear, which is if the thing, the behavior or the teaching, if they compromise, if they're not. If I read again what Paul said, I'll read it to you. If they're not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, then we call that a primary issue and we deal with it harshly, strongly. Now, he didn't divide from Peter. Peter, it seems, received the correction and then they moved on. Um, and so it wasn't like that. But if Peter had persisted, it would have been a. It would have probably been a point of division. 169 00:52:31.000 --> 00:52:35.000 Would have definitely been a point of division because the truth of the gospel is primary. 170 00:52:35.000 --> 00:52:38.000 All right, next question number nine. 171 00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:50.000 This is coming from Anonymous. Uh, it says, how important is the disagreement on Calvinism from the perspective of considering marriage? Any questions or wisdom to help think through? 172 00:52:50.000 --> 00:52:55.000 Yeah, um, it's not essential. 173 00:52:55.000 --> 00:53:22.000 Um, I don't think it's a deal breaker personally, and I know there's plenty. This is Mike Winger opinion. Okay. Um, there's plenty who will disagree with me and be pretty upset about this. And not because you're mean spirited, but because you just believe confidently that Calvinism is a much more central problem than I think it is. Um, and even the Calvinists will hear me say that and actually be offended too. So I can offend everybody today. I'm very offensive this week. 174 00:53:22.000 --> 00:53:27.000 Um, the issue of Calvinism to me does not touch the actual gospel itself. 175 00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:37.000 Um, I don't believe it does. I think that someone who's a fully convinced Calvinist is saved when they know all the doctrines and believe it. They're still a Christian. Okay. I believe they're my brothers and sisters in Christ. 176 00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:59.000 I will say, um, that your mentality or your demeanor about the difference between Calvinism and non Calvinism does make a big difference here for the marriage. And here's why, when you get married and you have kids, things that you thought you could agree to disagree on, you may discover you cannot agree to disagree on anymore because they're affecting your children. 177 00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:13.000 So I'll give an extreme example and say a Catholic marrying a Protestant when you don't have kids. Oh, maybe he goes to his church and I go to mine. Uh, we go once a week to his and once a week to mine, which I don't recommend doing either. But I've seen people do this. 178 00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:19.000 But when they have kids, all of a sudden they can't agree to disagree anymore. 179 00:54:19.000 --> 00:54:36.000 They're going to get baptized. They need to get confirmation and first Communion. No, no, they need to get baby dedication. And we're not doing the catechism for them. We're going to do, uh, the Westminster Confession or something. This is, um. Yeah, this is not going to work. It's going to be a serious problem in your marriage. 180 00:54:36.000 --> 00:55:01.000 Um, so depends on your mentality about the disagreement. If you're like, we disagree on Calvinism, but we have a church we like, um, and we both go there and we're willing to have our future children go there and stuff like that, you need to have those conversations now would be what I'd recommend. Um, it's healthy for you. It's just one of the many things you should talk about before you get married is questions like that. 181 00:55:01.000 --> 00:55:04.000 If you get married to someone, there's questions people don't ask. 182 00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:19.000 You don't know that they're planning on. They want to move out of the state in the next couple years, and you haven't even told each other about it. That's an important thing to discuss before you get married. Um, good to have those conversations. Good to do. That's why premarital counseling can be useful. 183 00:55:19.000 --> 00:55:29.000 So that's my assessment. Um, now I. Coming from my perspective, so you understand me, I attend a church, and there's actually a good number of Calvinists that are there now. 184 00:55:29.000 --> 00:55:39.000 Um, if I was married to a Calvinist, I could tolerate that. Although my wife, I don't think she would tolerate it. 185 00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:44.000 We're just different people. So you need to know your mentality. You need to know your mentality. 186 00:55:44.000 --> 00:56:00.000 All right, that's wisdom. We're going to the last question. This is question 10, and it comes from Cameron Donaldson. He says, are Christian universalists themselves saved in spite of them being wrong about everyone else being saved too, or are they believing in a false Christ? 187 00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:13.000 Um, I'm going to answer this very carefully. Um, and when people clip this out and make videos about me later. I hope you will play my whole answer. I won't copyright strike you for it. 188 00:56:13.000 --> 00:56:19.000 Um, are Christian universalists themselves saved in spite of them being wrong about everyone else being saved too, or are they believing in a false Christ? 189 00:56:19.000 --> 00:56:24.000 There are different kinds of Christian universalists. 190 00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:29.000 So let me give you an example of one who I think has compromised the gospel itself. 191 00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:39.000 Um, so a, ah, convinced Buddhist, a convinced Hindu, a convinced Muslim, a convinced Mormon and a convinced Christian all die. 192 00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:51.000 And the Christian universalist who calls himself Christian says, oh, they're all going to be accepted by God. And you're like, why? And you're like, well they were all sincere, um, or because God is all loving. 