Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
And then not get it. Seriously. Very often. Why?
Alright. We're starting in prayer. We're starting this.
I'll start in prayer, yes. I'll break in. We'll do Q &A. Okay, class, you ready?
If something impossible comes up, it's never enough to make it happen. That's what it is. You don't have to use it, but that's how researchers do it.
We thank you again for this time. We ask you to bless it. And we do
Q &A. Good questions and hopefully some good answers. And that you be glorified in this time.
We ask in Jesus, your precious name. Amen. Alright. So, we'll just sit here.
Got a question? Got a comment? Oh, now you're quiet.
I don't know. I've been talking and everything. Come up closer to the mic so they can at least hear what's your question.
Brutal. When you were quoting Bill Johnson's stuff, there was a quote where the last phrase was something about the importation of grace.
The importation of grace. And somewhere over there.
Yeah, it sounds like he's talking about grace as a substance. You know, I don't know where that was because I read so many things.
Towards the end you said? Yeah. I'm going to give you these notes.
Because you'll see the numbers. I don't know where it is. And then I'll go and I'll sit here for like five minutes.
But it did sound really gaffing to me. I think I think he's treating it as a substance.
I found some of his stuff online and he's basically saying that grace is not the emergent favor of God.
It's the power of God. And so every time he sees the grace of God in the
New Testament, he replaces it with power. What do you think about all this?
That's a misunderstanding of what grace is. Grace is often associated with power.
So I'll be doing a word study on that and some other things. But I've come across that before and there are verses that suggest that.
Yeah, because when he would read a verse like in Jesus' name it was full of grace and truth.
Yeah. And he would immediately say seed could not be the favor of God because how could
Jesus have any favor with God? Because he was based on the law which is what we're doing with the statutes.
Yeah. Okay. Next question.
Okay, so when you're doing your study, I would be very interested, as you're studying through this,
I would be very interested to see how they're going to handle 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus since Paul is giving specific instructions to Timothy and to Titus to be sound in their doctrine and to warn them to protect the flock.
So I'm going to be doing a series of articles dealing with the issue of doctrines as it relates to the thing that they're most obviously guilty of not one of them, whether it has to do with the others.
And what I'm going to do is take their apostles and their prophets that I'm going to relate to the research I've done on the Scriptures and 1st
Matthew 4 -6 does not exceed what's written on the Shabbat. We'll do that. And so I'm going to relate it to them and say why are they exceeding what's written when beyond what's written?
And I'm going to go to 2 Timothy 4 and I'm going to go to 2 Timothy 4 and I'm going to let them do their sound doctrine because they're violating the pastoral principles in this text.
Why did Jesus come on Passover and not Yom Kippur? I don't know. That's why the professors at the seminary like that because that was typological of a victory work.
So with their movement with them having supposed apostles would that mean they would be able to write
Scripture? They say no. Because of that era of those specific apostles who have not been able to or are not called to write
Scripture. And everything that happens now can't be in contradiction to the Scripture. But it is.
So one of the things I was looking for is what apparently in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul says Am I not an apostle?
Have I not seen the risen Lord? St. Peter Wagner actually said there are some apostles who say they've seen the risen
Lord. Now then we get to the issue of can Jesus be seen today? I really can't.
I don't think anything Scripture says we can't see but the vision. And things like that. There are thousands upon thousands of Muslims in the
Middle East who are having visions of Jesus on a regular basis. So that's different than saying the risen
Lord. The risen Lord. Not that this carries much weight but something happened when
I was in Jerusalem a few years ago and I've told this story here before where I was in a bookstore with some people on a tour and they wanted to buy a
Bible with Hebrew and English. So we're in there and this store owner comes up and says, Am I not a Christian? Yeah, sure you are.
He said, No, I'm a Christian. He goes, No, I'm a Christian. And I was bathing and just watching the girls because one of the propositions literally by somebody earlier about how she could be sold in marketplace.
And there were some girls who asked that. We don't even do that. So I was guarding the litter.
That's what I was doing there. So we're sitting there and I wasn't interested in eating that. I was watching them. So this guy said,
Look, I don't see Jesus. I said, Oh. He said,
You don't understand. He looked in my eyes and he said, I saw him. He appeared to me.
I saw him when I looked into his eyes. I knew he was God. I could still see him looking at me directly.
And I just said, Okay. What are you going to do with that? I know people would say,
When I was in seminary, I was in a class. One guy and I were sitting there and I told him about cult experiences.
And I said, Yeah, I've seen all the changes of the form of man in places we go across.
My friend and I saw him. And he said, Yeah, I know that. And I saw him.
And he looked at me and said, There's some people who have presuppositions that you just can't get around.
And I know that I'm taking risks by saying publicly, I believe in Jesus Christ and I've seen these things.
