This is a REAL problem for Catholics: 10 Qs with Mike Winger (Ep 79)

WEBVTT
1
00:00:03.000 --> 00:14:50.000
All right, let's think biblically. My name is Mike Winger. My agenda is to help people. Not that I'm the best at it, but I do labor to do it well, to think biblically about everything. And so we're going to tackle various questions during this weekly Q and A. I have been on sabbatical. I'll tell you more about that later on. But I want to get right into something that I think is interesting beyond anything in my personal life, and that is Matt Walsh and the Pope. So for the first question today, I want to talk about Matt Walsh and the Pope specifically. Is Matt Walsh's position consistent with the Catholic position? Or maybe I could ask even a better question is why is it that the Catholic position on the death penalty seems to contradict itself over time and such that now Catholics are sort of dealing with a conundrum? And Matt Walsh, he had a tweet recently where he got into this in a way that his purpose isn't my purpose. This is my agenda with his tweet. But I'm going to read his tweet. We'll talk about the issue. I'll quote the Pope, I'll quote what the Popes used to say, what they say now, how it changed over time, and why. This is why we need to go and let Scripture be our authority. So here we go. This is, uh, Matt Walsh, and he says, uh, on Twitter, uh, this was, I think, just like yesterday. Or was it this morning? Yesterday might m have been this morning. Anyway, there is no coherent Christian argument that the death penalty is immoral. I agree with him, and he's being very specific here. He means that the death penalty itself is inherently immoral. Like it's immoral automatically by nature of what it is. What it does is immoral. Okay? It can be immoral because it's done unjustly, because it's given, uh, out for the wrong crimes, because it's done in a manner that is egregious. But this is different. This is about it being immoral inherently, which I think the majority of people think, especially in Western countries, Christians in Western countries. Um, I agree with Matt here. I have a whole video. I'll link down below after the stream. I forgot to before. I'll put it down there. It's my full teaching on the death penalty. But we will get into Romans 13 today as well, which is irrefutably supportive of the death penalty. Okay? So Matt goes on and says, and I agree with hm, Matt here, God prescribes it for a whole host of crimes in the Old Testament. So if your position is that it is fundamentally evil to execute anyone, then you must be saying either that the Old Testament is not the word of God, or that God was morally confused, or that's a nice way to put it. Or that the inherent morality of the action has changed, rendering vast swaths of Scripture irrelevant. None of those positions are compatible with Christianity, although I think the Catholic. Current, Catholic position. And Matt is a Catholic, uh, currently. Um, not that he suggested he wouldn't be one in the future, um, but I have hopes. So I agree with him there. Um, but the Catholic position, however, is not, I think, consistent with what he just said. So I understand that some Christians, he goes on to say, try to get around this by claiming that the death penalty was necessary a long time ago, but isn't necessary anymore. I'm afraid this argument doesn't remotely work. The death penalty is very explicitly prescribed. And as a matter of, and in all caps, he says justice in the Bible. I agree. Not out of necessity. That's absolutely true. It's not like, for instance, the way the Bible handles the topic of slavery, which is this thing that is inherently not good, that is then regulated in Scripture. It's not like the death penalty is treated that way. It's treated as a matter of, this is what's just, this is what's good, this is what you should do. And God even judges people for not enacting justice in their land. And he says the blood is crying out from the land because you have not enacted justice. Um, so it's just so again, Matt says either the Bible is just flatly wrong, or God was flatly wrong, or the inherent essence of morality and justice has changed. Basic Christian theology does not leave any of those options open to you. Now flash over with me to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The current Catechism, as of 2018, it says things different, uh, than the Catholic Catechism had said for 500 years. Catch that? 500 years. I'm going to read to you what the Council of Trent Catechism said. Now, for those who don't know, the Catholic Catechism is like this official statement of what we believe from the Catholic Church. You don't dogmatically have to believe everything in it, but it is most in order to be Catholic. Like, you won't get excommunicated because you disagree on one point or another. Depends on the weight of the point. Um, but this is official Church teaching. Okay? This is the official Church teaching. It's more official than Any guy on Catholic Answer's website. It's more official than any Catholic apologist. It's more official than Matt Walsh by virtue of it being the catechism, which is approved by the Pope. It has a lot of weight. It has a lot of power. So let's get into this. Um, I'm going to read it to you now from the catechism in paragraph, uh, 2267. 2267. You could read it yourself, just Google, take you a couple seconds. It says, recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority following a fair trial was, past tense, long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Acceptable, albeit extreme. So it was. This is just what it was considered. It doesn't even say here anything about official Catholic teaching. It's just people thought this. Okay, The Catholic Church certainly thought it was more than just acceptable. That's not even a correct representation of the historical view of the Catholic Church. But now the chapter continues and changes and says what today's going to be like. So as of 2018, Catholicism M. Today, however, there's an increasing awareness of the dignity of the person. Excuse me. That the dignity of the person is not lost, even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged. New understanding. It sounds like Jehovah's Witnesses talking about getting more, uh, further revelation, or the Mormon Church talking about getting more light. Well, we have increasing light, brother. We're not changing doctrine. We have increasing light. Sounds the same. A, ah, new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed which ensure the due protection of citizens, but at the same time do not determine, definitively deprive the guilty of the possession of redemption possibility of redemption. So this is the way it's set up so far in the paragraph you're thinking, okay, uh, what you're telling me here is, uh, that times have changed. We have a greater awareness of the dignity of the person who's being executed. We also understand that there has a greater significance of the death penalty. We're understanding it's more significant than we realized before, which is a weird thing to say after thousands of years of Church history. And then they finally go, and we've got systems in place where we can put people in prison for life and not have to execute them. Right. And it protects everyone. Okay, then there's this chapter, this part, this paragraph, or last sentence rather, of this section. And let me read it to you very, very carefully. Listen very carefully. This is the clincher. This is where I go, wait, what? This is in contradiction, I believe, to previous Catholic teaching. Consequently, the Church teaches, in light of the Gospel, that. And here's the quote. The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. And she. The Church works with determination for its abolition worldwide. We're on a mission to abolish the, the death penalty because it is, quote, I, uh, quote again, an attack on the, uh, viability and dignity of the person. It's an attack on your very person. That would make it immoral, would it not? I mean, how do you escape the idea that death penalty is inherently immoral when it's an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person? And that earlier in this paragraph, it said that the person, when they commit these crimes, they do not lose their dignity, they maintain that dignity. So you are, no matter what crime someone has done, you are attacking their dignity. That would be a moral sin, would it not? A moral crime. Uh, something that's morally wrong. So what I'm saying is that I agree with Matt, Matt agrees with the Bible here. And most Catholics throughout history would be with Matt and me and the Bible on this topic. The current catechism is not. But let's go back in time and let's look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was the catechism of the church for over 400 years. 400 years. This was the teaching authority's statement of, here's what we believe. Use this to catechize, to teach the people. When you want to know what does the Church really believe, you open up the Catechism, right? Not necessarily the Bible. You can open the Bible, but you maybe you're going to debate about what this means or what not. Open the Catechism, you'll get clarity. And this is where they believe the Church was giving them true clarity. So let me read to you from the catechism, and then I'm going to go to your guys. Questions. This is 10 questions, right? But I always bring the first one myself, so I have something prepared to share. And, um, the question is, why is the Catholic Church disagreeing with itself on the death penalty and can we even trust it? Um, which obviously we can't. So, um, let me make good on that statement here. Roman Catechism from the Council. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, issued under Pope Pius V. And this is their explanation of the Fifth Commandment. It says another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities. Now, you might be confused and think the word lawful there means it's legal to do it. That's how we usually use the term lawful in the Catechism. And it's using the term lawful to mean moral. It goes with moral goodness. Right. If it's lawful to do something, it's because it's morally good. If it's unlawful, it's morally bad. This doesn't mean it's lawful because it's legal, which is like a circular argument. Okay, so another kind of lawful slaying killing belongs to the civil authorities to whom is entrusted power of life and death by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Judicious, meaning it's just, is just to punish with killing the guilty, at least in certain circumstances. Right. We would all agree due process and make sure they're guilty and that the crime is high enough to require the death penalty. All those things. And they go on and listen to this wording. Imagine if these two, if Pope Pius V could be around right now and deal with the current modern Pope who comes from America and talk to him and what their conversation would be like. It says the just use of this power, just that is in righteous use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder. Right. It's not violation, uh, of the inviolable dignity of the human person, far from involving the crime of murder, is in an act of paramount obedience to this commandment which prohibits murder. The death penalty is an act of obedience to thou shall not kill. That's the position of the Catholic Church for, like over 400 years. I mean, before that, they would have agreed with the same thing. This was just putting it in writing. Um, so hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years of Catholic faithful Catholics believing this have now been overturned by the modern catechism. And then you get guys like Matt Walsh who's saying true things but are in conflict with the Catholic Church. I'm going to read it again. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now, the punishments inflicted by the civil authorities, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Right. We do judiciously deal with, uh, the consequences of capital crimes. And it brings benefits into society that are the preservation of thou shalt not kill. That was the original view. I shouldn't say the original view. Um, this is 1500, so we're talking like 1500 years after Jesus. But the original view is in Romans 13. We'll look at in a second. But even as recently as 1908, 1908, we had Pope Pius X who said, it is lawful to kill when carrying out, by order of the supreme authority, a sentence of death in punishment of a crime. And again, when he says lawful, he means moral. He doesn't mean. Obviously, he's not just describing laws. Well, you know, countries that have death penalty laws. In those countries, it's lawful to carry out the death penalty. He's not saying that. He's saying it was morally okay when carrying out by order of supreme authority. That would be the governmental authority. A sentence of death, punishment of a crime. I should say the supreme authority is God's authority that has been stewarded, uh, through governments. Huge issue here. Pope pius XII in 1952. Here's another pope. He says, uh, even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual's right to life. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life in expiation of his crime, when by his crime he has already deprived himself of his right to live. So the idea here is that the guy's already deprived himself of his right to live. His right to live has been taken away by his crime based upon the authority of God. This is a very consistent and simple and straightforward thing. The Bible is obviously in support of the death penalty under the proper situations and circumstances. Obviously, the 1992 Catechism. 1992, it's still in my lifetime here. Um, it still stated the older principle, and it changed a bit. And, uh, basically what happened is the Catechism, over the past, like 40, 30, 40 years, maybe 30 years, I guess, has, um, changed. Where first it was like, well, it's not ideal. And then different people can have different views on this. And then in 2018, it became like, we're telling you, the Church is telling you it violates a person's inviolable dignity. So it was a total change. A total change. More recently, we have the following. Let me show you a video. Now, this is the Pope. More recently, Pope Leo, the current or new Pope. And he said the following. Actually, I need to, uh, make sure I can hear this too. Just a second. Welcome to the live stream, y'.
