WWUTT 950 Q&A Apologia Radio, Abortion Arguments, William Lane Craig, and the Bible Project?

What are my thoughts about Apologia Radio? How do we respond to pro -abortion arguments?

Have I heard the latest interview with William Lane Craig? And should we be concerned about the Bible Project? The answers to these questions when we understand the text.

Many of the Bible stories and verses we think we know, we don't. When we understand the text is an online ministry committed to teaching sound doctrine and exposing the faulty.

Visit our website at www .utt .com. Now here's our host, Pastor Gabe Hughes.

Thank you, Becky, who is not in studio with me today. I know

I hear the disappointment in your gasps while you're driving in the car or listening in the kitchen.

Some of you are even reaching for that stop button already and you're going, I can't do this. I can't listen to Gabe without Becky.

He is intolerable. Hey, I sympathize with you. I don't want to live without my wife either. But you are stuck with me today.

Friday edition of the podcast broadcast. And you can submit your questions to when we understand the text at gmail .com.

This first one is from Chris in Alberta, Canada. Dear Pastor Gabe and Becky, thank you for your ministry of the word of God.

I have heard it said from James White that there is an 11th commandment among Southern Baptists.

Thou shalt be nice or thou shalt not expose another Southern Baptist. Yeah, however you want to word that, you're just not supposed to say anything negative about another

Southern Baptist or Southern Baptist entity. It's the epitome of if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Only as it pertains to your fellow Southern Baptists and no matter how ridiculous they can be.

Sometimes you just don't don't expose the SBC, which is a manmade institution.

And as a manmade institution, it's full of sinners. And there are some bad things that happen in the

SBC. There are bad people who should not have the jobs that they have, who are not pursuing righteousness.

They are not good leaders. They're terrible teachers. And so I believe that those things should be exposed as much as they should be exposed in any human institution.

When when we have false teachers that are leading the sheep astray, those shepherds, false shepherds need to be exposed.

Those who feed themselves rather than feeding the sheep. So it doesn't matter to me whether they're Southern Baptists or not. I go by the word of God, not my denomination anyway.

So continuing on with Chris's comment, I thank God most high that you are not one of those people. That's kind of the point that Chris was getting to.

It is a tradition of men. But you have faithfully stood up through the what videos and exposed the unbiblical teachings of Beth Moore, Andy Stanley, Rick Warren and Stephen Furtick without compromise.

Praise God for your courage and firm stance in the gospel. Please continue to stand firm against false teaching and launch these much needed thrusts against our enemy using the word of God.

Blessings in Christ. I so appreciate that, Chris. Yes, I am not scoring any points with my fellow Southern Baptists the way that I confront some of these things sometimes.

And I will say that on my own part, there have been occasions where I've gone a little overboard.

I probably overstepped my bounds. I've done that a time or two, been embarrassed about it. Occasionally, I'll apologize if necessary or if somebody has directly confronted me and said,

I think that you were wrong in this. And if the if the spirit has so convicted me in that same way,

I'll agree with that person and say, you're right. And I'll need to apologize for that or go to that person and apologize.

So I haven't always done it the best way. But nevertheless, we should not take for granted that just because we're a part of the same denomination that everybody is right, just because I most closely align with the doctrines that are taught in the

Southern Baptist Convention, as opposed to any other denomination, does not mean that I'm just automatically going to assume that everybody in the

Southern Baptist Convention is on the same page regarding the names that you mentioned there, Chris, you said

Beth Moore, Andy Stanley, Rick Warren and Stephen Furtick. Andy Stanley is not Southern Baptist. He was raised

Southern Baptist, but North Point in Atlanta is a non -denominational church. They're not even affiliated with a particular denomination.

Everybody thinks Andy Stanley is Southern Baptist because he gets invited to all the

Southern Baptist stuff. I can't even I can't even count the number of E .R .L .C. events that Stanley has been invited to.

And I think it's even more than our molars has been that I don't think Dr. Moeller speaks at that many

E .R .L .C. events, as many as Andy Stanley does. And of course, he's the son of Charles Stanley, who was once a president of the

Southern Baptist Convention. So that's why Andy Stanley is assumed to be Southern Baptist. But if there's anything

I'm going to defend my denomination on, it's that Stanley is not part of it. The Andy Stanley, anyway, he isn't part of it.

Yes, his teaching is false, needs to be called out. And that's one of the reasons why

Dr. Moeller has done so as freely as he has, is because he doesn't have to violate that 11th commandment of the

Southern Baptist Convention. Thou shalt not speak ill of another Southern Baptist. He doesn't have to follow that commandment when talking about Andy Stanley, because Andy Stanley is not a

Southern Baptist. Now, I have great respect for Dr. Albert Moeller.

I don't want that to come across as me saying that he is somehow bound by that 11th commandment. But I know as a president of the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he has to be wise in the way that he responds to certain situations. I can say as someone who admires the man, there are certain things that I wish he would speak up about and be more vocal about.

But but I still pray for him. And I appreciate the leadership that he has brought to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary or to the

Southern Baptist Convention at large as the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Does that mean I agree with everything that he has said and done? No, it does not. But I still love the briefing, highly encourage everybody to listen to it.

And even guys like James White and Phil Johnson say they listen to the briefing every morning.

Next question. This one comes from Kevin in Manitoba, Canada. We're still up there above the the northern

U .S. border. Good day. Is Apologia Radio OK to listen to? I vaguely remember you mentioning them.