But I believe in Jesus Christ and I've seen these things. If you don't want to show me, show me the Scripture. That's what
I said. And so, I went back to what T .P. Wacker was saying, which
I was wondering as I was reading through his talk. He said some of them have seen the
Resurrection. Now, have they really seen the Resurrection? I don't know. Do I just believe that he said so?
No. But at least he was looking at the Scriptures and trying to relate to the
Word of God, which I commend him for. But I've had to talk to these people. Let me ask you, do you have a vision?
Yes, I have a vision. I saw it in my mind's eye. So, since these guys, here's one of the questions
I've got. If they're apostles of God and they prove them to be pastors, why do they do that? Well, the
Bible says no. Simple question, and it's not as a cultural thing.
When they're not being pastors, no one is. I'm sorry. If they're of God, yet they have no problem with this stuff.
It's amazing. How would you do that when they're of God? There are other things that we can say that clearly point out some stuff.
Some of the problems I've been reading about from some of the critics of the NAR is they don't like what happens in my experience.
Well, how do you know? So, I might ask somebody, is that the monitor or a
Christian? How do you know? That's a question I would ask. Because it looks demonic.
Because it's just similar descriptions of throwing themselves in a fire out of control. Okay. Does it mean it's always demonic?
I don't know. And the Scriptures don't tell me. So, I don't make those judgments.
Oh, it's automatically demonic. It might be that someone's going through something. I tend to think it's demonic.
But it doesn't mean it is. I just think it's logical. Can you base that assumption or presupposition that it's demonic based on?
Well, they're doing that because they're teaching this completely against what the Bible says. Right.
Yeah, I would agree with you. But that's the kind of thing to do. It's, for example, when a pastor ends up teaching at Bethel Church on the stage, she's going through the
Scriptures, and she's reading to a pastor who understands what he's all about.
Here's an example. And there's someone, a grandma, she's teaching on the Word of God, and she's obviously out of God's will to begin with because she's doing pastor teaching to the authority of her men in the church.
Then I'd say, this doesn't seem to be in harmony with Scripture. I can't say it's biblical. Certainly cannot.
And since you're working against Scripture, I'm going to conclude that that's supposed to be guilty by association. But even then,
I've got to be careful. It's not necessarily the devil working. But it's definitely not God working.
It could be, there's only three possibilities. The Holy Spirit Himself, or it's just a motion of God working on it.
And I know that people say, that's obviously demonic. You can't say unless you're letting them watch the stage.
It's obviously demonic. Why do you have the Word of God on that? And they'll say, no,
I just know you have these really good spirits. ... ... ...
... ...
... ... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
I know, and so things go like this. But here's the thing, that guy says that he may like what
NAR is, but they may not agree with what he just said. It's really hard to wade through all of these things.
I mean, they have to have a formation and say, he represents it and he represents it. It's like, let's say we have 15 different dispensationalists in here.
And I think one of them would say, well, that's what a dispensationalist is. You might go, that's not a dispensationalist. We don't agree necessarily.
And that's the problem with NAR. There's a large group of people who have a different range of opinions on something.
But if you look at their view of God in these accounts, you don't see, as you brought up earlier, when
Isaiah stood in the presence of God, in the throne of God, all they saw was the same.
When Daniel stood in the presence of God, they all saw the same. Revelation 4, 1, 2, 3, 4.
See, that kind of stuff, if someone's writing something and I'm talking about that, that doesn't sound good, that's completely out of order, things like that,
I can write against. But when people say, yeah, that's the throne of God.
Really? You know, this kind of casual attitude, don't know what's wrong with the throne of God, give me a break.
Don't know what's wrong with the throne of God, give me a break. That's what's going to happen.
You know, you need the mediator, Jesus Christ. That's what's going to happen. It's like that video on YouTube.
There's a video of God in the Spirit. It doesn't take a long time to negotiate. There's a video of God, oh,
I think he's about here now. And it appears, oh my God, I'm sorry. That's the presence of God.
Okay, I like the way that's done. You know, it's cool, it's totally cool.
It's kind of stuff that ain't so carefully thought about. When I wrote about my testimony in the presence of the
Lord that day, I mean, I tried to get people to understand. I said, my face was to the ground.
All I could do was throw out and puke out my agonizing tears of moaning repentance.
But I remember it. It was complete. It was total. It was convulsing.
It was out of my heart, out of my soul. All I could do was just barf it out. I was in the presence of holiness.
That's what happened in my conversion. For real. And that these guys will go to the throne of heaven.
None of my experience makes sense. But, I'll tell you, what happens when they're in the
Bible in the presence of God? That kind of thing. So that's why I say,
I don't have any problems. It doesn't contradict Scripture. So, therefore, it's within the realm of accountability. And so, that's the way it is.
But, you know, we've got to be really careful about these things. I know that I've said myself, I've got a lot of problems for people to criticize.
Now that you've been in the experience of Scripture, I do not. Everything is driven by Scripture. And when we say
Scripture, when they're in the presence of God, in the throne of God's love to speak, they are undone. They are weeping. They are repentant.
