Keep sharing good news without ads.
#NoDespair2020
All right, everybody. Thank you so much for your support over the last month or so. This is the August Patreon Q &A. Thank you if you got your question in. I'm gonna answer it today. And even if you didn't get your question in, thank you so much for the support.
It means a lot to the channel, and the channel is growing, and we're getting this message out to a lot of people. Every week I get messages from people talking about how they're so glad that they are not actually crazy.
And so you're helping get that message out. So thank you so much for all of that. Let's jump right into the questions, and we'll go from there. All right, so the first question, it reads as follows. I just recently started watching the videos and really paying attention to the social justice movement.
Really made me think, so I appreciate it. I've been a big fan of Matt Chandler's teaching in the past. Do you consider Matt Chandler as a bad source of biblical teaching all around, or just his stance on social justice?
Well, this is a great question. And the answer is no, I don't think he's a bad source of biblical teaching all around. But his stance on social justice is insane, but let's put it that way. And so if you want to read Matt Chandler books, or if you want to read or listen to his sermons on other topics, I don't think that that would be the end of the world.
Although I will say that you could do much better. Let's just put it that way. So you could do much better as far as the kinds of teaching that I think he has to offer that are good. You could find pastors and preachers who aren't compromised on the social justice gospel that actually teach that stuff much, much better.
So I'm not saying that you have to do that, but if you enjoy his Calvinism or whatever it is that, I'm not sure exactly what you find is helpful, but I've found him helpful in the past. And if somebody was reading one of his books about theology proper, I wouldn't necessarily discourage them from that.
But I just think like when you find someone like this, who's just so off the reservation on a key issue, just to me, it's like, I don't really want to have to go hunting for the meat. You know what I mean?
Like, I don't want to have to go hunting for the pearls of wisdom in a big mess. So that's just my opinion, but no, I wouldn't say he's a bad source of biblical teaching all around. Thank you for the question.
All right, here's the next question. He says, forgive me if you've received this question before, but with every church in the world seemingly going woke, how do we find a church to attend? Our church went woke and now I'm not even sure where to go.
He's in North suburbs of Boston. Well, thanks for the question. I actually know some people in this area and they've got a good church, although even their church is dabbling, so to speak. You know, honestly, the best way to do this in my opinion is to, you know, schedule a bunch of calls, you know, with pastors in the local area for churches that look good on the outside and just have an honest discussion with them about that.
Tell them what your concerns are, tell them why you're even quote unquote on the market kind of thing, and just be very frank with them about it. Because I think that these are key issues, you know, for our time.
I think these are key issues that a church should have a position on. And so I think it'd be helpful in order to save time and all this kind of stuff, you know, reach out to pastors, local pastors, and schedule phone calls with them.
In fact, this is what I did. I've got a church I'm planning on going to very shortly in New Hampshire. And I called the pastor, we had a long discussion. I told him about my YouTube channel. I told him about my affiliation with Fight Laugh Feast and, you know, he appreciated me telling him, but it was a good conversation.
So anyway, that's what I would suggest. Just schedule a bunch of phone calls and find one that way. And if you can't find one, that's not even dabbling with wokeness, you still gotta go to church, you know what I mean?
So you're gonna have to, you know, figure out what you can put up with and what you can't. And I think it's gonna require a lot of prayer, a lot of thinking, a lot of talking, and that kind of thing. All right, next question.
Have you ever seen those tearless videos? Will you ever do a Big Eva tearless video? Yes, I have seen these tearless videos. And I actually quite like those videos. And so this is a good idea. Now I gotta say that the person who asked this question, he doesn't give his real name on the Patreon, which I know his real name, but I'm gonna keep it secret.
But anyway, he's given me a bunch of ideas of videos that I've actually done. So I'm gonna do a little of this. Maybe I'll do a tear list of some kind or a couple of tear lists, that's a good idea. All right, next question.
Thank you for the support and thank you for this idea. All right, next question. It starts like this. In regards to your video about John Lewis, you said that Christians shouldn't celebrate him because of his position on abortion.