193 00:56:51.000 --> 00:56:59.000 And I go, do you understand the gospel? Because now I want to know what you think the gospel actually says. 194 00:56:59.000 --> 00:58:19.000 Because if you don't believe and understand the gospel then now, not just because of what you said, but because of the fact that you don't believe and understand the gospel. Like I now wonder if you're a Christian, Um, do you know that the Bible says that all have fallen short and that Jesus is the only way to God, that whoever believes in him has eternal life, but that you have to be born again, that Jesus himself said you have to be born again. And that was to a convinced and sincere Jew and Jesus told him he had to be born again. Nicodemus, John chapter three, that there's no other way but through him he's the way, the truth and the life. Um, and so there's some universalists who will say they're Christians, but when you press them they don't even believe the gospel and that's why they're a universalist. Um, there are other universalists who have different views. So one of the views that I think uh, is wrong is problematic, but I don't think compromises the very gospel itself, although it does compromise things. Other things is the view that after death a person will have some post mortem opportunity to receive Christ and that their belief is, well, after you die you'll get to receive Jesus in the afterlife. And of course you'll receive Jesus in the afterlife because now you're being punished for your sins and stuff. You're going to want out of there, you're going to want Jesus. 195 00:58:19.000 --> 00:58:27.000 So I think everyone will ultimately get saved. And that's their vision, their way they interpret God's love and God's desire for reconciliation. 196 00:58:27.000 --> 00:59:42.000 Um, that is not biblical, that's not supported in scripture. And the Bible talks as though the fate of those who Die is set in stone. And, um, I won't build a case for it because we're about out of time. I need to finish a little early today. Um, that universalist, though, why do I rationally say I believe that they can still be saved? Because they're still believing the gospel. They're still believing Jesus alone can save, that all have fallen short, that Jesus died and rose again, that he took my sin upon himself. And he's even believing that those people who die without Jesus, they won't go to heaven unless they accept Christ. He's wrong. I believe wrongly believing they'll have an opportunity. That's one wrong belief they'll have an opportunity to be saved after death. And two, they'll all say yes, which, no, I don't think they would all say yes. I think the nature of that hard heart is that you don't. You wouldn't say yes. The nature of people in hell is, as I understand it, when it happens, they're not going to want to be in hell, of course, but they also don't want heaven. They don't want hell, but they don't want heaven either. They don't want to be filled with the presence of God either. 197 00:59:42.000 --> 00:59:48.000 Um, and they've made that clear by their choices and their actions. It's a scary thing. 198 00:59:48.000 --> 00:59:58.000 So depends on the universalist. Now, I don't run around going, hey, Christian universalism is fine. It's no big deal. Yeah, there's still. It is a problem. 199 00:59:58.000 --> 01:01:03.000 You realize it kills evangelism. It kills and destroys evangelism to think that everybody's going to get saved no matter what. There's no need to preach the gospel. It's just something you do because you know you should do it. There's no need whatsoever to preach the gospel because that guy's going to be saved. I could even be telling a Buddhist who goes, are you saying I need Jesus? That I'm going to go to hell if I don't have Jesus? And I could tell HM him, oh, don't worry, you'll accept him in the afterlife. You're fine. I could be emboldening people's rejection of the gospel of Christ with false promises that if they're wrong, they'll be okay. It is a very, very problematic view, so not supported in scripture. And it brings real world harms. I am not at all saying it's okay. But you asked me, can, um, they be saved? And I think that the gospel is my standard for who can be saved. And of course, do they live the Gospel in some fashion. Is there some way of thinking that they're sincere in that commitment to Jesus? Um, and my answer to that is yes, if they are a particular kind of universalist. Still problematic. 200 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:13.000 Um, so yeah, hope that helps answer the questions. Guys, I appreciate the questions today and forgive me if I'm a little off today. I am a little off. Okay. 201 01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:51.000 I'm trying to navigate this stuff. Um, and I'm not gonna keep talking. You won't hear me. I don't think, uh, giving any updates or talk. I'm not here exposing west or something like that. It's not, it, uh. These issues don't even rise to my radar of me making whole videos about people. Um, as far as like exposure videos and things like that. It's not, it's not, um, it doesn't rise to that. Not the issues that we're aware of or even suspect. No, no issues that anybody's aware of or even suspects rise to that level. I'm m responding to this because I endorsed Wes so strongly, so much, and because I want the Christian church to handle it right. 202 01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:58.000 And I felt burdened because of my position in the body right now to share what I know to be true. 203 01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:02.000 So I'm sorry if I'm not doing that perfectly. 204 01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:04.000 And um, it grieves me too. 205 01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:06.000 May God work through it. 206 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:10.000 Lord bless you guys. Keep your eyes on Jesus. God forgives your sins. 207 01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:37.000 Mhm. He forgives. He lets go of. The guilt that you carry is dealt with in Jesus Christ. You just need to turn to him in humility and truth. He wipes it away and you are washed and clean. That you would look at yourself and you'd say, I see no stain of sin. I see the righteousness of Jesus clothing me. And that is the message that we want to preach. That is the thing we want to give people Jesus Christ and Him crucified and salvation. 208 01:02:37.000 --> 01:03:15.000 And um, I pray we can see more and more of that and more of that in the future whenever God wills. Uh, from my brother Wes, who's greatly gifted and has been used greatly by God.