They are confessing. And they'll point to themselves as apostles and prophets after a little bit. Oh, God, give me a break.
I'm telling you, when you're in the presence of God, you talk about who you are. What do you think you've got?
You are undone. I am nothing. These people say I'm a man of unclean lips.
They confess what they are. They're nothing. That's how it is. That's how
I know this guy is a wine sack of crap. They talk about going to... They are a wine sack of crap.
No socks. Wine sack of crap. That's what I call them. No socks. And so they are.
Because they forget the throne of God. Really? Whenever I go back, yeah, you can also experience the throne of God.
You could have it in 1995. And all of a sudden you have the thing, like my white fox cheek.
And you can just rub it on your forehead. And you'll be able to go to heaven with the throne of God. That's the kind of attitude
I have about the stupidity that they are promoting. I got nothing bad to do with it.
Does anyone know who I am? Yes.
I went to Christ College Irvine, which is now Concordia University for the last two years, but I went to a community college before that,
I graduated with a Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University in 1987,
Master of Divinity from West Missouri Theological Seminary in San Diego, California. I moved from college to the
Preparatory Seminary. Do I want, like, forks over knives?
What the heck is that? I don't know what it is. I don't remember. Somebody said something about that.
I don't want to know. I don't think I'm a vegan. I watch a lot of similar things. I don't think
I'm a vegan. I don't think I'm a vegan, but I eat sushi. I eat that. I don't know if that's a great video.
It's steak, meat eaters, we're not vegans. Do you watch that? Oh, yeah.
Yeah. Okay, next question. Okay, this is about our prior discussion of women deacons.
Women deacons. Subject and law. What about the women deacons in Paul's circle? Can you imagine outside the
Bible a letter from Pontius in northern Turkey to Emperor Clegane? I don't put any credence in anything that's outside of the scripture.
It's more doctrinal purity or authority goes. So anything about anything outside of the scripture, you're wrong.
But in the New Testament, deacons, deaconess, and deaconoi, it's used in a feminine term of a servant, but it's not in the official office.
Because a deacon is to be a man of one woman. That's what it says in the office of deacon in the authority position of the church.
Okay, along those same lines, 1 Timothy 3.
Does 1 Timothy 3 say only men should be deacons? It says in 1
Timothy 3. Let me go there. It says... Okay, that's when there's one.
Okay. I don't understand that. What?
I don't know. I think there's a position. Yeah, there are, but they're not official. They're not offices.
They're servants. Just like men are servants. Okay, here we go.
1 Timothy 3. Deacons, likewise, must be men, if they do not double -tongue, or continue much wine -consuming game.
These men also must be first -tested, but that's true as deacons, if they're built on reproach. There's another place about it in Leibniz.
It's 11. Here we go. Deacons must be husbands of one wife.
I believe the Greek is on there. Yes, goodnight, gods. Man, a nair's husband, or, yes, goodnight, gods.
A nair's husband, or man, and a man of one woman. A man of one woman.
So here we go. An elder, for example, must be a man of one woman. Well, this is because...
So, it has to have children who believe. What is one child? There's not children.
Disqualified from being an elder. No, that's not the point. The point is that he should be a man who has his household in order, and he's a man of one woman.
He's married to one woman, not polygamy. That's what's going on there. So, let's say a man is a good elder.
He's got a wife and three believing kids. Or he's super liberal. And then they all die in a car accident.
He's no longer married. No longer has believing children. Right? Forgotten.
It's really important. We can get into ridiculous kind of stuff. What the Bible is talking about is the elder always is male.
And the presbyter boy, the elder is masculine. The elders, in the context of the church office, it's male, it's male, it's male.
I can give you the doctorate federal that you... I don't know why that's so important. They'll do a teaching on it again sometime.
People need to hear that. Yeah, that's been a long way. It's polygamy. It's polygamy.
Can that be in polygamy? Yeah, divorce. Well, when you get a divorce, there's a gray area about this in the church context and stuff.
So, among Christians, there's a debate. Some Christians will say, even as an unbeliever, if you're divorced, you can never be an elder.
Some say, if you've been divorced, as a non -believer, then you get married and you're a believer, then you can be an elder.
And then some say, if you're an elder, you know what to do the minute she leaves. Get rid of her.
And so some might say then, that different positions I've heard about, that any man who's divorced for any reason as a
Christian can't ever be an elder. And I'll say, wait a minute, what about the wife who becomes an adulteress and who refuses to repent and he's done everything he can to reconcile, to work with it, and she won't repent?
Is he disqualified? I would say no. But he's been very godly with the whole thing.
But he might disagree. He's a creator. I would say you can't use the one -woman man for divorce.
The divorce is the one -woman man. If he hasn't remarried, then for his sake, it has to be only one woman for life.
You're saying a widower, right, who remarries. That's why I think the greatest clue is, a man of one woman is an attitudinal thing that he has to be a one -woman man.