I just can't remember if it was good or bad, if it was a good or bad comment. Thank you for your time.

P .S. Not really a question for the podcast, but feel free to use if you feel they deserve a quick shout out.

Yes, Kevin, I highly recommend Apologia Radio, as I tend to call it, because that is the

Greek word. But they pronounce it Apologia. So all right. I have to constantly remind myself that that's actually the pronunciation that they go by.

Apologia Church down in Arizona, which James White is now an elder for. And and of course,

Jeff Durbin being the pastor there. And I don't think I can name any other elders. I have exchanges at least once a week with Marcus Pittman through Twitter.

And Marcus does kind of like all the A .V. stuff with the videos that get shot and posted on the

Apologia channel on YouTube and things like that. I think Apologia is an outstanding ministry, not just in the content that they're producing and releasing on YouTube for absolutely free.

I think that there's a certain subscription that you can get into and there's some other content that they release to you if you subscribe.

It's a paid subscription. So let's say they release publicly and for free about two thirds of the material.

And then there's another third of the material that you can access if you're a paid subscriber, I think. I'm not sure if they still do that or not, but I love the stuff that they produce and release on YouTube.

And there's so much of that. I haven't considered becoming a paid subscriber.

I may donate to the ministry at some point. But Jeff is a terrific apologist.

They do great witnessing out on the streets. I think if you're going to listen to Ray Comfort do his street evangelism, you should also listen to Jeff Durbin.

And Jeff has even done some stuff with Ray Comfort. They've even done co -ministry together.

James White, of course, is part of that as well. And so you'll see James White even in some of those videos. What Summer White Jager is doing with Sheologians, which in itself is a bit of an offshoot of Apologia, especially since she's part of that church.

That's a great podcast. I can't say it's really my flavor. I've listened to a few episodes, but I don't think

Summer would be offended by me saying that. But she is a gifted young woman, and I particularly love her writing.

I hope she does write some more, in fact, because just about every time she puts out a blog, I try to read it.

But anyway, all of that kind of encompassed in the Apologia network of ministry that they do.

And I think they're doing a fabulous job. Winning souls for the kingdom. They also put the exercise of their faith out on display with the kind of goodwill that they even do in their community and in the outreach ministry that exists there in Arizona.

I can't say enough nice things about them. I think that Apologia does some great work and you are receiving some good, excellent

Bible teaching and witnessing and things of that nature when you watch their content. Now, if I've said anything negative about Apologia in the past, it was probably related to postmillennialism or theonomy.

I am not a postmillennial reconstructionist. I seem to gather that Jeff Durbin is, but not everyone over there at Apologia is that way.

For example, Marcus Pittman is not even a Baptist and it's a Baptist church.

Apologia is a Baptist church. Marcus Pittman is Presbyterian, which actually had me fooled there for a little while thinking that Apologia was a

Presbyterian church and it's not. They're Baptist. James White is amillennial while Jeff Durbin is postmillennial in his eschatology.

So they really seem to be very free and open to different theological viewpoints.

And that's really quite rare to see in a ministry anymore, especially one that is out there doing apologetics and discernment type ministry like Apologia generally does.

Now, I want to clarify on the discernment side of things. When I say discernment, I don't mean that they're really out there targeting evangelicalism and finding all those false teachers, those who claim to be

Christian, but really are not. They are confronting Mormonism. They're confronting the independent, fundamental

Baptist side of thing. And like the radical IFB, I understand there are sound

IFB churches, but you're talking like the radical guys like Steven Anderson and stuff like that. They've confronted those kinds of things.

Black Hebrew Israelites. I don't think that's so much Apologia, but I know that James White has done that. Anyway, so there's there's a lot of facets to the ministry of what they do.

And I don't think anybody's going to go wrong watching Apologia radio. I've not seen any indication of the ministry steering anyone in a particular direction that I would that would cause me in any way, shape or form to discourage them from listening to Durbin or White and company.

I watch the videos more often than I listen to the podcast. I really haven't heard that many podcasts unless they're interviewing a guest and talking about a particular topic that very much interests me.

But nevertheless, I don't think you can you can go wrong with Apologia. There was a young man that attended my church.

This was five years ago. Might not have been that long ago, at least four. But anyway, he was it didn't have a career job.

He just worked kind of odds and ends. Jobs really was into Apologia radio. And I actually recommended to him,

I think you should move down Arizona way and try to go to Apologia church. He didn't for some reason.

He went east. I'm not sure why. When you're when you've got no strings attached, you're not tied down anywhere and you can go anywhere you want.

I don't know why he wouldn't just go to the church that had most captivated his attention at that particular time.

Anyway, I hope that, Kevin, you've gleaned from that Apologia has my blessing.

This next question comes from Mary in Alabama. Hello, Pastor Gabe and Becky. I've been listening to your podcast and watching your videos for some time.

I am from the state of Alabama, and I am very grateful to my state for passing the pro -life law.

My question is how to handle the pro -abortion people online. On my Instagram feed,

I posted a thank you to Alabama and found myself dealing with negative comments. Unfortunately, I became a bit sarcastic.

I ended up deleting the comments and apologizing to my followers. I want to be able to stand firm.

They, the pro -abortion folks, are not going away. But it's important that I show and speak truth in grace and love.

I wasn't very graceful or loving any suggestions. I'm going to be discussing this with my pastor as well, but I think it would be a timely thing for your listeners.