2
00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:51.000
All.
3
00:14:50.000 --> 00:15:14.000
It's been a while. I'm glad to have you guys here and, uh, to get a chance to talk about scripture with you and attest, uh, all things with the word of God. So here's Pope Leo, now, against the death penalty, saying that if you're pro life, you have to be, uh, against the death penalty. This means that, in his view, the majority of the Catholic Church and popes were not pro life.
4
00:15:14.000 --> 00:15:55.000
I understand the difficulty and the tensions, but I think, as I myself have spoken in the past, it's important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the Church. Someone who says I'm against abortion, but says I'm in favor of the death penalty is not really pro life. So, uh, someone who says that, uh, I'm against abortion, but I'm in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States. I don't know if that's pro life. So they're very complex issues. I don't. I don't know if anyone has all the truth on them. But I would ask first and foremost that there be greater respect for one another.
5
00:15:55.000 --> 00:31:34.000
Yeah, okay. I hope there's greater respect for one another. Duh. Uh, obviously, I'm just saying that's not. That doesn't mean anything in relevance to the actual topic we're dealing with here. So if you are pro life, you're against abortion, but you are also for the death penalty, you're not really pro life. He said, the pope, the voice of Christ on earth, just made a statement that is in direct, complete contradiction with the very word of God. I'll show you in a second with Romans 13. The previous catechism is also in direct contradiction with the Pope because it said, no, the thou shalt not kill is actually preserved with the death penalty. It is an act of obedience to. To pro life in order to enact the death penalty, because it preserves that principle as being paramount in society and for other reasons as well. So the Pope is definitely in contradiction with Scripture. He's definitely in contradiction with past popes. And it's not just one random pope. We're talking about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official teaching documents that are currently that have changed multiple. This one section has changed, like, since the 90s. This changed, like, 1, 2, 3. Is it three or four times that it's changed after 400 years of. Almost 500 years of not changing at all? So it's changed a lot Um, I think four times it's changed. So this stuff is heavy, but it highlights an issue which is. And I'm going to go to Romans 13 in a second, then we'll go to your guys. Questions in the live chat. You cannot simply follow the Pope. And this is the thing. Many Christians are wooed, and wooed is the right word for this. Over to Roman Catholicism or over to even, uh, Eastern Orthodox views. Now, we have many things we agree on. Catholics, I can hold your hands on so many issues. Eastern Orthodox, I can hold your hands on many issues. Many issues. But your claims of exclusivity and your claims of preserving apostolic tradition are simply not historically true. Right. And so you've preserved some things, but you've also added things and called it preservation. And what we're seeing here is we're seeing in real time, in. In our lifetime, in my very lifetime, we're seeing how preserving, uh, tradition actually isn't what happens. And often what happens is the changing of beliefs and the changing of values. And then we just sort of hide it under the rug that we're contradicting our previous beliefs. And then we'll say, well, you know, in another 500 years, it'll be believed that this was always the Catholic position, unless people are digging and digging and looking into the details. And so this has happened over the topic of Mariology. That has absolutely changed over the years, including in the Orthodox Church. And the Orthodox Church, which claims it didn't change after the Great Schism, they did. They continued adapting and changing and novel things happened after that. That's historically what happened. The Papal supremacy in the Catholic Church, that stuff in Vatican I, they made the wild proclamation, uh, of, uh, papal authority like never before and acted like it was something that everyone always believed. So things change. Things change plenty of times. Some stuff is preserved, some stuff is slightly altered, some stuff is radically changed. That's what happens over time, which is why you have to go back and have a restoration of what was original. And I don't mean here that the whole Church became apostate, none of that. I mean, I go back to scripture and I let Scripture guide me so that as I naturally go off course, because, you know, like, the Church is like a ship. And as a ship, you put it out to sea, you can set it on its course, but little changes in the waves and the wind and the currents in the ocean will cause it to go off course. And unless you continue to correct and get back on that original course based upon your first plans, the, uh, actual Latitude, longitude, you're aiming for, you're going to get further and further off course. And so this is what happens naturally with us as humans. We have to go back to the word of God, which we're going to do right now. You have to go back to scripture and let scripture be your authority. So I'm not your authority, but the Bible certainly is. Romans 13, this is New Testament. So I'm just going to skip over people saying, well, that was the Old Testament. No, uh, this is New Testament. And it could not be more clear. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. So it's talking about the government. For there is no authority except from God. And those that exist have been instituted by God. And we're not talking about Christian governments here. This is not a secular, it's a pagan government that was currently in power in Rome. It is a government that is in rebellion against Jesus, uh, that is currently most influential. It's like a sub government, like a subjected government in, uh, Israel. It is governments everywhere that are largely in rebellion against God, but are still their authority. Whatever authority they have, it comes from God, it belongs to God, they have been instituted by God. And so government, just like parents, just like any authority in the world, any, uh, genuineness they have to their authority, it derives from God himself, which creates very respectful people among Christians, people who are willing to submit and yield unless they have compelling godly reasons not to. Verse 2, it says, Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. And those who resist will incur judgment. Four Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Obviously this is the ideal, this is the authority that God gave them is that they may be a terror to evil people, not to people who are doing good things. Um, obviously sometimes the authority rebels against God and God judges them for that. Would you have no fear of the one who's in authority? Then do what is good and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. This is. Listen, when you read this as a Christian in Rome, right, this letter to the Romans, you would then go outside of your house or out of your little church gathering and you walk down the street and you would see the powers of Rome represented by guys walking around with swords on their hips. And they are pagans who worship false idols, who despise Christians, who reject God. And here they're called God's servants, uh, because they're not Christians. They're not in right standing with God. But that power they wield is wielded in service to God, who has given authority to government, says, but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. Now, uh, let's ask. What does the sword mean? What does bearing the sword mean? When you put someone to the sword, they die. The ultimate example of authority in government is the death penalty. It is the ultimate example of such authorities. It's the death penalty. And the sword definitely connects to that. You cannot separate the sword from the concept of the death penalty. It is the example of what that means. For he is the servant of God. And it gets more explicit. An avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. So he is the servant of God who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer in his bearing of the sword, which he is not bearing in vain. To bear it in vain is like, I got the sword, but I can never use it for that because that would be immoral. That would be a violation. Let me read it again. That would be. And it is, according to the catechism, um, inadmissible, because