So he doesn't have eyes? No, he doesn't have eyes, he doesn't have character issues. He has character issues and monogamy.
One wife, not two or more wives. And the reason probably is because they drive him crazy.
He couldn't do a good job in that church. I'll get some smiles from a couple of ladies.
So it can't be a single guy being elderly? That's another thing.
Can a single guy be an elder? Always. Well, I'm not saying there's just anybody.
He was a married man who lost his wife. But can a single man be an elder?
I say yeah. Because it's an attitudinal thing. Because what if he was married and his wife dies, his children die, he's no longer eligible.
Okay, that kind of thing. For example, well, imagine that.
Anybody else online? Are they liking this online? Yeah, I like it. You like it?
Okay. Cody Robbins. Cody Robbins.
Oh, Cody. That's Cody Robbins. Cody Robbins. What, in your experience, do you believe are the root heart issues for Christians who are preoccupied with mysticism?
Oh, what's the reason that people are preoccupied with mysticism? There might be false converts that are
Christians. Okay. You want experience over the Word of God, and or they haven't matured in what is necessary.
Because you can be a young Christian and still be hooked up with some bad things. I just don't know.
And just be interested. And so you want stuff. And then the gravity of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit works and changes you and you grow through things like that.
There's several things. I can remember some of the things, even as a new Christian that I did or the attitudes
I had, which now I'm like, what do you think? You know?
So God's gracious. We should be too. Next. We're all for you.
No, we're all for you. Thank you very much. I love teaching.
That makes me. Why do they, our counterparts, pay baptism of the
Holy Spirit separate from regeneration? Is baptism of the Holy Spirit separate from regeneration?
Depends on how you define it. So regeneration is the Word of God. All believers have the
Holy Spirit in them. Period. So when they talk about baptism of the Holy Spirit, they're talking about a second movement.
I think they confuse the feeling. The feeling is different than baptism. That's what I think. And so the terms that you've got in the
Holy Spirit, they mean it to say, no, you've got the Holy Spirit against you. I mean, these come from the human power.
And an extra way, an extra this, you see a power. And you can tell them to have this move.
Well, let me tell you something that I've experienced. I had a very interesting time on the
Lord, and there was a period of a few months where I started to slide.
And I was set on God and His conviction. And one of my sins, I also learned to follow
God. I don't know if you've been in a state like that. But I've had some issues and some stuff.
And I remember I got angry at God one night. Leave me alone. Which I didn't mean, but, you know,
He's a powerhouse. He's going to say something. And I remember that pretty well.
But I also remember that I lost my, I can't remember what happened for that month after this, even after it happened.
But after this, about a month after that, I was insatiably drawn to the Word of God. Absolutely insatiably.
I would read the Bible for four to six hours every day. I would go to Bible study six out of seven nights each week.
It was just insatiable. I would consider that to be a baptism of the Holy Spirit, from the sense that they talk about.
No tongues or manifestation. No words of knowledge. No levitation. No anything.
It was just the incredible desire to hear more of Jesus. To learn from His Word.
To go through and experience the Word of God. And I considered that to be an incredibly great blessing that God gave me.
And it lasted for years. I could not get enough of God's Word. And I would read commentaries.
I remember having a drafting job, a mechanical draftsman at a certain company in North Carolina, California, in Florida.
I'm sitting there writing. I have my commentary literally open. I'm on a drafting table.
I would literally draw like that and read. And that is the
Holy Spirit. It's not just speaking in tongues. It's filling. I think that's really what it is. It's the move that God does.
He gives you something. And let me tell you, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that I can think of that I should be doing what
I do. None. I was in the occult and chasing girls.
I never did drugs. I just never did. I was into pornography. I was into all kinds of stuff except for drugs and alcohol.
I did enough stuff to be arrested and be sent to jail. And a lot of us have. I was a bad guy.
And there's no reason that God would do that. In his counterfactuals of knowledge and wisdom, all of us know that we do in certain circumstances.
But that's another world. You know, it's just God's mercy.
It's just God's grace. It's just God's work. And he deserves all the glory. And that's it.
He came and saved me when I was 17. He filled me with that spiritual experience, with the desire to bring the
Word of God to such an insatiable degree that I couldn't even contain it anymore. I saw something move outside that window, but I think it might have been an optical illusion.
It could be the Word moving around over your head. Okay. Number five says requirements become possible.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. in order to be an apostle, and it was a sentence.
It seems to be. But then, we asked businesses whether others were called apostles, like Barnabas, did he see the risen
Lord? Others were called apostles, but did he see the risen Lord? And that wasn't saying. So it's, that's why
I put the word apostle there, just to do more research. And, so we want to talk to you about Romans 3 .25,
Romans 11 .25, and something I, one of the notes at the bottom, I had this inkling of understanding it.
Could it be that the New Testament prophets have to be Jews? It's at the bottom of the page that I put that in there.
Yes, for the better reference. So I do not want you brethren to be uninformed of this mystery, so that they will be wise in their own essential mystery.