God bless you. And I'm praying for your ministry, family and church. Mary from Alabama. Mary, about the best resource that I think that I could recommend to you on how to deal with pro -abortion folks and do this in a kind and respectful way is to check out the

DVD series entitled Life is Best that was put out by Wretched. Now, I'm actually in that DVD series.

So but no personal bias affecting my recommendation of that series.

It's led primarily by Scott Klusendorf, who is a bioethicist. In fact,

Scott Klusendorf's arguments related to being able to help a person see that a child in the womb is a life that needs to be protected.

The arguments that Scott Klusendorf lays out are used by Jeff Durbin and Apologia when they go out and do their ministry outside abortion clinics.

That's another ministry, by the way, that you can check out and and see how they engage with people outside those clinics.

Any of those Apologia videos, which you can watch for free on YouTube, engaging folks outside the clinics the way that they do it gently, respectfully.

It's incredible the kind of cool head that they will keep, though the people who talk to them and yell at them and scream at them are hurling obscenities, some of them doing some really nasty and gross things to try to ridicule the

Apologia crew that's out there or throw them off their game or anything, whatever their intentions might be.

Yet the Apologia folks are so calm and loving of those individuals there, knowing that they have been ensnared by Satan.

And it's only the truth of the gospel that's going to set them free. They're not only making rational arguments that are sound in truth and according to natural order, but they are also bringing the hearer the gospel so that they're not just hearing an argument for life in the womb, but they are hearing the call to turn from sin and believe the gospel and live.

We can save the life of a child. But if the gospel is not there, what are we really doing? We're not preparing souls for eternity, which really needs to be the main focus.

So even when I am trying to engage somebody on the abortion topic, I'm still going to try to get the gospel in there because and the abortion issue, by the way, opens the door for us to be able to do that.

The whole point of talking with somebody about abortion is not to win the abortion argument.

We can use the abortion issue, especially when it comes up in the the like current events, vernacular like it is now because of laws being passed in Ohio and Georgia and Alabama and Missouri.

And so this puts it on the forefront of the news. And anytime you mention something about it on social media, you're going to have those people who are pro abortion is going to be coming after you.

And they just want to argue. They want to call you names. They want to put you down. They're going to say it's and make their very, very lame arguments.

This is about a woman's autonomy. It's about her body or rights to her body. Well, what you're arguing for the rights to her body means she's going to be killing another body.

So you you have a completely inconsistent argument going on there. You can't say this is about bodily autonomy while at the same time you're destroying someone else's body.

One of the things that we need to keep in mind whenever we approach the abortion argument is that abortion is murder and we should never take that out of the engagement.

There are so many pro -life individuals out there who don't want to call it that because they don't want a woman to feel bad or some

I don't really even understand the motivation behind. We can't call it murder or we can't say that a woman is murdering her child.

The woman is just as responsible as the abortion doctor. He's got more babies that he has killed.

A mother who's had an abortion has killed one, two, three babies or maybe more. Whereas the abortion doctor has killed thousands and sometimes tens of thousands.

So it's just a matter of quantity. But they are guilty of the same sin.

A woman needs to know that what she has done is murdered a child. And we can lovingly tell them this.

In fact, it is loving to tell them that to tell them if you've had an abortion, you've murdered someone.

The only way that they will be able to find forgiveness for their sins and peace with God is if they know exactly what it is that they have done.

And yet Christ has died exactly for this sin. There is not a sin that has not been covered over by the precious blood of Christ.

He has died even for the sin of abortion, murdering a baby in the womb.

And there are mothers that not only mothers who are guilty of this, but there are fathers, those fathers who have neglected the responsibility that they have to the woman whom they impregnated, instead left them to the the the open laws in this country that allow for a mother to murder their child, which, by the way, rapists, misogynists, the sexist, those who abuse women take advantage of them, the promiscuous.

These guys love abortion. The more these abortion laws are available out there, the more we can have abortions, the more there's going to be misogynists and rapists and etc.

taking advantage of women, getting them pregnant because, hey, woman's just going to decide on her own to go run on down to the abortion clinic and get herself an abortion.

If the United States government decides that abortion is going to be a taxpayer thing, like we're even going to use tax dollars to pay for a woman's abortion, it is going to be even more rampant than it has ever been.

The the rape, the taking advantage of women, the the conning them into having sex and then dumping them one night stands, et cetera, et cetera.

I mean, all this stuff is just going to increase in abundance because if the law allows for a woman to go and get an abortion and then there's no strings attached,

I don't have to worry about the baby. I don't have to give child support. It just gives all the more power to the men to take advantage of women.

So you would think that in this MeToo movement, that there would be more opposition to abortion and and instead these people have become even more and more rabid.

But even though they are going to be as vicious and as nasty as they are with their arguments, we cannot respond the same way.

They are going to revile us, but we cannot revile in return. And that's that's something that Peter shared with us.

In fact, in first Peter, chapter two, where it says Jesus was reviled and when he was reviled, he did not revile in return when he suffered.

He did not threaten, but he continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

And first Peter three, 15 and 16, I think, goes along with this as well as we're talking about responding to people with sound, apologetic and and also gracious arguments when we respond in this particular issue.

First Peter three, 15 and 16 says in your heart set apart Christ the Lord as holy, always being ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within you.

But doing this with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

It's possible that when you engage in this argument with somebody else, you may not change their mind, but you don't understand, especially as this goes on social media, where it's kind of out in front of everybody and thinking you don't realize how many people are probably reading the exchange that you have with another person.

It may mean something to somebody else who's an eavesdropper on that exchange rather than somebody who was directly involved in it.

