Dr. Brown is Live and Commercial Free on the 4th of July

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for listening this Truth Network Podcast. Tell me where you differ with me. Don't just ask me a question. But tell me where you differ with me.

Biblically, theologically, culturally. And what I want to do is dig into some of these questions and see why you feel the way you do. Well, you lay that out.

I'll explain why I feel the way I do. And hopefully this can be a good learning experience for everyone. So don't go rushing to Facebook and Twitter now. I already solicited the questions and then answered them before this is airing live. So, let's see. We'll start with Margaret over on Facebook.

And Margaret asks this. What is your opinion of a large church that refuses to let anyone take on a leadership role unless they speak in tongues? My feeling is that is 100% their prerogative. There may be other churches that say you cannot be in leadership if you do speak in tongues. Of course, I differ with that position on every level. But any church can set whatever policy it sees right and fit for leaders. For example, if you are going to a Baptist church, small or large, and you do not believe in believer baptism only, you believe that infants should be baptized and you want to be in a leadership role, that church could say, no, we have a fundamental difference here. Conversely, if you were going to a Presbyterian church and you did not believe in infant baptism and wanted to be raised up in leadership, they could say, sorry, we're not in harmony there. So, any church can have that position.

You say, but what's the reason for this? The reason would be the belief that in order to be in leadership, you must be empowered with the Holy Spirit. You must have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that they would believe that the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the first initial evidence, will be speaking in tongues. Therefore, if you don't speak in tongues, you have not been supernaturally empowered by the Spirit. You are saved, the Holy Spirit dwells in you, but you have not been empowered, immersed, baptized in the Spirit, and therefore, you cannot effectively serve in leadership unless you are baptized in the Spirit because all leadership requires the Spirit's anointing in that way.

So, I have no problem whatsoever for leadership holding that standard. I would question if speaking in tongues is the only way to know that someone has been baptized in the Spirit. I would say that there could be evidence in someone's life that they have been supernaturally empowered by the Spirit, baptized in the Spirit, and gifted by the Spirit, even though they don't speak in tongues.

I believe they could speak in tongues, but even if they haven't, then I would see things a little differently there. But I fully understand where they're coming from, and I respect them in having that viewpoint for the reasons just given. But here, let's remember there's a difference between attending a church and being a deeper covenantal member. In other words, you can show up on a Sunday, and then not show up for a month, and then show up for three straight weeks, and not show up for six months, and never give a dime to the church, and you drink a lot. Well, you can do that. Nobody's stopping you. Nobody's putting a requirement on you. But if you say, you know, I really want to come into covenantal fellowship with the body here, I want to be, I think you call it a member, is that what you call it?

I want to be a member here. Oh, well, they need to be genuinely born again. And then that church can say, all right, to be a member, we're asking for a higher level of commitment, and we're asking for you to support the ministry financially, and we are pledging to pour ourselves into you in this way, in this way, in this way, in this way, and be a community for you. In other words, the church can set what levels of membership requires, and then leadership is a whole other level.

So, I've got no problem with it whatsoever for those reasons, although I would simply say, I would rather look for evidence that someone has been filled with the Spirit, baptized in the Spirit, empowered by the Spirit, even if they don't speak in tongues, rather than excluded just on that level. Okay, Mick, where does it say in Scripture and in context that God poured his wrath out on Jesus on the cross? Where does it say in Scripture that God poured his wrath out on Jesus on the cross?

Number one, my emphasis is that Jesus took our place, that he died instead of us, that we were guilty, he died, we broke God's commandments, he suffered the penalty. That's why he dies a criminal's death, because he's paying for our sins, right? He is a ransom for our sins. That's the language he uses in Mark 10. Was he ransoming us from Satan?

No. He was paying the penalty for our sin. So, let's take a look in Isaiah, the 53rd chapter.

Isaiah chapter 53, and, hang on, let me get the right chapter up here, and let's just read this through. It says, beginning in verse 3, He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering and familiar with pain, like one from whom people hide their faces. He was despised, and we held him in low esteem. Surely, he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. In other words, we thought that God was punishing him because he was guilty, but he was pierced for our transgressions, or because of our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Right, so notice that. The punishment that brought us peace was upon him. So, he's suffering in our place. He's suffering divine punishment in our place.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray. Each of us has turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. So, God lays on him all of our iniquity, all of our sin. That's explicit, and the punishment that brought us peace is on him.

Now, let's skip down to verse 9. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, there was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer. And though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied by his knowledge. My righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore, God says, I give him a portion among the great.

He'll divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life to death and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. So, you see we had a different translation up for those who are watching. I was reading from the NIV, we had the new JPS version on the screen with the Hebrew, so you see some variants along the way. But what's clear is that God was pleased to crush him.