it's an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. Right. Uh, here. Does Paul say the Church should be working to eliminate and eradicate and abolish the death penalty worldwide? Or that the idea that you are pro life means that you must be against the death penalty? No. This is clearly an unbiblical belief that has taken root inside the Roman Catholic Church. Gotten into the very teachings of the Church, gotten into the new versions of the catechism. And this is why you need sola, uh, scriptura, uh, or I trust the Bible as my final authority. Yes, I respect authorities. Yes, I listen to them. Yes, I want to learn from Church history. But I'm not looking there for authorities. I'm looking there for, like, checking to see if I'm the one that's being anachronistic, trying to see how the development of Christian thought happened. All those good things. But I trust scripture as my guide above all else. Because however old you are, however long ago you lived, whatever position you had in the Church, you can still get things wrong. But I know that this is the word of God. This is God's holy word. I could give many examples of this, but that's one. And I would just. My encouragement would be for Catholics to stop and go, let me not play games with this. Let me just not pretend that they're just saying, oh, well, we're consistent. The death penalty's always been something that was something that we don't want. That's always been a violation of human dignity. But it was necessary because we didn't have prisons that could house people for the rest of their lives. And I'm like, this is not complicated. It's not like having a prison where you can keep someone for the rest of their life is a new idea. We just recently came up with this. Or we never had the ability, like, oh, yes, well, in Rome in ancient times, they never would have had the ability to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life. Or maybe it would have been inhumane and so it was a better option to kill them rather than have them in suboptimal conditions in prison. Um, and then the idea that the innocent are protected. When a person's in prison for the rest of their life, the guy's still interacting with prisoners. He's still having to deal with people. He's still potential to commit more crimes and great harm to people. But it's not just about that in Scripture. It's about justice. It's about God's wrath being poured out in a visible way when people violate the laws of the land that God has given through authorities he's approved. And that you can't do, um, if you take the Catholic position nowadays, but if you take the Catholic position from 50 years ago, you can't. So, uh, my encouragement would be for Matt Walsh and others to take this very seriously and say, hey, this is like a little tiny example of the fact that the Church does not always preserve. It sometimes changes, but it always tells you it's preserving no matter what it's saying, even though it's disagreeing with its own statements, its own popes, its own catechisms in the past. All right, we're going to go to your guys. Questions. Let me just pull those up and I'll tell you a little bit about how I'm doing. Um, so I, um, took a sabbatical, and it was a long sabbatical. I've never had a sabbatical before. Um, where I like to take a significant. Those who don't know. It's a significant period. And actually, um, uh, this was meant to be like a book writing thing. And I did spend a good deal of book writing, um, which to me is a painfully slow process. I'm nowhere near complete. Don't ask me how it's going. It's just the way I am. I guess I Don't know. I'm just going to take you however long it's going to take. But the, um, uh, sorry, I got distracted by me clicking things to try to get this stuff going. But the, um, the sabbatical was wonderful in that I really needed to take some time off and I did. It was so refreshing for me to spend that time off where I could study stuff in scripture. Just for fun. Just for funsies and not because I'm constantly kicking out content. Constantly dealing with things. I was able to focus more on the word of God because I've been dealing with so much, um, abuse and deceit and cover up and lies in, in my, in particular stuff I've been exposing in the Charismatic church. Not all the charismatics. In fact, I'm counting on charismatics. You guys are the ones who are going to bring the change, not me. Um, but I've been dealing with a lot of that stuff and it's been a little taxing and it was really, really nice to just move away from it for a while, which I did. Spent a lot of time in the gym, exercising, eating healthy, and I was able to sit down and do book writing and do research and do stuff like that. So it wasn't like just a go play, have fun kind of situation. But it was not doing, not dealing with abusers every day, all day long, which was nice. Um, so that was kind of my update on that, uh, praise the Lord for it. I'm reinvigorated. I am excited to get back. I was looking forward to doing this stream and I'm excited to do more stuff. Very excited about what, uh, will come forward in this ministry and how God may use it in your lives and in the world. It's a beautiful, wonderful thing. And there's so much that's going on right now. So much so I'll, uh, be weighing in on some of those things for whatever it's worth. Always as another voice you can listen to. As a reminder, don't let me be the only person you listen to online. That's not really healthy. Um, don't let me be the only person you find yourself agreeing always with me and never disagreeing with me. Maybe you find yourself, we just happen to think alike and you just do always, but still listen to other voices. Um, it's for your own good. You, uh, don't just want to have one source. Um, all right. Anyway, I'm going to go to your guys. Questions. Take Family Adventure has a question says, why couldn't Isaac give Esau the Blessing and remove it from Jacob after discovering Jacob's deception. Why don't we do this sort of blessing today? Um, yeah. So the idea of the Father's giving a blessing to the son seems as though that had a lot of cultural baggage around it. That's not a negative phrase either, but a lot of cultural relevance to it. That the Father blessing the son is something that was just simply expected and known. And m. Yeah, I'll try that, Sarah. So the, um. Yeah, it was expected and known, and that's why it's not explained in Scripture. You just get it happening. Like, they just gather around and they're offering the blessing. But this blessing was considered binding. It wasn't just a wishful thinking blessing. It's considered like an actual binding thing. When Abraham lays his hand and he offers a blessing on, uh, excuse me. When Isaac offers the blessing, it's binding. It's like this is his official proclamation. He's making a declaration, and he's doing it with a kind of like binding, contractual sort of vibe connected to it. So he can't just undo it. It's too late. The blessings are. And that's kind of embedded in the text in case we don't. In case we miss it. Um, he says, like, it's too late, my son. Like, I can't do it now. It's too late. I've already given the blessing out. Don't you have anything left for me, Father? He says, and so then, um, there's another one offered to him that's a different blessing for Esau. It's not as nice, it's not as great, but it's something that was offered. And, um, the question you have is, um, let m me make sure I get this right. Why couldn't he give it to him? The answer is because it was binding. And that's implied. It's not expressly taught there in the scripture. It's implied strongly that it was already known that it was binding. And then why don't we do this sort of blessing today? Um, I don't think there's any good reason why we don't do that sort of blessing today. Why not? Why wouldn't we? Why not have. And it's kind of like might help people in end of life situations where you know that you're passing away and it gives you something positive to do as you're passing away. As you bring each of your kids and you lay your hands on them and give them a blessing, I think that'd be a beautiful thing for you. To do and to recognize that if you are doing this, you're doing it with a sense of, like, your words matter here. Not empty statements, but powerful, intentional things. And you're asking. Because what you're doing is you're, you're. By implication, you're asking God to back up this blessing. In reality, you can't control that. But once you've made that claim and that thing like, that's a binding statement you made before the Lord, that's how I would take that. And. Yeah, so interesting question.