You don't have any idea how you're appealing to truth and your calmness in that situation could end up having an impact on another person that may not be the one that you're talking to.

The Apostle Paul told Timothy in Second Timothy, chapter two, to correct opponents with gentleness, for it is

God who grants repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth. And they may escape from a snare of the devil after being captured by him to do his will.

So once again, responding to opponents with gentleness. Now, it could be that that you are so personally connected to this particular issue that you find it nearly impossible to respond in a patient and kind manner.

Then I would say to you, you might may just have to resolve not responding to the arguments at all.

And on social media, I think that sometimes maybe pride gets the better of us or we think that we have to be the person to squash this other guy.

And if I don't respond to this argument, who is going to? And I don't want anybody to be led astray by it. So I have to reply.

And that's just prideful when we fall into thinking that we have to respond to every single argument.

You don't you don't have to respond at all. So on Instagram, for example, because that was the particular medium that you were referring to,

Mary, you had said something on Instagram. You can say something, you have the image up or, you know, the caption to your post or whatever it is.

A lot of people are going to respond. You don't have to reply back. You really don't. You can leave it to the image and the caption that you originally put on it or on Twitter.

You know, your original tweet is going to be seen by more people than those who replied to it or on with a few exceptions.

But anyway, on Facebook, same story. You make the Facebook post. There are going to be people who will hate it, but you might have to resolve in your mind,

I'm just not going to respond to anybody. I don't even see how it would be fruitful. I don't see how it would lead anyone to believe the truth when they are just headstrong and determined to disagree with whatever it is that I say anyway.

It and as I said before, in giving this answer, you may be personally connected to this in such a way that you find it difficult to be able to give a peaceful answer.

Then maybe you need to avoid making responses to this subject. You can still make tweets or Facebook posts or Instagram photos, whatever a post on Instagram is.

I'm not I'm not on Instagram, nor am I on Facebook for the same reason they're owned by the same company. But anyway, the you can you can say what you say on there, but then just don't engage with the back and forth sort of a thing, because, you know, in your mind, you won't be able to do this in such a way that you will come across as calm.

Can you do it without putting the other person down, calling them names, beating them over the head and stuff like that?

If you can't do that, if that's what you're going to resort to, then you need to resolve in your own mind that I'm not going to reply.

I will make the initial post, but I'm not going to respond to comments. I had the chance to tour with Ryan Dobson several years ago, a little over 10 years ago.

Ryan Dobson, that name might be familiar to some of you. Of course, you know the name Dobson, right? Dr. James Dobson.

Ryan is his son. And we did a little bit of traveling together. And one of the things that Ryan shared with me, and I've also heard him say this publicly, but he said that he does not debate on the abortion issue.

Ryan is actually adopted. He is not Dr. James Dobson's biological son. He was adopted from a he was adopted by James and Shirley Dobson.

I think his wife's name is Shirley. They adopted Ryan from a mother who didn't want him. So Ryan could have been aborted, but his mother chose life and then decided to give her son up for adoption.

Now, because that's Ryan's story, he's very personally connected to the abortion issue.

And he said to me that he does not debate it. I don't know if that's still the case today or not. But at that particular time, he said he does not debate with people on abortion because he cannot keep his cool.

It is not possible for him to do that in a civil way. He gets shaky. He starts his voice will crack.

He risks calling a person names or yelling and screaming at a person. So he can't do it. And he just avoids it.

But he still goes out to like crisis pregnancy centers and will help do their fundraisers and will speak at those banquets and things like that.

That's how he involves himself with that subject. But as far as the debate goes, engaging with people one on one, he said he avoids it simply because he doesn't have the emotional capacity to be able to keep his cool on that particular subject.

And for you, Mary, it might be the same thing you might have to say for yourself. And this is something you should bring up with your pastor as well.

Talking with your pastor about this. How can I properly engage this issue? But if you can't do it in a civil and a kind way, then just don't do it at all.

Now, things on social media can, of course, be taken the wrong way. So you have to be careful with your words and make sure you're not saying something.

It just don't even delve into sarcasm because it's difficult to perceive anyway on a screen and then and then don't call names above all else.

Do not call people names. That is not going to work. They're going to call you names. In fact, I've been called names all week long because of this issue, because some of the things that I've said on Twitter, I've had people wish that my daughters would get raped.

It's so awful. Some of the comments that I've received simply because I have said that a baby in the womb is a life that must be protected.

Just saying that has caused so much vitriol and animus to be hurled my way.

But we can't reply that same way. They are going to hate us and revile us when we don't join them in the same flood of debauchery.

That also comes from Peter. That's the next chapter. First Peter, chapter four. But again, we must entrust ourselves to him who judges justly our father who is in heaven.

I believe it was yesterday on the podcast I quoted from Romans 12 when I was going through the Psalms and I mentioned in Romans 12 where it says that we must love our enemies.

We must pray for those who persecute us when our enemy reviles us. We don't revile back.

But as the Lord says, vengeance is mine. And so if our enemy is hungry, we must feed him.

If he is thirsty, we must give him something to drink. And by so doing, we are heaping hot coals on his head.

If he does not repent, having heard the gospel, having seen the kindness of Christ displayed in those who have been commanded to love their enemies.

If they don't repent, even though they've heard the gospel, then what's going to happen to them is that the kindness that they have been shown in Jesus name is actually going to be a judgment upon them.

And God will judge them and afflict them all the more on the day of judgment because they heard the truth and did not believe it.