And the Gentiles, they have a martial heart. Yes, that was a note to myself.
There's another verse there, Ephesians 3 .5, Ephesians 3 .5, which says which in other generations was made known to the sons of men as it was revealed by its holy apostles and prophets in general.
And so, it's a note to myself, which I'm going to take out from you because it's, that I need to see if there's an idea hidden in there, so to speak, that the
New Testament prophets had to be Jews. I'm not saying it is the case, but there were prophets before Christ even.
Well, there were New Testament, we're talking New Testament prophets. And so,
I was wondering which of those two verses necessitated that the prophets had to be Jews. That was my intent. Yeah, I was just,
I don't know, I was just throwing it out. It may be a political logic to step further, but it was, yeah, they were around the time of Christ.
What if they were prophets before Christ did die? And so, they were of these old covenant styles over time with the apostles after Christ.
And so, the prophets were in the New Testament style. Now, John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets.
So, that's none other than 1616, the long prophets were until John. So, John the
Baptist. So, when I was looking at Ephesians 3 .23, I went, no,
Ephesians 3 .25, I love it.
So, is it the case, okay, is it the case, this is just me wondering which in another generation was not made known to sons of men as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the spirit.
So, what was revealed to the apostles? Let's go with the word prophet here. What was revealed to the prophets? I'm a
New Testament prophet here, in which in another generation was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets.
It seems like the apostles, the prophets. Then you talk about now, in the spirit, what was revealed?
In the context, as to the Gentiles. In Romans 11 .25, as the
Gentiles are coming in. Well, that would imply, if I'm correct, that the prophets here in Ephesians 3 .5
have to be Jews. See, because if that's the case, that they have to be
Jews, otherwise, as part of the message, it's revealed to the prophets, they would be Jews. It would be revealed to the
Gentiles and prophets because that's what it is. That's why I'm thinking, I wonder if the prophets in the
New Testament sense have to be Jews. Wow, that would be powerful in our discussion of Mormons.
It would be powerful in the Mormons here, and it would be hugely powerful in the NAR as well. Can I make my case?
And I don't know, so I can give you a prophet book. You can give me a prophet book. You're a Jewish. I don't agree with that.
You get one more box checked, you get several more boxes checked. One thing with the apostles, the whole passage in Acts 1, just a more minute little thing there is, in Acts 1, 21 to 26, what we have is the 11 saying how they're gonna pick a replacement.
So it was with them from the beginning, had to be from the beginning, had to see the result. The thing there, though, is it's a historical narrative, so it's accurate in what did happen.
Nowhere do we see where God says, this is the, and the reason that becomes important is because some of you in that passage say, well, it can't be impossible.
I'm not even gonna say, let me show them where it wasn't impossible. Yeah, but Jesus called them to be impossible. Yeah, but this was, this is where it's, you may not be able to read it in Scripture, but it records what they said and what they did, right?
So it may not be God saying, this is the only means of. Yeah, I understand. It's a hypothetical issue.
I'm not saying a whole bunch of things to get into the minutiae of some details, but what do you think of that Ephesians 3, 5,
Romans 11, 25 connection? If there is one, if it's true, oh, that could be devastating for the
NAR and Mormons and Muslims. See, it's like they're bailing on the
Lord and believing they can't handle the truth. That's what it is, isn't it? Yeah, yeah. The bigger it was, the bigger it's gonna be.
So you gotta double R -C -A, all right? So, yeah,
I'm gonna have to study it. It may be that, maybe there's an implication, but I'm not proof. No case on it, but I'm not proof of an article if I get enough evidence.
If I look at it, maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Anyway, this is what happens when you just study the
Word. You go, wait a minute, I wonder if, what does it say?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we have other questions coming. Andrew from Facebook?
Andrew from Facebook. Wants. I'm asking questions from Facebook. Oh, you're here,
I have a question. Hi. Yeah, I'm not, I'm not, excuse me. He wants to know how does this work from the first letter to the
B regarding electing angels? How does it work in regard to electing angels? How does it work?
Electing angels. That means they're not chosen. What I think it means, and actually that first,
I'll put up a whole can of worms for me. I suspect that verse 65 .1
is a clue about something. Anyway, electing angels, the chosen angels.
I personally lean towards the idea that they are the angels chosen by God. By God, not sin. They're the elected angels, the chosen angels.
That's my opinion. If that's the case, why would they be elect? I got me thinking.
And I suspect they had to be elect because all, I'm actually in this way.
All sentient beings, all of these may be, where they were self -aware, rational, things like that, angels were included there.
Because we don't possess holiness, which I believe is an attribute of God's greatness, which is His nature.
I was hoping only God cannot congregate Himself, only God cannot sin. The first of the 5 .1,
elect angels. That they had to be chosen not to sin because even they would have sinned, all of them.
So we chose to sin and not. And so I suspect that there can be no counterfactual world where libertarian free will is never the case because compatibilism with property is a necessary part of our existence.