That's there in the language. God was pleased to cause him to suffer. You could say literally make him sick or just understand as often in the Hebrew sickness is a metaphor of suffering and pain. So, God brought that on him. God put our sin on him and then put our punishment on him.

The punishment that brought us peace is his. So, it doesn't explicitly say wrath there, but it speaks of punishment, it speaks of the Lord crushing him, it speaks of him taking our place. So, that single passage, Isaiah 53, would be the strongest of all. What's interesting is that when I debated Pastor Brian Zahn on this some years ago in 2014 in Kansas City, in fact September of 2014, in what was called the Monster God or Monster Man Debate, he basically said Isaiah 53 is difficult.

Well, it's not difficult, it's explicit. It's only difficult if you don't hold to that theology. And you can take any theology beyond what Scripture says and paint all kinds of pictures beyond what Scripture says, but this points to fundamentalism. So, remember the whole sacrificial system, the innocent victim took the judgment that should have come on the person who sinned. So, the sacrifice is offered up with repentance and that sacrifice dies the way you should have died and that dying is a judgment, hence a divine judgment. So, did Jesus take our place on the cross? Yes. Did Jesus die for our sins? Yes. Did he carry our sins on his shoulders? Yes. Did he pay the penalty? Was the penalty for our sin put on him? Yes.

Absolutely. And that would be the essence of substitutionary atonement. And while it doesn't explicitly say wrath, there are other passages you can argue for that, but this is the most explicit. It's very plain that he paid for our sins and took our punishment on the cross.

It's explicit, it's the only straight way really to read the text. Let's see, are a few thanking me and not enough to differ? All right, let's look at this from Rick.

It's a question, all right, tell you what, it's because I started, I'll answer it, but I'm really only looking for differences here. Should abortion be abolished and criminalized state by state in defiance of 48 years of evil Supreme Court opinions? Did you know that 10 states had righteous bills of abolition this year? Of course, every state should be working to abolish abortion, of course. And in every city, we should be working hard to win the lost, to make disciples, to raise consciousness of righteousness, so to change hearts and not just laws, to reach out to women struggling that think the only alternative is to have abortion, to give them alternatives and to really be there in a loving and compassionate way. Read the article that I wrote, Some Inconvenient Truths About Abortion. Some inconvenient truths about abortion. According to the latest Planned Parenthood report, last year under Donald Trump, so in 2019, before the 2020 year, that they set records for numbers of abortions performed and amounts of federal funding. So for all those screaming, well, Joe Biden is a baby killer. Well, the city and the White House doesn't kill babies. It's abortion clinics that kill babies and with the consent of parents or the mothers. So that's where we need to be reaching out more than anywhere into the local clinics, the local cities.

And I give a recommendation to go to lovelife.org, lovelife.org. And you can see what they're doing city by city and whatever you can do statewide to pass bills, sure. Now, they'll then get challenged, federal court, then the goal is to get them to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court could then back them and ultimately have a reason to overturn Roe v. Wade, which then pushes it back to the states anyway. So yes, of course, whatever can be done, the heartbeat bill, different things, whatever can be done state by state, do it.

But even more importantly, life by life, heart by heart. Let's bring about change. All right, we will be right back.

There's some really fascinating questions I've been asked. We'll tackle them when we return. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome back, friends, to The Line of Fire broadcast. Michael Brown responding to challenges, questions that I am asked on social media and elsewhere.

So we're not taking calls today, but we've got some really neat challenges. We're going to dig in, some from traditional Jews, some from people who hold to different views claiming to be Christian, but I would say are not. So we'll look at some of these challenges, some having to do with different views on Israel, and where are we going to start? I'm going to start on Facebook with Jonathan, and Jonathan says, Is Jesus the one true God? If he is God, if you say he is God, then he must be. I say the Father is the only true God, John 17-3. Now, do you think you're right about Jesus being God? Hey, Jonathan, I guess you didn't see my debate with Dr. Dale Tuggie, where we got into this passage at great length.

So I have a question for you. Is the Father also Lord? Is he only God, or is he also Lord? You say, of course he's Lord.

Well, hang on! Jude, the first chapter, the one chapter in Jude, it says that Jesus is the only true Lord. In 1 Corinthians 8, it says we have one Lord, Jesus. Does that mean that the Father is not Lord? Does that mean all the times he's called Lord in the Old Testament he's not really Lord? Does that really mean that seriously? Well, obviously not. So when it says in Jude 1 that Jesus is the only true Lord, it means as opposed to other false lords and other false masters that claim spiritual authority or that claim divine status.