6
00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:36.000
Um,
7
00:31:36.000 --> 01:16:20.000
yeah, culturally, it was a thing they did. Doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it good. God backed it up in the case of, uh, um, Isaac in particular. Absolutely backed it up. God used it. And I would see no problem with someone, uh, doing that in their own lives and praying before you do, lord, give me wisdom. Help me to speak a blessing over my kids that is in agreement with your will for them and your desires for them. That seems like a really cool thing to do. Question number three. This one comes in from just Baldwinog who says, uh, do you think eventually Adam and Eve could be permitted to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Oh, could have been. Okay, so going back in time, like, could there have been potentially some sort of length of time of obedience and of growing immaturity and of knowing God whereby they, after that would be able to be given this permission to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Could that have been a thing? Um, I'll say that these kinds of questions are interesting because it postulates a possibility that the scripture does not explicitly talk about. But now let me talk about a Bible study practice we should have, which is to say, and I've never talked about this before, but I'll put it this way. And I only learned this through my own studying in scripture. And I would come up with an idea, I'd be reading a text, and I'd come up with an interpretation that I thought was. Seemed like maybe it was true, but I became a little enamored by it. So it's a caution I would give to everyone. Not direct specifically to this individual, but to everyone. It's just because I think it's a relevant time to mention it. Sometimes you come up with an interpretation you really like. It seems. I don't know, it's kind of like we inherently like our own ideas, you know, like if you're in a group and you're all looking for an idea of something to do, and one guy says Maybe you're getting lunch and one guy goes, let's go to In N Out. And someone else says, no, let's go to McDonald's. And then you're like, there's this new Mediterranean place I'd like to try. And you're thinking, I've been wanting to eat healthier and I'd like my friends to eat healthier. So uh, can we try this Mediterranean, please? So then the group decides they're going to go to In n Out. Understandably. And you're not just bothered that they didn't choose the Mediterranean place because it would be healthier? That may be part of it, but there's a good chance your bothered because they didn't choose your idea. This sense in which we want our ideas to be right because this is my baby. My baby's the cutest baby. My idea is the best idea. This can affect our Bible study where once we have an idea that we sort of feel like we've worked on and thought about, we become more committed to it than we can justify in the pages of Scripture. And so that's a good thing to be aware of as you're studying the Bible is am I kind of stuck on this idea because I like it? Because it's my interpretation. I see this happen all the time. People will have a far fetched interpretation of a passage, very far fetched. Because they like it, because it was the one they came up with on the spot. I've seen it many times. I have done it in my studies. And then I'm preparing to teach and I look, this was. I'd like to say I'd never do it. Now I hope I don't. But I have to assess myself right where I'll go. Oh, I like this interpretation. And it makes it more difficult as I'm reading commentaries or looking at word studies. It can make it more difficult for me to move away from a wrong view because I like it. Okay, that was a side issue. Just thought I'd mention it because it came to my mind. I don't think I've ever shared it before. Um, so could they have eventually been given permission to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Would it have eventually happened? Well, there's nothing in the text to say that it would have happened. Right. Nothing I'm aware of. Like I'm scanning in my mind like m my memory of Genesis. He just says to them, don't eat of it for in the day you eat of it. Right. These bad things will happen then they eat of it. We also don't know how long it was. It could have been a day, or it could have been some longer period of time. It could have been who knows how long before they actually ate of the fruit. Um, there's nothing in the prohibition that was like don't eat yet or anything like that. So I think that a good default position is you have a tree you're told, don't eat of. It's left there long term. That's the implication, right? That it's just going to be there and you're told not to eat of it. And then if you do, you're going to die. This would imply extension indefinitely. And then they do eat of it and of course they die and there's no rebuke, like if you would only wait it or something like that. So I think the strong implication in the text is no, you never would have been given this permission. Do I know that? No, I don't know that. Um, even defining the knowledge of good and evil is a little difficult for us because I look at it as the experiential knowledge of having gone from a state of innocence into a state of like, I've done bad, I am now more viscerally aware of right and wrong. But there was some knowledge, for instance, of good. There was some kind. I should say this. When God says, you'll have the knowledge of good and evil. They didn't have that right. But that's a phrase, knowledge of good and evil. What is meant by that is the thing that's challenging. Sometimes they had some knowledge of good because they were told like, this is good and Adam's experiencing Eve and he can experience goodness. So it wasn't like goodness itself was not experienced or even what is right and wrong. To some degree there was knowledge because they were told, don't eat of the tree. They had an instruction of what not to do one thing, don't do this. They ate of the tree and then it sort of stirred up all kinds of other things. So I think that Adam and Eve were prevented from having desires for wickedness apart, uh, from the potential of the tree. And that after they ate it sort of unleashed this problem of the flesh that we all have now. And so that knowledge of good and evil is an interesting concept. So would they be able to eat of it later? Well, it would. If what it did is it awakens the carnality of man, then at no point would you want to eat of it. Right. In Mormon theology, the knowledge of good and evil was Actually, this is counter to Christian theology, was actually something that you want Adam and Eve to fall, they have to fall. Adam and Eve in Mormon theology, um, wouldn't know how to have intercourse and have children unless they ate of this tree. So their version of the knowledge of good and evil is a strange one. And it's considered a necessary thing. Like, you needed this. It was good and bad. It wasn't just knowledge of good and evil. It was positive and negative, in a sense, the experience of eating. And, um, I don't think that that's true. I don't think that that should be our view where we're like, can I eat of it later? Can I get this carnality rising up inside me at a later time? So everything about it implies to me that the answer is no. I don't think they would have ever been given permission to do the thing, the one thing that God told them not to do. Okay, we're going to the next question. And I do. I got my screen fixed here. And this comes from, um, Mr. Senpai. And it's question Ah, number four. There's a group of holiness Pentecostals that believe pants are sinful for women to wear. They use Deuteronomy 22. 5. Is it a sin? And if not, why? So glad you're back. Thank you. I'm glad I'm back as well. Deuteronomy 22:5. Let's look at it. A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Several things can be said about this. Um, it is an Old Testament. Excuse me, I don't like that phrase when people say it that way. We should probably stop doing that. It is an old, uh, Mosaic covenant. I shouldn't say old. It's a Mosaic covenant law. Okay, Because Old Testament doesn't mean it's Mosaic covenant. There's things in God says in the Old Testament that clearly apply to all people for all time. There are things in even the law that clearly apply to all people for all time. In a sense. Um, you have to read it very carefully. But this is obviously one of those Old Testament passages, uh, that is in the Mosaic law that some would just be like, I'm just going to disregard it because it's ot. Ot not for me. That's not thinking biblically, guys. You got to read it in context. You have to understand its intent and all that stuff. Okay, so what I can do is say, I do think that this principle holds true outside of the, um, Mosaic law of women not wearing men's clothes. I think that is a true principle, a moral principle. That's true and part of it. You can go here, let me build a little case. You can go to Genesis 1, and you can see that in the beginning, God created them male and female, meaning that gender order is a created order and difference made by God and should be preserved because it's part of God's good design. The gender differences, then you have statements, uh, like in the New Testament, where there's actually a judgment for those who are effeminate. Effeminate. That's an interesting one. It's not just judgment for those who commit homosexuality. It's judgment for guys who are effeminate. So men who act like women. That's New Testament reality. Can't put that on the Old Testament or stick it into the Mosaic covenant and isolate yourself from it. Um, then we have the preservation in the New Testament of gender norms of things like husbands, uh, are the head of their wives, and wives, submit to your husbands and husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church. And you've got all those types of things. You have male headship, you have, uh, men can be elders, women cannot in the New Testament. And I've covered all this in incredible detail online. And I know that the more modern, current Western mind, not even modern minds around the world, but just the Westernized mind, uh, which in many ways can be good to be Westernized. In some ways it's bad. Right? But that mind tends to think that this is oppression and that this is cruel and that this is causing abuse. And all these. You have all this baggage that's not allowing you to read scripture clearly. I will link below my series on women in ministry, the first video in that series. I'm going to link it below. Just the first video. That's the most important one. I hope you watch it. If you think that what I'm saying is oppressive and is insensitive, and if you're actually finding yourself offended on behalf of other people, maybe even just from the words I've said at this point so far, I encourage you, please hear me out by just listening to that one video. This is, like, the biggest issue. I'll link it down below, um, after the stream. Um, so, yeah, a woman shall not wear a man's garment. That seems like that is a principle that should hold true because behind it is this idea that men and women are distinctly different. And these differences should Be preserved and celebrated. They're part of God's original design. They're something that God kicks against over and over again when people try to rebuff them or go against them. We have different rules for men and versus women. In the Old Testament law. We have, um, blanket condemnations for homosexual behavior, which is a rejection of the roles of men and women. Homosexual or lesbian behavior is a rejection of the role of men and women. It is a rejection of God's design of men and women. Um, and we have just. It's consistently things, consistent things. Even in the New Testament, Paul's like, hey, men, I want to tell you this. Women, I'm telling you this, Peter. Uh, women, let's talk about modesty. And he talks to them about modesty. Do men struggle with modesty issues? Sure, but it's just, um, at a much lower rate that men, he goes lift holy hands without anger, without wrath and doubting. And he tells men, like, their anger is an issue they need to work on. Do women deal with anger? Of course they deal with anger issues. Um, but men's wrath, the outburst of men's wrath is more of a present problem. And women's attitudes manifest differently when they're upset. Not always differently, but yeah, as general trends, these things are real. So, yeah. How does that relate with their Pentecostal group? Let me read your question again, because now I'm going to disagree with them even after everything I said. There's a group of holiness Pentecostals that believe pants are sinful for women to wear. They use Deuteronomy 22. 