They were shown kindness, but instead they they had shown or responded with bullying or meanness or wrath or animus or any of these other things.

The person who treats others that way is storing up wrath for the day of judgment.

So we must show kindness to our enemies. Christ has commanded us to.

And if the enemy is going to revile us, we cannot use the same language, the same tactics that they use.

We must follow the example of Christ and we must obey his word. I hope those things were helpful for you,

Mary. So, again, your question being, do you have anything that would help me with my answers?

Check out the life is best TV DVD series. You can find it on our website. In fact, W .T .T.

Dotcom and click on bookstore or you can just go straight to wretched TV because they're the ones that have produced it and put it out.

You can purchase it from them. And again, you can go to YouTube and watch some great apology videos and watch how these guys respond to the abortion minded out there in front of the clinics when they are preaching the gospel.

And it's been fruitful and effective. They have saved lives doing what they have done. And some of those persons, children whom they have saved are in their church and attending

Apologia Church down there in Phoenix. All right. This next question comes from Tammy.

She says, hello, I've been in many deep discussions about women preaching. Basically, do women that hold women, quote, unquote, women conferences or simulcasts like Beth Moore or Priscilla Shire or Christine Kane with men present?

Are they defying scriptures? I was told that as long as they are not in a church, any place outside the church, or as long as they don't consider themselves pastors or call themselves pastors, that they are

OK to preach God's word, even if there are men present. I was told that women that preach to men are a secondary issue, not a primary issue.

Thanks. And you're correct. This is a secondary issue. This is not primary. Like the the gospel does not stand or fall on this issue.

If somebody is egalitarian, it doesn't mean they're un -Christian. It doesn't mean they're a heretic.

So this certainly is not an essential doctrinal issue. But once a church starts adopting that women can stand in the pulpit and preach and do what men are called to do, what

God has ordained men to do, filling that role in leading the preaching and teaching of the church.

Once a woman steps into that role, then the church has stepped toward liberalism. They have taken a step in the direction of liberalism, if not become liberal altogether because they've taken an egalitarian swing.

I mean, the Bible is absolutely clear on this, that men are supposed to be the shepherds.

All the apostles were men. There's not one single woman pastor in the

Bible. Now, women can evangelize. Women absolutely are to teach other women and women can even teach children, but they are not to,

I would even say, not even to do conferences with men and women sharing the preaching roles together over Christians that are gathered together to hear this teaching, though it is not the church formal.

It is nevertheless a body gathering of of Christ's followers.

And so for any woman to step into that role is filling the role of a pastor. As I've heard

Dr. Al Muller say, the office is the function and the function is the office. So once you're stepping up to a pulpit and preaching the word of God to the people of God, you are stepping into a pastoral role, whether or not you formally carry that title.

So you think of like Beth Moore preaching at the Passion Conference, for example.

I don't think that John Piper should be attending that conference as long as women like Christine Kane and Beth Moore and Ann Voskamp are sharing that particular podium, especially considering the things that John Piper has taught regarding biblical manhood and womanhood.

It's a contradiction for him to be sharing the podium with those women. Now, that's just on that principle alone.

I would say that Christine Kane, Beth Moore and the other one that I mentioned and Voskamp, they're false teachers anyway.

So just setting aside the whole egalitarian argument, they don't even preach the word of God soundly.

Beth Moore had just an absolute meltdown a week ago. And in so doing, it ridiculously abused the scriptures to try to defend herself and in the process rendered rendered herself completely inadequate as a teacher, even a teacher of women.

It's very, very disappointing, especially when you consider that one of the responsibilities that an older woman in the church has is to teach younger women.

That's even said to us in the scriptures. So Titus chapter two, verse three, older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior.

And I don't think Beth Moore does that. I don't think she displayed reverent behavior a week ago. They are not slanderers or slaves to much wine.

And by the way, Beth Moore has said slanderous things about people who are supposed to be her fellow brothers and sisters in the body.

As Becky and I had talked about last week regarding Beth Moore's comments against Owen Strand, she made slanderous comments toward him, for which she owes him an apology.

And I would be interested to know if she has, if she's actually taken the steps to reach out to Dr. Strand and apologize.

Titus two, three goes on to say they are to teach what is good. See, women are to teach. Look at that.

It even says there in the Bible that they're supposed to teach. That doesn't mean you give them the pulpit.

It means that there is a certain context in which the older women are called to teach. And verse four, so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self -controlled, pure, working at home, kind and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

See, that's actually Beth Moore's calling right there in Titus two, three and four.

It says or Titus two, three through five. It says that older women are to train the younger women.

They are to teach them. So the word of God may not be reviled, but Beth Moore doesn't fulfill that obligation.

She teaches wrongly and she even steps outside the bounds that she's been given according to scripture and takes matters into her own hands, of course, because if she's going to twist the scriptures in the way that she teaches, then what's the point of paying attention to those scriptures that that instruct her in the capacity in which she's supposed to be teaching?

So I'm totally in favor of women's conferences. I think they're great. Women teaching women have no problem with that.

But when you have those coed conferences where you've got men and women teachers together, I don't think

I don't think that should be going on. I think the the proper way, according to the biblical instruction that we've been given is women teaching women.

And when it comes to the gathering of the body of Christ to receive the teaching from the word of God, men are the ones that are supposed to be up there leading that teaching.

By the way, ladies, you need pastoral authority and guidance and shepherding also not from women, but from men.