And that's what gets into some other stuff. And one day I'm gonna do some stuff more on this and then
I'm gonna go into some deep stuff. I don't know if you know what I'm saying. I don't know what
I'm saying so far. I mean, the heresy of selfishness. The heresy of selfishness, it's all a heresy.
We show that every week, we show that every week. There's plenty of people who do videos on that.
There's plenty of people who do videos on that. There's a lot of people who do videos on this, right?
Do you want to get more answers to the questions? There's a lot of people who want to know. Some of the best ways to try to understand the meanings of certain verses.
Most of the best ways to understand the meanings of certain verses. The first thing I would suggest after you get into that first verse thing is to read it prayerfully, asking
God to open up their hearts and their minds, to ask the Holy Spirit, ask Jesus through Luke 24, 45, to open up their hearts to receive the truth and understand it, to have that world before them with prayer and supplication before God, saying,
Lord, teach me, tell me what it means to you. There's rules that generally we use to apply to understanding scripture.
And basically, I teach a course on this, too, and Andrew does this, too, but basically, there are variations of this.
You start from the center out. What does the verse actually say? And then what is this, the words in it?
And then what's the immediate context? What's the broader context? What's related passages?
What's the general theme? You kind of look at that and you put it all together. You can use a little logic when you do it.
And you need to, as much as possible, try and not bring in your presuppositions. And there's no guarantee.
Like, see, Andrew and I, for example, we disagree on several things, but we both would use the same processes. We both would come up with different opinions on some debatable issues.
It's not because either one of us is right or wrong, but we both would be right or wrong in our decisions.
Such as the effect of sin on the mind, or the wedding contract. And, but, if we are seeking to be prayerful and mindful of where God is, then, generally speaking, there's gonna be less deviation and less error.
Yes? Is there any difference between a covenantal versus a dispensational?
Yeah. Yeah, a covenantal is when you take over some method. A dispensational is when you take over a dispensational.
And that's a way to simplify. It's a way to make and respond to things, but.
Yeah, there's a difference. And similar. Is that just a presupposition, or is that actually part of the process of?
Some would say presuppositional, some would say it's not. Some would say it's a right out of scripture. Some would say it is. It just gets into a lot of ambivalent things.
It's not easy to install. Just give me a quick question, quick answer. Well, that's at a real high level.
What do you do if you're on the church? Yeah. That's kind of the one that's been here for a huge long time. It's been repeated.
But what do we do if you're on the church? Replacement theology is the difference between. For some covenantalists, we believe in complete replacement theology.
For me, I'm a complete covenantalist, and I don't believe in replacement theology completely.
As a matter of fact, you're close to a new covenantal theology in that. Now, it says you've not done a ministry on it. It says you've not done a ministry on it.
But we haven't replaced Israel's function right now. So it's a big difference between covenantal theology and new covenantal theology.
The biggest thing about covenantal theology and new covenantal theology is it's gonna be a different church. Right, that's why
I broke that down. I'm a foot in the covenantal theology, and I'm gonna put another step in covenantal theology, and another foot in reformed theology, and another feet in the dispensational theology.
Okay. There's a lot of things. You're welcome to answer that. No, no, no. Okay, good. Okay. Okay, another question?
Yeah. Okay. They don't work very well.
Someone's writing. Cody. Cody. Wants to know, how can we clearly show the judging of our works in Revelation for the believer?
How can we clearly show the judging of our works in Revelation for the believer? It has nothing to do with our salvation. It has nothing to do with our salvation.
Specifically for Mormon. For Mormon. Well, you're talking about the book of Revelation.
Yeah. Yeah. I would have to look at the book of Revelation and examine all the verses related to it and put them together and see that it's the only book of Revelation to do that.
But I've never just only gone and put a revelation in that. I've done
Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians, which is very clear. But it's interesting to find that in Revelation.
I think it's after that thing. That's true. Yeah. Yeah.
So that's an interesting question. I don't know. I don't know. I'll have to just see about that one.
Is it an authoritative column if a woman leads a Bible study before church service?
If she leads a Bible study before church service. This would be in some of the gray areas. Before this teaching, we're exercising authority over men in the church.
You shouldn't do it. Okay? So that's what's happening. It shouldn't be done. So if it's just women, no problem.
Children, no problem. I know of, I've heard of, where the woman is teaching, the women are there, and when the man enters, she just stops teaching.
She just waits. And then you go get some cookies really fast. That's what sounds to some ladies. Because some of them don't have any money to spend to go back and teach again.
Kind of a peculiar sort of thing. Is there a difference between teaching in church versus teaching out of church?
Now that's a good question. Teaching in church or teaching out of church. I would say yes, there's a difference. Because Paul's giving instruction on how to behave in the church.
So as an example, when we're in seminary, we had a week -long time when all the classes were open up to the public, and the seminary flew in a woman to teach at the seminary, a class on what women can do and how they can be used in the church.