5. Is it sin? And if not, why? Okay, does it say here a woman shall not wear pants? No. It says, a woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak. Now, what the Pentecostals have done, some of them. Some of the holiness Pentecostal groups have done, is they have ignored history. They've ignored their own place in culture. And what they've done is they've frozen one clothing style of men's and women's clothes, which change over time. And they've said, this is the clothing style that God requires for men and women to wear. So, um, that is to freeze people in time. This is why, you know, it won't last. Um, or at least one reason why, you know, this particular trim won't last is because what happens is you freeze people in time such that they don't reflect a biblical view of male and female. They reflect a 1950s view of male and female clothes, where culture changes, where settings change and situations change and climates change, men and women wear different clothes. When there's different activities going on in the community, like different kinds of work are required in the home and around the household, people wear clothing that allows them to do that kind of work. But there's typically a girl's version of that clothing and a guy's version of that clothing. And now there's some stuff that may seem like it's somewhat unisexual. You know, it's like, hey, this isn't really man's clothes or women's clothes. It's just clothes. I'm not saying that doesn't exist, but that's the category. Men should wear men's clothes. Women wear women's clothes. When you say women can't wear pants, you're declaring that pants are officially always men's clothes, not women's. Okay, but that's just your cultural thing. You're pushing out on people. Like, if you go to a clothing store, women's clothes have a section right where you walk in, and, uh, every piece of cloth in that area is for women. And what do you see? Pants. There's pants for women, and they're women's pants. They don't look like guys pants. They're not the same. They're not designed the same. I could put on a pair of. Because here's the thing. What if. Here's an experiment. Go to this Pentecostal church. Don't really do this, by the way. You just did a thought experiment. Mike Winger visits this Pentecostal church. I walk on in, and I'm wearing pants, but they're frilly, glittery pants that I got from the women's section of the department store. And I put them on, and I walk on in, and I guarantee you the leaders there are going to be like, mike, you can't wear those. And if I ask them, why can't I wear these pants? They would say, because those are. And now they're in a problem because if they finish the sentence, they contradict their own doctrine, uh, about clothes. Now they would have to say, you're wearing women's pants, Mike. Women's pants. And I would say, yeah, that's right, I am. Which I'm not allowed to do. Right. So why can't your women wear these pants that I can't wear? Because they're women. And yeah, so we want to push against the trend of, um, there, uh, is no difference between men and women and all that kind of stuff. It's healthy and good in society. If women have women's clothes, if men have men's clothes, that's a good quality that preserves God's design. That's all consistent with scripture, but it's a clumsy attitude that is trapped in, like, the 1950s that says that women can't wear pants. It's just you're culturally stuck in one moment in time. And that's the problem with that view. Although I appreciate their zeal, their application of scripture seems wrong to me. In that case, all right, let's go to the next question. Alex says Hosea 6, verses 1 to 2, says, he will heal Israel's wounds on the third day. He will raise Israel upon restore. And we live right in his sight. And we live in his sight. Is this the end time stuff? What's your take on the meaning of the three days? Oh, man, it's been a long time since I was looking at this. Uh, Hosea, chapter six. I'm going to be cautious with my answer. Only because it's been quite a while since I've looked at it. It's not fresh in my mind. Um, so it says, come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us that he may heal us. He has struck us down and he will bind us up. After two days, he will revive us. On the third day, he will raise us up that we may live before Him. I'm just going to keep reading more of the passage. Let us know. Let us know. Let us press on to know the Lord, his going out is sure as the dawn. He will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth. I like that visual. It's cool. Because, um, spring rains, you have to wait for it's been dry and it's been cold and everything's dead. And so they're saying, um, we need to trust that he's coming, just like we by faith trust that the spring rains are going to come and water the earth. What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes away, goes early away with beautiful poetry. Your love is like a morning cloud. In other words, it dissipates. You know, I live in Southern California, so we get them. Where I live is close to the coast. You get the marine layer and that morning cloud that just dissipates away as the day rolls on, the dew that just burns up, you know, as the sun rises, that's what their love is like. Therefore, I have hewn them by the prophets. I've slain them by the words of my mouth. And my judgment goes forth as the light. For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. So, um, this is my first thought, is that there's. I'm being very cautious with how deeply I answer this because I just don't recall all my thoughts on Hosea right now. Sometimes your thoughts are like, uh, a filing cabinet in your head, and you're like, where's that file? I haven't pulled that file recently. Where is it? It takes a while. All right. There is a prophetic thing that for sure, I think is going on in this passage. I will say, and that is this idea of the third day, he will raise us up. After two days, he'll revive us. Third day, he'll raise us. There's just this sort of motif of the third day. And you can trace this in Scripture. The third day, the third day, the third day. It does happen on a number of occasions. And I think that there is this sort of prophetic flavor that goes through the Bible that you can sometimes look at and go, hey, man, that seems to imply something about Jesus, even though the passage is not directly about that. And I think that's a legitimate thing you can do. Um, we see this in Acts 7 when Stephen, uh, delivering his amazing message right before he's martyred for his faith. Stephen, um, recounts all these examples of Israel having a deliverer that comes, and then the people reject the deliverer. And then he then says, and so you've rejected the son of God. You've rejected the ultimate deliverer who's come to you, just like your fathers have. You know, Philip's a measure of your father's guilt kind of stuff. And so this is like, wait, so is Moses, when he first shows up and he kills the Egyptian, then he's rejected, right? They tattle on him. Now his life's in danger. They don't see him as a deliverer. So he goes out into the wilderness and stuff, and he connects with non Jews, and then he comes back later and delivers. Or Jephthah, uh, who's in the Book of Judges, is chased out by his relatives, away from his family, and they'll go, you have no inheritance amongst us. And he goes, and worthless men gather with him. And finally the Jewish people are like, help us. And he comes back and helps them. Um, or you get David, who's anointed king, but he's rejected from being king. And so he flees out into the land of the Philistines, you know, and you have this constant thing where it's like, hey, Jesus too was rejected by his people, went out, gathered together worthless men to follow him, Gentiles from around the world. And then there's a time coming where the Jews will turn to and see the one whom they've pierced. Um, not only in that epic passage at the end times, but there will be a revival amongst the Jewish people when they see their Messiah for who he is. Um, so we see Stephen's laying out in Acts 7, I gave some of my examples, but Stephen has his own as well. In this motif in Scripture, uh, the deliverer who is rejected but is God's chosen one. The stone who the builders have rejected has become the chief cornerstone. So there's these motifs that aren't necessarily direct prophecy, but it's prophetic in a way that I think is for sure happening in Hosea. But you want to start with the immediate context. And in Hosea the immediate context is the immediate judgment that God. So I recommend go back to Hosea1, read the whole thing, it's not that long. And you'll see Hosea has this amazing situation where he's told to marry like this woman who will be unfaithful and prostitute herself, and then he still is to love her. And it becomes a picture of Israel, what they've done to God, and that God still cares for them, but he wants them to come back and come back. Right. And so the implication is that primarily Hosea 6 is about what was going on at the time. But that doesn't mean you can't draw principles about God's love for his people where it's like the moment they turn, he is there to receive them. And I do think that that is his posture towards Israel today. So that's my answer. I hope it helps as best as I can. All right, number six, question number six. This comes from Aaron, who says, my parents church believes that baptism and communion can only be done in a local church setting because it's the only example we have in the Bible after the New Testament church was founded. Thoughts? Um, let's unpack that a bit because I do disagree. But the question's confusing and I'll explain why. Do you guys like my, uh, mug? This is actually my wife's friend gave it to her. That's right. If you know, you know. So, um, when you say it can only be done, or when your parents say it can only be done in the local church, I Think what they mean is probably, um, the church has a baptismal, and you have to do it your baptism in the baptismal. That's in the building where the local church gathers, and that the local leadership has to be involved doing it. Uh, that I disagree with. But the local church, like when you say local church, we use the phrase in multiple ways. I can say local church, and I mean the building. And I sometimes say it that way. I think it's just we've inherited this from English language. Um, but actually New Testament, like good theology says, the church isn't the building, it's the people. Like when Paul says greet, I think it's greet nymphas. And the church in her house. Right. So the church was meeting in this woman's house. She probably had a big home, and she offered it to host church services. And so you've got the church in her house. But the church is the people. The church is the gathering. The ecclesia. Uh, the gathering just means the people as individuals. Gatherings are never buildings. They're people. The minute you guys leave your church on Sunday morning, your church has left your building. The building is no longer the church. We still, through, uh, an unfortunate reality of English common usage, we still say, let's go to church, but try to. And I'm not saying you can't ever say that. It'd be nice if I can't even get myself to stop saying it. You know, it's just a habit. But in your head, at least try to tell yourself, we are the church gathering. Like right now, it's Friday, it's middle of the day. That building is not the church. The church is scattered all over the community. And on Sunday, we'll gather together, and that's when the church is there. So in that way, I want to say, if a person gets baptized inside of a, uh, bathtub in someone's house, but there's other Christians gathered, the church is there. Jesus says, whether, uh, two or more are gathered in my name, I am there with them. Well, you've got the guy getting baptized and the guy doing the baptizing. That's too. And I want to give a caution about rogue Christians in a second. For those who are worried about that, I am, too. I'll talk about that at the end of this answer. But clearly it's okay to get baptized outside of a church. Official church building, clearly, like 100% clearly. It's consistent in scripture. It happens numerous times. Let me give you one of the examples. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Let me get this passage going for you guys. Oh, uh, just a second. I'm just pulling it up. I don't remember the exact spot. Acts 8. Starting in, I'm gonna read the passage. Verse 26. This is so edifying to read this in more detail, even though we don't have to. But it's good. Good habit. Read the context. Now. An angel of the Lord spoke to Philip. Think about this in context of where you can get baptized. Saying, arise and go toward the south, along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is desert. So, um, he arose and went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury and had come to Jerusalem to worship, was returning and sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah, the prophet. Okay, so he's interested in scripture. He's reading Isaiah. He's obviously well off. He's got his own scroll of Isaiah. That's not common, but he's got his own scroll. He's reading it. Maybe he bought one in Jerusalem or something. Then the Spirit said to Philip, go near and overtake this chariot. So Philip ran to him and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah and said, I love this. He goes, do you understand what you're reading? It's a great opener for a conversation. Do you understand what you're reading? And he said, how can I unless someone guides me? Meaning this is. Have you read Isaiah? It does. It is challenging. It is a challenging thing to read. Hey, kitty. Micah just made her appearance. Um, she made an appearance at the very end of yesterday's video that I put up. If you guys want to go look for the last 30 seconds or so of that video. She's probably gonna annoy me right now. Okay, so do you understand what you're reading? How can I unless someone guides me? He asked Philip to come and sit with him. Verse 32. The place in the scripture, uh, which he read was this. He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent. So he opened not his mouth. In his humiliation, his justice was taken away. And who will declare his generation for his life is taken from the earth. So the eunuch answered Philip and said, I ask of you, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of some other man? I love this. Like, who is the Isaiah 53 guy? Who's this about? Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this, scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now, as they went down the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, see, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized. Then Philip didn't say, well, that can only be done in a local church. He said, if you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and he baptized him by immersion is clearly what's meant. Um, now, when they came up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord caught Philip away so that the eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way rejoicing. Micah agrees. Right? Right, Micah? She agrees. This is clearly an instance of. You're gonna stand there, aren't you? Um, of a person being baptized outside that context of a local church. Unless you think you've got two guys who believe in Jesus here. They're a gathering of Christians. Now, are they part of, like, an ecclesiastical organization? No. No, they're not. Of course, there is such thing as, like, an organized local church. Okay, that's fine. That's fair. You can say that. But clearly, baptism can happen. Two dudes riding in a chariot who look and see water on the side of the road and go, hey, want to get in and get baptized? Nothing hinders you. Nothing hinders you. You believe that's all that matters. You truly trust in Christ. Let's get down there and get you baptized. That's it. That's the biblical standard. So when you were told by them that baptism, uh, in, uh, a local church setting is the only example we have in the Bible, that is not true. Now, communion is the other one you mentioned. Um, baptism and communion can only be done in a local church setting. Uh, communion is going to be one. That's a controversial example. But I would say communion is ideally done in the gathering of the local church, the gathering of the believers together. The idea of communion is that we are not only one with Christ, but that we are collectively his body. And so we are proclaiming our unity with each other as we partake of communion. But if you are on hospice and you are sitting there in a hospital bed and a, uh, brother in Christ shows up to you, I don't care if he's a pastor. And they show up to you, and they say, I. I want to pray with you and have communion together, that is a beautiful and wonderful thing you don't want to be doing. Now, uh, let me. And there's nothing in scripture that explicitly says, like, you can't do this. Or you shouldn't do this. It says, do this in remembrance of me. You know, Jesus does it initially with a small group of 12 disciples. That's it. That was the initial inauguration of this concept. Um, now there are those who believe that communion only really carries its full authority and weight. If you have an authorized leader, like a priest or president, some guy who's up there who's important, they're, uh, ordained for this, and they guide you in communion. They say special words maybe, or a special prayer, and then that makes it really communion. That is extra biblical information, and I wouldn't bind people with that. Now, let me talk about rogue Christians. If there are decent, even halfway decent local churches in your area and you're getting baptized apart from them, I think that that is a mistake. I don't think it's something where you're like, in great sin against God. I'm not saying that, but I think it's a mistake. I think that we should get baptized in the local church. And this is why in my ministry, though, I've had many people reach out to me. Mike, will you baptize me? Uh, I'll go to your area in California. I just want to be baptized. And I've always responded the same way, which is you should really get involved in a local church and get baptized there. That, I think, is important. I don't think it's necessary. I think that you can do what. So I had two guys that wanted to be baptized that were part of our church, and they really wanted. And our next baptism, for a variety of reasons, was scheduled six months out. Six months out. And I mean, imagine if Philip's like, tell you what, next time you come to Jerusalem, we'll get a baptism together. We'll get a group of Christians, and we'll pray over you, and we'll be glorious. And he's like, well, I'll be back in six months. No, he just baptized him. Right? So not being able to have some sort of sometime soon baptism for people who are committing their lives to Christ, I understand people saying, I'm not doing this in rebellion of the local church. I'm not doing this in replacement of the local gathering of Christians. I'm doing this because this is what's available to us. I can't say in the next few days or next week or two, get a baptism together for this person. Now there are those who delay baptism until some longer catechism goes on, and there are, like, months of learning before they can get baptized. I think that is also an Extra biblical pattern, um, that we don't see in Scripture. And I'm not saying it doesn't have some benefits, but if it's not modeled in Scripture, I'm not making it part of my standard practice that I require others to do. Um, Scripture seems to go the opposite direction. So hope that answers Your question number seven, Mark. Uh, Joel Hep. You know, YouTube did this thing, guys, where instead of showing your screen name, it shows your, like, stuff, which is now I can't read your screen name might be something really cool, um, like Bill Bro Baggins. I'm just gonna pretend your screen name is Bill Breaux Baggins. I just made that up, and I think it's very entertaining to me. But anyway, so that's why I'm reading these names. Uh, you know, Mark, I can't even read the rest. I don't understand it. But, you know, who knows what your actual screen name is? This is what YouTube does to me. Now, regarding teenagers, Mark asks ages 13 to 18, uh, what are the most crucial things to teach them once they make the decision to follow Christ? Tools to give them to guard against wolves and bad doctrine. Okay, um, Teaching them, in my opinion, at least, um, how to read the Bible. Like, how to read it. Well, very important. Very, very important. So, like, going through the scripture and having them talk about it and think about it and interact about it and testing their views and evaluating their opinions about things with scripture, um, basic Christian doctrine, super important, um, and targeting the things that they in particular will be tempted with and will be confronted with in their culture. So that may be different. You know, like, if you were in the second century, you'd be like, we better get these teenagers prepared to deal with Gnosticism, because Gnosticism was a big thing at the time. And right now, uh, maybe what you need to do is get them ready to deal with communism or, um, to deal with. And this is something we have, we're not on top of right now because we're still figuring it out. But the nature of online, the online world and social media and all that has changed things so much. As far as what our shared knowledge actually is. We don't really have a lot of shared knowledge. We have pockets of, um, shared opinions that we reside in. And I often see young people go sideways and get weird because they've just sort of, through the Internet, through social media, through TikTok or whatever, they crawled into a pocket of shared beliefs that their parents don't know about, their church doesn't know about. And so I Think that helping equip them to navigate in those environments is really important. And so keeping up the communication, like, what are you seeing? What are you thinking? What are the challenges? Not just teaching the kids, but also learning from them what they're going through, I think is really important. I always think, like, who are the kid goes sideways in some weird way. I always wonder, who are they following on YouTube, who are they following on TikTok? Um, what subculture are they part of now? Because almost certainly in most cases you will find the answer to what they believe in the subculture they've involved themselves in on the Internet or on social media. So that's something to prepare people for. Um, but yeah, but otherwise