How is this different from the social justice warriors who say we should not honor the accomplishments of men like Jefferson and Washington because they own slaves? This is a very good question. And if I did say it that way, that's probably not how I should have said it.
What I thought I said, and I didn't go back and watch the video to make sure that this is what I said, but what I thought I said was, for those of you who are ripping Jefferson and Washington and wanna take down the Confederate flags and all this kind of stuff, you can't celebrate John Lewis because you can't be consistent with that.
If Washington was some evil dictator, or, I don't know, Stonewall Jackson was some evil person, then you can't then turn around and support naming a bridge after John Lewis. In fact, I think that's the example I use because Russell Moore has been very big about these monuments coming down, how they should come down, but at the same time, he wants to name a bridge after John Lewis.
Those two don't compute. So I think, actually, you can celebrate the good things that John Lewis has done when it comes to the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s and all that kind of thing. But what you can't do, and maybe this is why there's some confusion, is say that John Lewis, he just represents justice.
He's just a dynamo on justice. He isn't. He's a dynamo on black rights, not justice, because if he was a dynamo on justice, he would actually support justice for all, not just justice for blacks, which is what he supported.
So I think that that's probably where the confusion was, and if I said it wrong, then that's my bad. I shouldn't have said it that way. I don't think social justice warriors can consistently celebrate John Lewis, and they shouldn't, but you can celebrate the good accomplishments of John Lewis while not at the same time just calling him like this great figure for justice, which he certainly was not.
He was a figure for black rights, not justice. Anyway, so I hope that clears it up. That's a very good question. All right, this is a little bit of a longer question, but we'll definitely look at this.
Okay, it starts like this. If I'm correct, I heard you say in the past that you believe in the concept of natural law. I think this might be related to you saying that you really like Brian Shortley, and I know that the term as a concept is frequently used among covenanters, yet you have repeatedly recommended the works of Rushduny and North, who are by no means friends of the concept of natural law.
Can you please elaborate a bit more on your understanding of natural law? I'm asking because I came to appreciate the law while reading men like Bonson and Rushduny, and even though I greatly appreciate their application of Van Til's no neutrality thesis, at the same time, I see that kings like Asa are far from applying it, thanks.
All right, so yeah, no, this is a very good point because I think Brian Shortley is actually more correct often than Bonson and Rushduny. I really appreciate Brian Shortley. There are things about him that I'm not crazy about, but when it comes to the law of God, Brian Shortley's position I think is more defensible than Rushduny's, and if I understand Shortley correctly, this is kind of where I land on this too, and if I'm not understanding Shortley correctly, that's very possible because I'm just a layman, but he believes in the concept of natural law, and you're right, Asa here, you're making a good point here, but what Shortley says is that natural law, it's there and it's discoverable, but God never meant for it to be something that we use apart from revelation.
So in other words, yeah, by natural law, we can know that it's wrong to kill, right? But we need revelation from God to understand it in its full orb sort of correct understanding of why it's wrong and what do we do when we find someone who has killed and how do we convict them of killing?
So in other words, natural law is real, but Christians should not try to discover it outside of revelation because God never intended it to be discovered that way. He always intended to have a revealed law, to have the scriptures.
And so it would be silly of us to kind of take our best tool for interpreting natural law away while we do it. So the reason why I recommend Rushduny and North, even though I think Shortley's more correct a lot of the time, and I think Shortley would say this as well, that Rushduny and North oftentimes interpret the Bible correctly, especially the law of God.
And so if we're going to understand natural law and we're gonna be correct about it, we've got to use the tools that are available to us. God gave us a revelation to see this so clearly, right? We need two or more witnesses, that kind of thing.
And so Rushduny is, I think, very good at interpreting the law of God. And so that's why I recommend him so often. North as well. So, and they're not doing it perfectly, but they do it very well. In fact, the Rushduny's book, I have it right here because I always reference this book.
This is the Institutes of Biblical Law. This is a classic work in interpreting biblical law. Not everything in that book is correct in my opinion, but there's a treasure trove of information. So that's how I understand it.