Women in the church need to submit to the the teaching authority that is in the church.

We're all instructed to submit to our elders. First Peter one through five. By the way, I'm a pastor among a plurality of elders.

Even I submit to my elders. We're all instructed to the verse that I have at the late at the end of the latest what video

I did is Hebrews 13, seven. Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God, consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith a little bit later on in in that same chapter.

He was 13 for 17. Obey your leaders and submit to them for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give an account.

Let them do this with joy and not groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

And by the way, Beth Moore encourages rebellion against the leaders in the church, for she herself rebels against such kind of leadership.

All right, next question here comes from Sebastian. Hello, Pastor Gabe and wonderful Becky.

I'll pass on the message that you have called her wonderful this morning. I just so happened to find that William Lane Craig, famous Christian philosopher and apologist, was on Ben Shapiro show the segment where the two discuss

Christ is something interesting, as I felt Ben's mind was made up as he gave shallow objections to the resurrection.

You're absolutely right. I'd, however, like to hear your thoughts on this encounter, as you did with John MacArthur's.

Thank you for your time. And God bless the both of you. Yeah, I had the chance to listen to Bill Craig's interview with Shapiro.

I can't say that I listened to it real close, like word for word, because I had it playing in my office while I was doing something else at the church.

I was kind of catching it while I was preoccupied by other things. But for the most part, I got

I think I got everything. I wanted to play a few clips from this. The first clip that I wanted to play was actually an early argument that was made in the the conversation that they had just because I like the argument and I wanted to mention something about it.

So this has been Shapiro asking Bill Craig about something called the ontological argument. So I'm go through one more argument with you.

And then I want to talk about the importance of religion as opposed to theology, which are not quite the same thing, because you're making some some reason based arguments for the existence of God.

But these aren't obviously arguments for Christian revelation or Jewish revelation, although I do think there are good reasons to be a

Christian theist. That's also part of my work. And I want to get to that in just one second. But I first want to tackle another argument that you hear made a lot.

And it seems, I think, to be given short shrift there, the ontological argument, the St. Anselm argument. So the ontological argument, if you could spell that out and then why people seem to get this so wrong, because the way they posit it is that it's the simplistic argument.

If we just posit an island, then you could somehow debunk it, which would make no sense because any person could have discovered that when

St. Anselm said it, as opposed to spending hundreds of years trying to figure it out. So what is the ontological argument?

The ontological argument, in a nutshell, says that if it's even possible that God exists, then it follows that God actually exists.

And this argument has been stated and defended with great sophistication by philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, for example.

And I, like you, am persuaded that this is actually a sound argument. And basically what

Plantinga says is, define a maximally great being to be a being that is metaphysically necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Now, if it's possible that there is such a being, then there's a possible world in which that being exists.

But if a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it exists in all possible worlds.

That's part of what it means to be maximally great. Therefore, it exists in the actual world.

Therefore, a maximally great being exists. And the steps of this argument, your viewers may be surprised to learn, are actually relatively uncontroversial.

The whole argument stands or falls with the first premise. Is it possible that a maximally great being exists?

If you think it's possible that God exists, then you ought to believe that God actually exists.

The atheist has to say not merely that God does not exist, but that it's impossible that God exists.

Now, like Dr. Craig, I really like the ontological argument. Some people don't like it, but I really do.

And in fact, I came up with it before I knew that the ontological argument existed. Perhaps I should explain.

So I used to go shopping with my mom and she would do the grocery shopping. And I just wasn't into grocery shopping.

But I wanted to get out of the house and go places. So I'd still go with her and we would go to Super Walmart. This was right when

Super Walmart was becoming a thing. Now, it's pretty much every Walmart is exactly like this, unless it's a Walmart market.

But the Super Walmart had not only groceries, but they also had a toy section and they had almost like a whole bookstore in there.

And I wanted to go to the bookstore. Imagine that. So I would let my mom go do the grocery shopping and then

I would go read books. You can go to the toy section and just look at toys, but you can actually read the books.

So one time I found this book that was actually characters George Lucas had come up with.

But these creatures did not make it into the Star Wars movie. So it's kind of like Star Wars rejects.

And I was leafing through the pictures of these creatures and I started to notice something.

They all had similarities, like all of them were talking about aliens from another world.

And Lucas could let his imagination run wild. But he seems to be creating the same creatures with eyes, a nose, mouth, ears, some form of appendages like arms and legs.

You really could not get away from what he already knew. And so one of the things that I started to postulate in my mind, and granted,

I was like 12 or 13 years old at this time, but we cannot conceive of anything except what we know.

Yet we're able to conceive of God, even though being able to conceive of such a high, perfect being would otherwise be impossible.

Yet we can imagine him. Therefore, he must exist. So I called this the

George Lucas argument for God and then came to find the argument that already existed. And it was called the ontological argument for God.

But I tried to impress my friends with it. Here's my George Lucas argument for God. And I would even back it up with scripture, where in Romans 120, it says what can be known about God is plain to us.

And in the book of Ecclesiastes, where it says that God has placed eternity in the hearts of men, though we're not able to fathom what he has done from beginning to end.

So anyway, I wanted to play that clip. And if you had never heard of the ontological argument before, you've learned something philosophical today.

One of the other questions that Shapiro asked of Dr. Craig was related to why we need to believe that God has spoken to us at all, that he spoke from Mount Sinai or through the person of Jesus Christ.

And I'll let Shapiro frame the question with Dr. Craig's answer. What's the purpose of the revelation?