it's the general answer of knowing how to read the Word. Well, um, and then of course the basic Christian doctrine, you know, get uh, them in the old school verse phrases catechized, which is not a Catholic term. Okay, that's just a term. But like you're getting them taught the basics of the faith. That's a good thing. I, um, wouldn't use the catechism for it, but the Catholic one. But yeah, that. And then, um, the subculture issues that we're dealing with, which is a modern present problem. But I would also really emphasize personal discipleship. That is get them where they're reading the Word daily, where they're confessing their sins before the Lord, where they're getting help to deal with the challenges they have in their walk with Christ and they're growing in sanctification and holiness. Those are the things, you know. Do I have like a five step plan of how to do it? No, um, I wish I could say I did, but it doesn't. And um. So, yeah, those are some thoughts. Hope that helps and you can show my videos. Maybe that'll help a little. Maybe they'll probably think I'm boring. All right, number eight, pure joy. Kathy says, when Jesus told the woman at the well that she had five husbands, is it not a possibility that she may have been widowed five times? People always assume that she was divorced five times. Um, so let's go to the passage and let's look at it ourselves. Was she widowed four times? Oops, sorry. Um, or was she actually divorced five times? Or can we tell? So, um, we're going to back up and read more of the context. I'm going to read the whole thing. Therefore, verse one of chapter four of John, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard, Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples. He left Judea and departed again to Galilee. But he needed to go through Samaria. He had to get through there. It was of necessity. So he came to a city of Samaria, which is called Sicar, near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now, Jacob's well, Jacob had dug a well, was, uh, there. Jesus, therefore, being wearied from his journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour, A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, give me a drink. Now, there's a lot of commentaries that will suggest that this woman coming at the sixth hour was odd. This is not. Usually they would go out as a group. This is what I've heard. Um, I haven't double checked this information, but I think it's interesting. I'll share it. That, uh, they would go out as a group to the well, and they would usually go earlier in the day when it was cooler and stuff. And so the sixth hour of the day, that sixth hour after sunlight, we're talking like middle of the day, she heads out to the well. Maybe she's feeling like she is separated from the other people in the culture, or, I don't know, maybe she just slept in that day. Like, we don't really know. I don't want to read too much into it, but it's an interesting thing. So, uh, she goes, and she's the only one currently there. For his disciples had gone away into the city. So the woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, give me a drink. For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. Then the woman of Samaria said to him, and this may have been because she's bringing, um, so there's a well there, but maybe she might be bringing like a bucket or something like that that she can attach to the well to actually get the water, right. So he would not be capable of collecting water because he didn't have a vessel to put it in. That may be why he's like, hey, give me a drink. Then the woman of Samaria said to him, how is it that you, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman? For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. Jesus answered and said to her, if you knew the gift of God and who it is, who says to you, give me a drink, you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water. And she seems like she kind of maybe mocking him a little bit. Um, the woman said, to him, sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock? So for the Samaritans, this ability to say, we have the well that Jacob dug and we can lay claim to some, like, sort of historical connection and some, you know, clout, uh, related to this, that's. That's what she's getting at here when she's like. Because she. As a Samaritan, she's thinking, they're the ones that are right and the Jews are wrong. And the Jews are like, we're right and you're wrong. And of course, modern culture, we like, everyone's right and no one's wrong, and they're silly. But anyway, Jesus answered and said to her, whoever drinks of this water will thirst again. But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. He's talking about salvation. Jesus will satisfy the deepest need of life, of eternal life. He will grant you eternal life such that you are never thirsty again. Uh, this isn't just emotional filling. It's bigger and better than that. You being emotionally filled is nice, but that's not enough. This is eternal life overflowing from you because of Christ. The woman said to him, sir, give me this water that I might not thirst, nor come here to draw. I still think she's being a little bit sarcastic to him. Right? Um, Jesus said to her, go call your husband and come here. And the woman answered and said, I have no husband. I have no husband. Jesus knew what he was doing. He says, go call your husband and come here. This is him changing the subject from the living water over to the subject of the state of the woman so that she might realize who he is. So that she'll move from sarcasm or mockery or superiority to a sense of like, he really can give me living water. I want that. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, you have well said, I have no husband, for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband in that you spoke truly. Okay, um. She's had five husbands. Could she be widowed five times? It's a statistical unlikelihood that a woman has been widowed five times. Uh, that if a woman had been widowed four times, that she'd get the next One that it just seems unlikely. Um, there was most likely divorce. And there were those in Jesus's time who believed in a no fault divorce, but they believed in it specifically. The men can divorce with no fault. Why was she divorced five times? We don't know. It might be that she just kept getting losers, um, that were jerks that divorced her. It might be that she was very difficult to live with. We don't know. But when you've had five husbands, the statistical chances that all five of them have died are extremely low. Extremely low. And when Jesus mentions this, it seems like a moral rebuke, right? Like the. Now here's a biblical implication is that you read this passage again, verse 17, she goes, I have no husband. This seems like a moral rebuke that he's giving her. You have well said, I have no husband. For you have had five husbands and the one whom you now have is not your husband. In that you spoke truly, that phrase, the one you now have is not your husband implies that it is either somebody else's husband or that she's just sleeping with a man outside of marriage. That seems like a moral rebuke from Jesus. And he started by saying, bring your husband who is not her husband. The man she's with is not her husband. The implication is that this is a moral correction being brought to her. Jesus exposes sin, that he might bring people to the cross. Right. Um, and so if it's a moral correction that fits more consistently, if her five husbands are not just the tragedy of her losing, losing people because they die, right, then that's no moral correction in that. There's no moral correction in that. That wouldn't be consistent with the flavor of the passage. Um, and so then she goes on, she goes, I perceive you're a prophet. And they have this whole conversation. It's really interesting. I won't go into detail for the sake of time, but my opinion is a natural reading, is to think that she's had multiple divorces. Even if one of them died. Ah, it would be sort of an unlikely reading. The less likely assumption that they're all just simply they all died. And that the implication that Jesus is providing her a moral mirror to see herself in light with some issues in her life suggests that these husbands were not all like faultless. The failure of these marriages or the loss of these husbands, whatever it was, she was not necessarily faultless in it. That was implied, I think in the passage. Okay, number nine, let's look at Kai, who says, what does Peter mean in 1st Peter 4. 8, when he says love covers a multitude of sins, specifically, what does cover mean compared to a sin being forgiven by Jesus? So let's look at the passage first. Peter 4.
8
01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:27.000
8. Um,
9
01:16:27.000 --> 01:28:31.000
here we go. Okay, so. But the end of all things is at hand. Therefore, be serious and watchful in your prayers. A good, um, thing to remind ourselves. And above all things, have fervent love for one another. For love will cover a multitude of sins. And if you'll notice, this is in quotes and it's actually quoting another passage of Scripture. So first, I just want to give us Peter's context. He's talking about Christians who are loving other Christians. So these are saved people loving saved people. And he says that in the context of me loving other believers. I have an attitude where my love covers their sins. Okay? Not cover up culture, not hiding their accountability that they have towards other people. Right. Not that, but an attitude of graciousness where I treat people with kindness and grace and all that. So, um, there's three references here, least in the new King James that offers three references, and one of them is James, uh, 5:20. Let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. James, context different than Peter's. James is talking here about a person who has, like, wandered from the faith through their sinful behaviors. Uh, or at least they seem like they have. Um, and you could say, well, this is, um, you can bring up the question of whether someone can lose their salvation. Um, but that is what the surface level reading of James 5:20 looks like, and there may be other valid interpretations of it. Again, on this issue, I'm still on the fence, so I'm not going to try to weigh in on it. Um, but he's talking about something that actually has relation to their salvation. Right? So James, when he quotes covering a multitude of sins, he is talking about, like, forgiveness of sins actually being forgiven by God from those sins. Okay? 1 Corinthians says love is patient. Love is kind, does not envy or boast. It is not arrogant. This is just referring to love being patient. Patient, that is. What are you patient with? You're patient with things that bother you, things that are wrong that another person does, and you offer them patience. That context of love is different than, uh, you know, different than what James is talking about because he's talking about actual forgiveness before God. Um, then we've got Proverbs 10, 12. Okay, so James, forgiveness before God. Peter, interaction Christians among Christians, Love covering Multitude of sins relationally, me and you, not you and God, but me and you. Um, and verse 12 of Proverbs 10 says, Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses. That's also relational. So you can talk about covering sin or covering lots of sins or multitudes of sins. You can discuss that in various ways. But in, um, uh, I just showed you the ESV I'm bouncing around and it may be confusing to people, but there's the new King James. Same thing. Um, but what we're seeing with this concept of covering sin is that I think showing James and Peter is that there's two different levels of this. And this has always been the case. There's