I don't think that we should, I think you're right. Like there are certain things about natural law that we can discover with accuracy, but it was never intended to be something that we just kind of do in a neutral way where we don't apply the lenses that God's law, God's revealed law gives us to interpret the world.
So that's kind of how I would see that. I'm pretty sure Shortley would agree that that's not what God intended for us to have natural law apart from revealed law. Anyway, so that's how we go there. Next question.
I have almost given up on reading and listening to anyone in the creative community. I feel you, by the way, I feel you. That's tough. They frame SJW and Black Lives Matter riots as to be understood in a narrative or story category.
Using that template, they write, opine, sing on social justice warriors, Black Lives Matter, in high and lofty tones that are so earnest and meaningful and convincing. One's uncaring not to agree, one is uncaring not to agree with them.
It's so easy to fall under their spell, just like Edmund fell under the White Witch's spell as he ate and wanted more of the Turkish delight in Lewis's Lion Witch in the Wardrobe. What's going on? Why have they left critical thinking in favor of feeling, which is rather sloppy if you ask me?
I've almost given up. Oh, same question. Okay, she repeated herself there. Okay, cool. Yeah, what's going on? Yeah, no, these are effective tools. You know, creative, like art, music, movies, stories, these are extremely effective tools.
That's what's going on. They use these tools because they work. I've never actually read the Lion Witch in the Wardrobe, so sorry about that. But anyway, so yeah, that's why they use these. But you see, the thing is, we need to remember this.
We cannot abandon these things to the pagans because these are God's tools, right? God uses art, God uses songs, God uses story and narrative and all this stuff. These are God's tools. We need to hold onto these things.
And so we need to be using these tools for God's truth. It's just that simple. So that's why they do it. They're stealing God's ideas, they're stealing God's tools, songs, narratives, stories, you know, that kind of thing.
They're stealing it to use it for evil. That's what's going on. They do it because it's effective. People remember this stuff. That's why God gave us 150 songs in his Bible, because it's effective. It's an effective way to learn ideas.
And so we need to use those as much as we possibly can, these kinds of creative outlets to express ideas. And that's kind of what I'm doing here on the channel. And so I appreciate the question. I appreciate the support because I think this kind of work is very effective oftentimes in spreading ideas.
Thanks for the question. Next question. Do you think it's possible that those of us in the PCA, I'm a deacon, could begin a conservative movement in opposition to the social justice warriors in our denomination?
No, of course, anything is possible. I'm asking if you think we have enough hands on board in agreement with teachers like yourself. That's a good question. I think stuff like that is already underway.
And yes, it's definitely possible. You actually don't need a whole bunch of people in order to steer the ship, in other words. You don't need a ton of people. What you need are people that are effective leaders, people that can get men to follow them, and people that will be willing to stick their necks out and are competent at it in that kind of thing.
So, personally, I think that from what I understand, there was a vote last General Assembly on something related to homosexuality. And Kevin DeYoung gave a speech that was amazing. And I'm not saying he single-handedly turned the tide, but I think that vote wouldn't have gone the right way had he not done that.
And that's just one person. And so, I don't think that it takes a ton of people. But incidentally, I do think that there are a lot of people that are not on board with social justice warriors in the PCA.
They've just been shamed into silence. And that's what we need to change. And so, that's kind of why I act the way I do, and I'm trying to be as matter-of-fact about some of this stuff as I can be, because I want people to understand that, no, no, it's okay to just say no to these people.
It's okay to say no. I will not lament with you over a lie. I will not push forward your lies. I will not join your delusion that black people are oppressed in the United States. I will not do it. It's okay to say stuff like that.
You don't have to nuance it. You don't have to apologize for it. You can just say it, and it's totally okay. And that's what I want people to realize, that it's not the end of the world. They're gonna call you a racist, but who cares?
They don't even know what that means anymore. So, yeah, I think it doesn't take a ton of people, but I think there are a ton of people. And I think that the PCA is very much in play. And Godspeed to all of you in the PCA.