Meaning, could we would it be sufficient to work within the framework of the first half of our conversation with regard to sort of rational pushes not toward revelation and the presence of God in human form in Christianity or the presence of God on top of a mountain in Judaism?

Would a God of reason alone be sufficient or do you need to have for what purpose do you need to have a

God who is speaking directly to people at Sinai or speaking through Jesus in Christianity? I think that the answer of both the

Hebrew Bible and the New Testament can be put into one word, atonement. What is needed is atonement for sin.

And in the Levitical sacrifices, in the tabernacle and later in the temple, you had a sacrificial system whereby atonement was made for sin through the sacrifice of various animals.

And Jesus himself and the authors of the New Testament think of Jesus as being the ultimate sacrificial offering to God to make atonement once and for all for the sins of mankind so that in his sacrificial death on the cross, he fulfills all of these

Jewish antecedents or foreshadowing of a decisive atonement for sin that will reconcile us to God and bring forgiveness and pardon and cleansing.

Now, all of that is really good. And I agree with Dr. Craig. And some of you will know that I don't always agree with Dr.

Craig. He did an interview, I believe it was with the New York Times this past Christmas in which he was asked about the importance of the virgin birth.

And he kind of blew it off is not even really being important. You just need to believe in the resurrection.

Who else have we heard say something like that? Andy Stanley, Andy Stanley has said that.

And Dr. Craig is kind of a favorite apologist of Andy Stanley. He loves trying to cover up Stanley's mistakes.

Anyway, so that that response that Dr. Craig gave right there related to atonement.

I agree with that. And I think that Dr. Craig is a really good apologist in the philosophical sense, not so much in the doctrinal or the scriptural scriptural sense.

I think that Dr. Craig actually did share the gospel with Ben Shapiro there.

Well, not right there, but he did in the interview. It was more toward the end in the personal testimony that he gave, though there wasn't necessarily an imperative that was given.

He wasn't looking right at Shapiro and saying, you must turn from your sin or the judgment of God will come upon you.

You must believe in Jesus Christ to have your sins atoned for. That way you can escape from judgment and have eternal life.

And that's actually the problem with the answer that Dr. Craig just gave. Yes, believing in Jesus is important for atonement.

That's what came to my mind when Shapiro was asking the question. I was thinking to myself, well, I know how I would answer this.

It's because we need forgiveness of sins. And so then it was like when Dr. Craig answered, we need it for atonement.

I was like, wow, great. That's exactly the answer that I would have given. But I would have gone a little bit further than Dr.

Craig did. See, he never actually said why we need atonement. He just said we're sinners and we need to have our sins forgiven.

And Jesus died for sins. OK, what if a person doesn't believe that they're a sinner?

What if a person doesn't think that they need reconciliation with God? I don't need to know God. I'm doing fine on my own.

I don't need him. Why does a person need atonement? Because all have sinned against God and are worthy of his judgment and his wrath is going to be poured out upon sinners.

And we can't do anything to save ourselves. Christ has saved us by his death on the cross and his resurrection from the grave.

Dying on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for us and then rising from the grave, conquering death itself so that by faith in Jesus, we not only have our sins forgiven, but we will have everlasting life.

And that's why you need to have faith in Jesus, because without it, you're a dead man or woman.

You are going to stand before God in judgment. And he will say to you, Depart from me, you worker of lawlessness.

I never knew you. And you have no worth to stand in the holy presence of God, but rather having sinned and transgressed

God's law and become unholy and unrighteous and wicked and evil and God being so good that he will not allow evil to go unpunished.

He will cast you from his presence into eternal fire. The only salvation that we have from the judgment of God is by faith in Christ.

God saves us from himself, by himself, for himself.

We become the children of God through adoption, through the sacrifice, by faith in Jesus Christ.

Our sins are forgiven. We are clothed in righteousness and able to have a relationship with this holy

God only by faith in Jesus. Dr. Craig didn't say that. I agree with his atonement answer, but he did not say that we need atonement because without it, we will perish under the judgment of God.

Now, that said, that actually leads to my last question here. And this is from Jeff.

And he says, Hey, Pastor Gabe, I have. Well, he says salutations. Thank you,

Jeff. I don't often get salutations. Thank you so much for your videos. I learn a lot from them, and I think that I have watched all of them.

You touched on this on one of your last videos, but I would like to see one on praying in public. I see

Christians praying sometimes in noisy restaurants. But remember what Jesus said about praying in private.

But think there is more to the story. I have debated this with family members, but maybe I need correction. Also would love to know your thoughts on the

Bible project, if you have any. Not sure I can trust them. Thank you and grace to you and yours.

Well, in in relation to the instruction to pray in public, the Apostle Paul said to Timothy, first Timothy to eight.

I desire then that in every place the men should pray lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.

Corporate prayer is absolutely encouraged in the scriptures and praying in public as well. Remember, Daniel prayed in public, and it was because he was seen praying by others that he was persecuted for his faith.

So, yes, praying in public is is actually instructed of us in the scriptures.

What Jesus was warning against in Matthew chapter six was praying only to be seen by others.

If you don't have a private prayer life, if there is not any conversation between you and God where others cannot see it and revere you for your holy conduct, then the prayer life that you have is only so that you may be seen by others.

And Jesus says, I tell you, they have received their reward. Instead, go in your room, close your door, pray to your father in secret.

This is Jesus challenging those who would otherwise try to have this public pious life that really doesn't reflect the true condition of their heart before God.