So that would mean that the men in the seminary could sit under her teaching. I was the only man in the entire class.
The only man in the Presbyterian Seminary. I thought they were a little bit too uppy. Guys, get in here. This is one of the more important topics you're gonna have to understand, because at least half of your congregation members are gonna be the ladies.
And they can't be preachers or teachers, but what else can they do? To what extent can they do it? And this woman gave a lot of great advice.
And I loved that. I had no problem. And the seminary professors had no problem with it, because they flew in and had a teaching.
Yes, no problem. So teaching and preaching in the church that's specifically on local topics.
For instance, we have a church in the Presbyterian ministry. If I have a female who's a firefighter, then
I use her for church security. If you have a Sunday school teacher who are men,
I use the fire extinguisher. And there are a lot of problems with this. Yeah, that's a good question. So you have a church security team, a female, who knows, she's a firefighter, who knows far more than any of the men in the church about how to put out a fire, right?
Could you teach them? Absolutely. It's not an authoritative thing in the church context, preaching and teaching.
That's what's going on. Yeah, because I wouldn't be a Christian if I had a job.
And, oh, it's overgiven authority. Sorry, you can't teach because you're unqualified. It's not gonna work.
So that's in the church context, and that's why I focus on the issue of pastors and elders, because the
Bible talks about us being men, and there's a federal pension representation issue that's associated with that.
I'm gonna do another teaching on the salute of pastors and elders right in front of you. Yes? Who would win in an
MMA fight, Matt or Amber? Well, because I don't watch
MMA, don't do it. Yeah, I don't watch it. Why was it the
Krav Maga World A -Quarters? You know, I said, that would be true. I've got a picture of the
Krav Maga Olympics, or the U .S .A. One of my old Kung Fu instructors said, you never know who's gonna win.
Because someone who's got just no skills at all can have a lucky shot at letting it out.
Just, I don't believe what you're talking about. But, there are, there are lucky shots.
My instructor said, you never know who's gonna win. So, I'm gonna tell you. Okay, so, next, we've got some serious questions.
And names. I forgot. I forgot.
I forgot. I forgot that. Yeah. All right. Any other questions? Or how about any other? Can you do that one?
I don't know. I don't know. What was that question? How about another question? Once a man, but now it's January 2nd.
Nice person. All right. All right. All right. All right. This is supposed to be a mature audience.
Here. What if, what if they, they quit? Quarter World Transitions, I think you would say. That, that, that, that is, that is, that is my son.
That is my son. That is my son. Yeah. What do you do for a designated fighter if you're a man identifying as a female and want to fight a female fighter?
Actually, they, they, there's, there's just, No, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no.
Here, here's the case. They just had a case where a girl was a wrestler. Supposedly transitioning as a man.
So, because of that, they were letting her take hormones. So, the, the, because she took hormones, because she, because she won state, she won national.
This is ridiculous. And all the people that said, you know what, she won't big. No, no.
No, no. No. So, and Frank Ford says she should fight against men, if she says she's a male fighter, then you 're right, because otherwise she's lost.
She, but she wouldn't. Right. Do she want to identify? With liberals, you have got mental problems
That's what you do, but it seems like it's not that stuff you guys do. Yes. I'm sure it's a little
Latin, but I love that shirt. In any art of Hinduism, they always go by what seems like a glorious eschatology.
Whether we know the church establishes the kingdom and then invites the Christ to come on earth.
That's kind of post -Millennium. Post -Millennium. Post -Millennium. Post -Millennium.
Yeah. I was going to say that. Well, that's just a view.
It's how it works. It's not how it doesn't. I'm a pessimistic homophobe.
Jesus said, when he returns, we'll find faith. If he doesn't return, no flesh will be left.
That's just a view. I'm a pessimistic homophobe.
I don't have power. I don't trust in God's power. I believe in the power of God's hand. I just know what
God says. From what I see, when he says, when the
Son of Man returns, we'll find faith, why would he ask a question? It's just increasing and getting better.
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
I don't know. I don't know.
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
I don't know. The question is honestly, it's just what I see the scriptures teach. I don't like the position, to be honest I don't like it.
The idea that things are going to get so bad that we have to flee through the hills to survive, and that implication is to start to separate the antitrust is running loose.
If he doesn't come back, no flesh will be saved. That's what I see as good news.
That's what I see. And I don't want it to fly off the ground. I'd have multiple legalists respond to that and say, don't you believe in the power of the gospel?
Yes. Well, they're taking it off the table. I think you have a great description of what
I'm talking about. Multiple legalism is the teaching, that's the preaching, the teaching of the gospel message.
Basically, it will be converted. And it will usher in the Kingdom of God. It will return. Basically, there's variation within that.
So the problem with what I have to do, in order to satisfy everybody, I have to know all of their positions.