And I just pray that God's with you in all of this. Okay, next question. How did Smooth AD get so smooth? Hmm. Well, I just don't know. I just think I, one day I just decided, put some sunglasses on me, and well, it just became smooth instantly.
I mean, I don't know. It's just one of those things that just happened. And actually, the Smooth AD character is actually loosely based on a YouTuber by the name of Based Shaman. I don't think I've ever revealed that before.
Based Shaman is a YouTube commentator. I don't necessarily recommend his content. It can be a little, hmm, not PG. Let's just say it that way. But I discovered him once. I used to really watch a lot of To Catch a Predator clips.
You remember the show with Chris Hansen and all that kind of stuff, where he would catch internet child predators. He would confront them, and he put them on TV. And there was this guy, Based Shaman. He used to do a lot of content related to that.
And he was just, and this is how he talks. He just talks like this normally. And the Smooth AD character is loosely based on him. And well, if you want to check him out, his content is called Based Shaman.
He likes to go into Reddit and talk about chads and people like that, and incels, and that kind of thing. He's just a weird character. He's not a normal guy, that's for sure. That's the kind of content Old AD likes.
He used to watch that kind of stuff all the time. He doesn't so much anymore. But yeah, that's how Smooth AD got his persona. I hope you found this answer to your question helpful. God bless. That's actually a true statement.
That was what inspired the Smooth AD character, Based Shaman. All right, next question. He says this, I was against theonomy, having listened to a few debates on the subject, McDermott versus Hall. But I agree with everything you say about Old Testament case laws and general equity, but you claim to be a theonomist.
Can you help me out? Thanks. I can't, I honestly can't help you out. And it's not because I don't want to, I just don't really know how. Because I think that if you understand how to apply the Old Testament case laws, and you realize that they don't necessarily apply one to one, like we wouldn't want to make the book of Deuteronomy, the constitution of the United States, because those laws were for the body politik Israel, which has now ended, right?
That's not, it's not a political body anymore. And so it's not, those laws expired with the nation, but the general equity still applies. And so sometimes it's very easy to apply the general equity, sometimes it's not.
But that's what I think theonomy is. Now I've been told, and Jordan Hall has told me this a number of times, that that's not theonomy. And so I shouldn't call myself a theonomist anymore. He's been adamant about that with me.
And I don't understand, frankly, but that's okay. I don't need to claim the title theonomist. I don't mind claiming it. But if you don't want to consider me a theonomist, because all I am saying is that the general equity of the law should be applied in our culture today, I'm okay with that.
I'm not zealous for the title, I don't care. In fact, to me, as far as I'm concerned, it would probably be better if I didn't have the label, because the label kind of turns people off instantly. But no, I really can't help you.
To me, it's the same thing. I think a lot of it comes from something Bonson said about applying the law in exhaustive detail and how that seems to go against the general equity. And I understand that because it does kind of, when Bonson says we should apply the law in exhaustive detail, how does that compare with general equity, right?
That doesn't really seem to match up with general equity. But you see, the thing is, I don't really care about any of that stuff, like the specifics. I don't need to have the specific formulation of this stuff to agree with much of what Bonson said about the general equity of God's law.
So I wish I could help you. I don't know that I can help you. I remember someone, well, I'll just say, Chocolate Knox one time told me that I'm like a gateway drug to theonomy because I don't use the same formulations that like Bonson does or whatever, or Rush Dooney does or whatever.
And he meant it as a compliment and I'm fine to take it as a compliment, but I'm not trying to do that. I'm not trying to be like a gateway drug. I'm just trying to understand the confession in a way that makes sense.
And so many people understand the confession that Westminster confession and the Baptist confession in a way that general equity means nothing. You know what I mean? Like general equity actually means something and it means something in my opinion that's kind of different than exhaustive detail, which is one of the things I think people get hung up on Bonson about, which makes sense to me because that's got a little bit strange.