Anyway, that's the the answer to that question. And I will try to fit that into a what video.

But let's come to the last part of your question related to the Bible project. I would love to know your thoughts on the

Bible project. Not sure if I can trust them. And and Jeff, you're right to not trust the

Bible project. I don't think you should use them, just like with the answer that Dr. Craig gave.

But the Bible project is worse about this. They will talk about things like atonement, but they absolutely will not talk about the wrath of God and the judgment of God.

In fact, Tim Mackey, who's the voice behind the Bible project, has this to say about hell.

If you look at the first sentence of the Bible, it says in the beginning, God made. Heaven's and.

What does it not say? It doesn't say in the beginning, God made heaven and earth and hell.

God didn't make whatever hell is. God didn't make it. It's nowhere to be found on page one of your

Bible. Right. Well, God made is heaven and earth. And what does God think about it? It's very good.

It's very good. So whatever hell is, it comes into the story later.

And if you're familiar with the story, how it works, hell or evil or sin, the various names that it's called in the

Bible is something that humans have created by our decision to seize autonomy from God.

Now, how do I know that hell is an appropriate word to talk about this? Jesus's brother. Jesus's brother wrote a letter that's in your

Bible. It's called the letter of James. It's very interesting. And Jesus's brother who he hung out with Jesus a lot.

I'm bound to trust the man when he says he's representing the teachings of Jesus. James talks about the power in chapter three, talks about the power of the tongue and how the human tongue has the power to to bless and praise

God, the creator. But at the same time, the human tongue has the ability to gossip about people and to tear down their character and to speak ill and poorly of them.

And James says this, it's flabbergasting. He says when humans do that with their tongues, he says their tongues are lit on fire by hell.

Are you with me now? What are the implications of that? The implications that hell isn't just something about like the end of the game.

Hell is a reality that is present now. It's a reality that humans unleash on each other and on God's good world to ruin and destroy relationships and to destroy people.

Hell is something that we have created on earth. And God hates hell.

And he the story of the Bible is a story about God wanting to heal his world and get the hell out of earth.

Are you with me? That is absurd. That hell is something that we have created.

And notice the first scripture that he goes to in order to establish a doctrine on hell is a passage in James where James was speaking metaphorically about the tongue.

He was not saying hell comes out of our mouths. He was saying that when a sinful man speaks, he shows that he is hell bound by speaking words that are of the deceiver lies, murderous thoughts, animus, malice, wrath toward people.

This is this is the way that the devil is, because he's been a murderer from the very beginning, as Jesus said in John chapter eight.

So a person speaks with the tongue of fire, lit on fire by hell because they are hell bound sinners.

If we are followers of Jesus Christ and citizens of his kingdom, then we must be using heavenly language.

We must speak as the savior has taught us to speak, giving grace to those who hear

Ephesians 429. This is horrible exegesis on Mackey's part, the way that he abuses scripture to try to dismiss a doctrine.

He just doesn't like the doctrine of hell. And I don't like it either, which is why I preach the gospel so that somebody doesn't go to hell.

They would turn from their sin and believe in Christ and so be saved. That's the way that I regard the doctrine of hell.

But it is absolutely a place where people will be sent to if they do not repent.

Matthew 10, 28. Jesus said, do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.

Rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Does that sound like Jesus is talking about a place that we have created? Matthew 25.

When Jesus talks about the son of man coming in his glory and he will judge the nations, separating them out as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, the sheep on his right, the goats on his left.

He says to those on his right, come, you who are blessed by my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

To those on his left, he says, depart from me, you cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

That's hell. Revelation 21, 8. As for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Hell is the place where God's wrath is being poured out for all eternity on the wicked, those who did not turn from sin and worship

Christ, but continued in their own self -righteousness and fell under the judgment of God.

And Mackey's resistance to talking about the judgment of God, he preaches a form of universalism that nobody's really going to be judged, that nobody's really sent to hell.

A person creates their own hell. And God is going to get the hell out of you.

And this is that whole love wins thing. Exactly the same heresy that Rob Bell fell into several years ago and continues to espouse.

Incidentally, I believe that Mackey does the same thing. I've not found any reason to believe that he actually thinks

God is going to judge people to hell. So while there are some things that he says that will be correct.

And I think that for the most part, the Bible project, when they do their like summary videos, kind of doing an overview of the book of the

Bible, for the most part, those are pretty correct. And I have seen, you know, probably two dozen of those. And I think they're pretty good.

But but I am concerned about the kind of theology that you might end up getting out of that.

So you shouldn't use them as teaching tools. If maybe they're somewhat useful for you, I would say just use them privately, but don't recommend them to other people.

There are heretical things that Mackey and his fellow cohort in the

Bible project creation. There are heretical things that they believe, though I don't explicitly hear those things, at least in the videos that I have watched.

You heard it right there from Mackey's own voice of what he believes about hell and and tends to stay away from any sort of mentioning of the judgment of God.

I know that that's not in the Bible project videos at all. God bless. Thank you so much for listening to the program today.

I would love to hear from you. You can send an email to when we understand the text at Gmail dot com.

God willing, Becky will be back on with me next week. And I look forward to returning to our study in the

Gospel of John on Monday. This is when we understand the text with Pastor Gabe Hughes.

There are lots of great Bible teaching programs on the Web, and we thank you for selecting ours. But this is no replacement for regular fellowship with a church family.

Find a good gospel teaching Christ centered church to worship with this weekend. And join us again Monday for more