I have to articulate all of their positions sufficiently so that they don't write something about how evil I am, stupid
I am, and apocryphal. That doesn't help. It doesn't help. So with the Catholic stuff, I have to know so many things in Catholicism, in atheism, so many different types of atheism.
In philosophy, I know all kinds of categories of philosophy. And this is in the logical systems.
I have to know logical systems, counterfactuals. I have to be a millennial. In modernism, for example,
I have to study counterfactuals more than they do the angel. And that's very difficult questions.
And I'm not getting any help from modernists. So I have to study and read their material, read their material, read their material, read their material.
And then I summarize what I'm reading, and then they go, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. What is it?
I'm not telling you, you should read it yourself. So who was it who was saying recently that they said that they couldn't believe how much
I'm attacked? Oh, I know. I got this call today from one of my old seminary buddies,
Ben -Gurion, and he's in Bakersfield, and he does a prison ministry. So he said, you know something, you should get a lot of hate.
You kind of attack a lot of people. He said, I just go to the web, look at this stuff.
Man, the people hate you. And that's just your friends. That's just my friends. The reason they're my friends is because they have to be my friends.
They're torturing me. They don't want to, but they do. I think it's just, if I want to,
I can do less. Because somebody's not going to give it to me. I'll be worth it then. I'll be worth it then. So you're not going to be hurt anyway.
You don't have any more questions? Yeah. Okay, shoot. Let's go a little bit longer. Is it a blood call?
For a woman to perform a marriage ceremony? Is it? Yeah. I don't see any reason why a woman can't perform a marriage ceremony.
Isn't that a pastoral role? Well, let's analyze that.
Is it okay for a woman to perform a marriage ceremony? What is a marriage ceremony? It's a ceremony.
It's a ceremony where people find themselves together before God and before man.
So a true marriage would presuppose Christian principles. So from a
Christian perspective, a woman officiates that. I would say yes, because she's not in an authoritative teaching position.
She's just repeating, basically, the vows that a person needs to do. I think it's very accurate.
I think it's just as a beast can do it. Just as a beast can do it, it's a different marriage. A woman can do that.
That's a good question. If they do that, what it does is it's a beast. It's a female. As long as they're not a pastor, what can a female do about this?
I wouldn't see why not. I don't see anything in scripture that says no. But is it a church function when a woman gets married?
Nope. You don't have communion. You don't have preaching the word in the church discipline. So I would think it's a church function.
So when a guy performs, he's supposed to do nothing.
There's often a little sermonette that helps you out. So that would be interesting. When she gave a sermonette, this could be an interesting question to resolve.
Next. Are you a faithful or non -faithful in worship?
Faithful. Are you a faithful in worship? Right, that's a different word. Normative.
What does that mean? The regular principle is the order of worship. What style of worship is it?
Can and how. Can and how. There's the Lutheran one. There's the
Reformed one. The Lutheran one says you can do... The regular principle is you can't go beyond what scripture says.
It's consistently helpful. You'll only sing the Psalms in church.
That's the only thing in the Bible. It's going to relate to the normative. And normative is then going to say that you can go beyond just what scripture says and what's normal for our culture.
So you're not going to allow orations or pianos. Well, the Lutheran one and the
Reformed one. So the Lutheran one says you can do only what the scriptures...
No, no. The Reformed one says you can only do what the scriptures declare. The Lutheran one says you can do anything unless the scriptures forbid.
That's what I like. And so that would be more normative. So even the
Reformed, as you write it out, if you can only do what the scriptures admonish, then basically it would be solo psalm number one.
And we talked about that in seminary. We said if it's only Psalms, then you can't pray the name of Jesus.
And then Professor Ecker said, that's a good point. But in the New Testament, it says that we speak to each other in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
Not just speaking. So that means there are spiritual songs, not just hymns that are part of the worship.
So I think that that would justify that we could use all kinds of stuff. Unless you don't do it.
Don't exceed what's written. And don't go beyond what's written. Well, yes, that's in there.
We sing praise to Jesus. They certainly do in the New Testament, in the Book of Revelation. And one of the professors in seminary at this point said, well, we don't want to do these repetition songs, these mantras they do in these churches nowadays.
And I said, you mean like saying, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, over, and over, and over, and over again in heaven?
That's a good point, yeah. But I understood what he was saying. You know, not putting yourself in a trance.
Yeah, not putting yourself in a trance. That's what he was getting at. Maybe professors, you could challenge them, but they would just, you know, just go with it.
They would agree. But those are some of the things. Yeah, I hope you're free to worship.
But in everything in Scripture, I don't see anything in Scripture that says you can't praise Jesus. Or I think it's all there, praising his name, which is
Revelation. That's what the Scriptures declare. They sing holy, holy, holy, Lord. They're singing praise songs.
That's what it is. Singing songs as well. And it says hymns.
So if you want to go with only the regular principle of warm faith, you can't even sing hymns now.
It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song.
It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song.
It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song.
It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song. It's a spiritual song.
It's a spiritual song.