But anyway, so yeah, man, good question. I'm not trying to dodge it. I just don't know how to help you because I don't even know how to help myself. Anyway, all right, next question. Here we go. So this guy asked three questions.
So let me just see which one I wanna answer because I don't wanna necessarily do them all, but I can't decide which one to do. So I'm just gonna do the first one and then maybe we'll do the other two in another video because actually there's one that has some content for me to watch and I'll give it a watch.
This one actually looks interesting. Libertarian legal theory, that looks interesting. And then there's another one about human laws behind the conscience and how they do not. That should be interesting.
So yeah, sorry, I'm not gonna answer those because I did not watch those videos yet. They're on the queue. I'm sorry, one of them's a book. But anyway, the video is on the queue and I will get to it if it makes sense.
So here's what his first question is. I think I heard you say something like, quote, there are no victimless crimes in the Bible recently. I would love to hear you elaborate, especially on your definition of victimless and crimes.
I think by and large, I share your same opinions here, but I think it'd be useful for us to have you flesh it out. So crime, okay, so crimes is easy. So crimes are sins that according to the scripture have a penalty attached to them.
So in the Bible, adultery is punishable by death. So that's a crime. In the Bible, looking with lust is not punishable by anything because how could you even prove it, first of all. So looking with lust is a sin, but not a crime.
So a crime is a sin against God that he allows the state to punish you for. That's how I would kind of on a very basic level explain the difference. And again, that's probably oversimplistic, but that's the easiest way to look at it from a biblical perspective, in my opinion.
And so victimless means that there has to be someone that was injured. There has to be some party that was injured in order for it to be a crime. So in other words, you know, there's no such thing as like a hate crime, right?
Like a hate crime. Who is the victim of the hate part, right? Because the thing is like a hate crime is attached to a crime, right? So what they'll say is, you know, you killed somebody and you did it because they were black.
So that's an extra special crime. There's no such thing as that in the Bible. The murder is a murder no matter who or what the colors of the people involved are. The hate part, what's the injury of the hate part?
The injury comes from the murder. So hate isn't a crime in the Bible. There's no, that's a victimless crime. The fact that you hate somebody, sure, you know, in God's perspective, that's tantamount to murder.
You're murdering him. But the thing is the crime only happens when you actually do something to injure someone. So if somebody hates me on YouTube, I've got nothing against them because they didn't do anything to me.
It doesn't injure me in any way. I'm not a victim. But if they hate me and then they rob me because they hate me or they slander me because they hate me or they, you know, I don't know, whatever, like punch me in the face because they hate me, then there is a victim all of a sudden.
But it's not the hate that you're the victim of, it's the actual assault or the thievery or whatever it is. And so that's what I mean. Like there's no victimless crime because a victim, if there's no victim, then there is no crime.
There could be sin, but there's no crime if there's no victim. So that's kind of what I would mean by that. And it's probably oversimplistic, but I think it is an easy way to be safe when you're looking at the Bible and deciding what should be a crime and what shouldn't.
Because that's what people say that, you know, when they're trying to make fun of God's law, they're saying, whoa, so what do you want to do? You want to make saying bad words illegal, huh? And it's like, well, no, because there's no victim there.
You know what I mean? There's no victim there. But if you punch someone, that should be illegal. If you kill someone, that should be illegal. You steal from someone, that should be illegal and that kind of thing.
So that's pretty much it. That's the end of that. This person actually has a couple of other interesting questions, but I don't want to take up more time on this video to answer them yet. But there's some interesting stuff here.
There's one on voting, which I definitely will answer in a video. So sit tight on that. In fact, I'm going to do an entire video on voting very soon, JGS. So you will get your question answered for sure.
And all of that. But again, thank you for another month of support. It means a ton to my family. It's given me a lot of more latitude of spending more time on these videos than I had in the past. And you may have noticed that I've upped the frequency of the uploads because of it.
And so thank you, you're responsible for that. Because if I didn't have the support that you guys give, I wouldn't be able to spend as much time on this stuff. So thank you so much. God bless you. I hope you found this video helpful.
God bless.