forgiveness before God and then there's forgiveness before people. And I can forgive the sins of somebody committed towards me. For my part, I can offer forgiveness. I cannot get them forgiven before God. Only Jesus and his blood can do that. James is talking about bringing back someone who's wandered, that they might have their sins covered before the Lord. Right. Save their soul. Um, whereas Peter is talking about a Christian community where of course you will sin against each other, but have that same attitude that God has where he's willing to forgive sins. Uh, have that same attitude towards each other where you're willing to forgive doesn't mean you made him right with God, but you're letting the community be held together by an attitude of grace and forgiveness. And you will need this. There are no long term relationships without grace and forgiveness. I have to forgive my wife for things. She has to forgive me for things. And if love doesn't cover a multitude of our sins against one another, then we will not have a very good relationship. Uh, it doesn't excuse sin, doesn't make sin. Okay. It just acknowledges that we can't have such. We have to have the high standards of holiness, but we can't have hearts of unforgiveness. That's the thing you don't want to have. So I'm going to read your question again to see if I'm answering it carefully, because sometimes I go off on my own thoughts. Um, what does Peter mean when he says in 1 Peter 4:8 that love, uh, covers a multitude of sins. Specifically, what does cover mean compared to sin being forgiven by Jesus? I think cover. In this case it means forgive, but not in First Peter in particular. I'll go back to it right now. Um, first Peter 4:12. What does cover mean in this passage? Um, it's not 4:12. It was 4:8. Uh, the end of all things is at hand. Therefore, be serious and watchful in your prayers. And above all things, have fervent love for one another. For love will cover a multitude of sins. I think that it's cover in this sense is offering that grace of forgiveness toward other people out of love. So forgiveness because of love, you're offering it to them. That seems to be the context of the Proverbs passage as well. And an exception to this where the same phrase covering multitude of sins is used is James, where it seems to be talking about your relationship with God. Not human to human, but between you and God, which actually gets rid of the punishment of sin. Because when God forgives, the one who has the gavel of the universe has forgiven you. Um, so. Okay, hope that answers your question. Just trying to let context dictate the meaning. Number 10, last question. I guess we have a bonus question after that. But Anna, something says if a brother sins against me, M. Can I use wisdom to judge whether his repentance is real or should I give the benefit of the doubt? I want to forgive, but his words are passive and full of excuses. Oh, good question. So relevant, so real. Um, and it's important. There's people who will sin against you use forgiveness as a manipulative tool in order to get you again, in order just to get you into their pocket or back into that situation where they're just going to continue doing the same thing over and over. Now sometimes the same thing over and over is just not a big enough deal where you break off relationship and you're like, yeah, they still do that. Sometimes they don't show up like they said they would. But I'm not going to cut them off relationally. Uh, m. Other times it's the sin they're doing is of a much higher. It's more of like a deal breakers issue. In which case, yeah, you may have to even cut off a relationship. Although people cut off relationships too quickly usually. Um, and some people wait too long. So yeah, it goes both ways. But anyway, if a brother sins against me, can I use wisdom to judge whether his repentance is real or should I give the benefit of the doubt? I believe you should use wisdom to test and see if repentance is real. You shouldn't do it with like a I'm better than you attitude or with pride or arrogance. But I think it's okay to have patience and to look and say, I want to test and I want to give you the chance to show me that your words are real. And a really good example of this, in Scripture, is Joseph and his brothers. So in the book of Genesis, Joseph is sold by his brothers into slavery. He goes to the jail. He's there for a while. Then he goes to Potiphar, or, excuse me, he goes to Potiphar, rather. He's there for a while. Potiphar's, uh, wife tries to take, uh, advantage of him. Um, and he resists. And he says, how can I sin against God and Potiphar by doing this. He goes to jail. He's then raised up from jail to the right hand of Pharaoh. He's interpreting dreams. He's giving them wisdom. They, you know, save the crops. They get saved from the famine. And here comes his brothers. Hey, we need some. We need some food. And guess who they stand before is Joseph. And Joseph gives them a test. And I think this test is okay. It may seem a little odd to you, but I think it's okay. Because Joseph is seeing them, and they hated him because he was the favored only son of his father from the favorite wife. Okay? All the other sons came from, not from her. So then you've got his younger son or his younger brother, rather, who, just like him, might be in peril from these same brothers. So he lays out a test, and he takes that youngest son, and he says, let me, uh, put him. They'll think he's in peril. And I'll say, you need to do such and such. I won't recount the whole story to prove that you guys are legitimate. Do this, and then I'll give you back your brother. He's seeing if they will protect that brother. Because if they really are regretful of what they did in the past, it won't just because he's in power over them now. They don't know who he is yet. It'll be because of the way they treat this young guy. So Benjamin taken in, and Reuben shows up in this amazing moment where he's like, don't take him. Take me instead. I'll go in his place. Because it would kill our father if he lost. He already lost his other son. It would kill him if he lost this one too. Um, and that's when Joseph saw these guys really are different. Now. There were still family tensions. There were still issues, but he saw these guys were really different. And he reveals himself, and he's crying, and he wants to comfort them, and they're scared. It was an interesting moment. But what we have here is a guy who is ready to forgive, but is also ready to test and to check. And that is entirely appropriate. Um, yeah. Are you genuine? Well, I'd like to see some fruits of repentance. That would be nice. I want to see some fruits of repentance. When the tax collector says, I give back a third, and I give back. If anybody, I forget the numbers. If anybody I've wronged, let them tell me and I will pay them back. I think it was double, um, what they were defrauded from because of me. That is fruit of repentance, man. Like, I can trust that that guy is legit and real. So that is appropriate to look for fruits of repentance. And yes, you should use wisdom to judge if repentance is real. Now, life is complicated, and sometimes you will have no way of judging it and you have no way of knowing it. But it's okay to be patient. And depending on the degree of the sin, you may withhold relationship or withhold, like, a certain degree of closeness because you want to be wise, you know? And Joseph stands in Genesis 50, uh, 49. I forget which chapter the great reveal happens. It's not 50, I don't think. No, no, no, no. So, um, yeah, just based on which chapter. But when you go back to Genesis and look at it, you'll see, like, hey, this happens in the text as well. And when you have people like Paul the Apostle, like, for instance, Paul the Ap. Persecuting the church, and the church was reluctant to receive him because they're like, what if it's a trick? What if he's lying now he's a Christian. But when Paul went forward and preached the gospel and they attacked him for it, and he went and did it again anyways, that was proof of the genuineness of his faith. So it's a good thing. Anyway, that's where I would end that. And I'm going to go to the next question. Says bonus question from Mike Bacotti, who says, did you miss us because we missed you? Yeah, uh, I did. Uh, and I was itching, you know, to like, oh, I could do a video on this. I could do something. But I just was like, no, I really need to recharge, and I'm focused on some other things and get other things done, which I did. And I won't tell you all the stuff I did because some of it's stuff that I shouldn't announce. Um, but, uh, yeah, um, I missed the opportunities to, uh. It's a little weird for me to be transparent. Guys like, you see me, you hear my voice. This is the real me. I'm being myself. I'm obviously being myself, on best behavior. Everybody is on camera. So I'm sure if you got to know me, you'd find more flaws and issues in me than you would expect. Um, but you do know me. Like, this is who I really am. And at, um, the same time, I just know little, tiny, little snippets and pieces of you guys because I'll see your comments and replies and all that kind of thing. I did miss that.
10
01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:33.000
Um.
11
01:28:33.000 --> 01:31:41.000
Uh, but what to me is the best is when I get to meet you guys in person, like we did. There was a conference that I did, um, over at, uh, my church, um, earlier, I guess it was last month. And it was really cool to get to meet people and talk with them and get to hear a little bit of their stories and see their faces and know these are, like, my brothers and sisters. And if you ever meet me, don't. I don't think I'm, um, m. I'm not here. I'm right here, eye to eye with you. Okay. Hope you know what that means. So. Yeah. Yeah. I missed, uh. I missed getting to connect with you guys as much as I do when we're doing this stuff online. So we are back at it. Next Friday will be another Q and A tackling more issues. I have so many things that I want to do. We'll see how many of those things I can actually do. I won't make too many announcements. I'll just be dropping videos, um, as I'm able to. So that's good, I hope, from this video. I'd love it if I heard back from Matt Walsh on his thoughts on this. I'm super curious to hear him tackle it. Um, I thought he gave a very cogent and accurate tweet and argument. I just think that it's the, uh, Catechism of the Catholic Church. It does violate what he just said because of the last paragraph, the last sentence, rather, that I read, where it says, like, this is clearly a moral sin. Like, the implication is, this is moral, it's morally wrong to the death penalty, which flies in the face of Catholic tradition and Scripture. Love to hear Matt, um, Walsh's opinion, if he has the time for it. Uh, hopefully without the snark. Or with the snark, it's coming either way. I mean, I'm snarky, too, so what am I? Who am I to complain? All right, pray. Um, Father, we ask that you'd help us to be people who are aware of the times that we're in. Um, like the sons of Issachar who understood the times and knew what to do. Uh, that's what we desperately need right now. I pray that you'd help Christians, myself, those listening whoever sees this video. Help us help your believers, Lord, to see the times and know what to do. Because that's the part that we're bad at, I think. I think we see the times, but we don't know what to do. And we ask for great wisdom. We pray that your church could get its marching orders from the Holy Spirit, and we would step into this tumultuous time, and we would see incredible work of the Holy Spirit and great revival and tons of salvations and amazing good things happening because Christians, uh, get their heads up and lead the way. In Jesus name, Amen. Sa.