No, no, of course not. They're not really lords at all. 1 Corinthians 8, there is only one true Lord, Jesus. He's not saying the Father is not Lord. Or 2 Corinthians 3, the Spirit is Lord. He's not denying that the Spirit is Lord. He's saying, as opposed to these others, no, no, no, only Jesus. It's the exact same thing with John 17. Your logic is what undermines your whole argument. And again, this is really self-evident. That Jesus praying to his Father, saying the Father is the only true God.

That's true. All the other so-called gods are false. Every idol, every ancient deity, they're all false gods.

Be it Baal, be it Chemosh, be it Astarte, be it Asherah, be it Zeus, be it Apollos, be it whoever. They're all false gods. There's only one true God. And he's praying to his Father, who is the one true God. But Jesus has already told us, he's already told us in John 10, I and the Father are one. He's already told us in John 14, he's already told us that the Father's in him and he's in the Father, so he's included in that one true God. But he's praying to his Father, who's the only true God. He's not saying, oh, by the way, that excludes me. No, because he's one with his Father. And what are you going to do with the fact that in that very same prayer, a couple verses later, he talks about the glory that he and the Father enjoyed before the world began?

What's that? If not the pre-existent Son of God there. And hang on, we know explicitly that the Word that becomes flesh in John 1-1 is God, is the us. Are you saying there are multiple gods? That the Father is the true God and what Jesus is like an extra God, a false God? No, no. That text absolutely does not prove what you're trying to argue.

Absolutely, categorically, falls very, very flat. I appreciate you asking it, but that one does not do it. Let's go down to Schoish-Meloish, assumedly a false name, and answering Jewish objections, volume 5, you provide over 30 pages trying to show how we can determine what work means on the Sabbath. And on page 131 you do not provide the answer, using only the Hebrew Scriptures, how can we know what work is to know to avoid it on the Sabbath? Yeah, really it's a very simple question. So first, we know it's not what the rabbis later taught. We know that for a fact.

Why? Well, because God says twice in Deuteronomy, do not add to the commandments. Do not add to the commandments. And there is no evidence of any kind, shape, size, or form that for an ancient Israelite, that the idea of brushing your hair with a hard brush is work, but a soft brush is not work. Or putting a tissue in your pocket on the way to synagogue because you have a cold is carrying, and that's work. I mean, these things would have been utterly unheard of, and there's zero evidence whatsoever. Zero evidence for any of these things being practiced in the days of the Tanakh.

Zero. I can guarantee you, if Moses was shown all the laws on the Sabbath, his question would be, where in the world did you get this from? I mean, you even have the Talmudic account where Moses is transported, and here's Rabbi Akiva getting insights, you know, from the Torah that Moses never learns, like where is he getting this from? He should have been given the Torah, and then God says something encouraging to Moses, but that's a tacit admission of the fact that all this stuff is new and added on, and the 39 subdivisions of labor and so on. That's just all later traditions. And we even know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially 4Q MMT, we know there the debate about Sabbath and different halachic things and arguments from some of the other documents, Sabbath documents and things like that, that there was a dispute about what was practiced, what wasn't practiced, because these were developing traditions. So it's really simple. There are basic aspects of work that are part of our vocation.

Remember, ancient Israel in particular, primarily an agrarian society. There are certain things that were understood to be work in the normal day. Just like if I say, hey, you go to war, what do you do for work?

Things that are self-evident. It wasn't a question of if I pick up a pen, is that work? No one was thinking that. If I write two letters, is that work?

Okay, I can do 100 push-ups, that's not work, but if I carry this outside, it is work. Those thoughts were not anybody's mind. How do we know it? Because when there are cases that came up, like a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath, all right, oh, he shouldn't do that, is that work? Well, they went to Moses, and Moses went to God. Why did he go to God?

Because he didn't have all the information then that was reinforced. So you had the basic understanding and simplicity, not asking the million and one halachic rabbinic questions, the basic simplicity of what work was, just like don't work on the Sabbath. Your slave doesn't work. Okay, what does a slave normally do? You don't have to do that on the Sabbath. What are you doing normally in your work? Okay, you don't do that on the Sabbath. The priest in the temple would continue to work because of their service unto God, but otherwise the things you normally do that are a part of work?

You don't do it. It's, for the most part, not complex unless you start thinking in the light of later rabbinic tradition, in which case you have a thousand questions that wouldn't have existed in the ancient world. And if something came up that wasn't clear, they would ask the leaders, and if the leaders weren't clear, they'd ask Moses, and because Moses didn't have every detail, there was no oral tradition given to him, he went to God. And God showed him, but it wasn't something that came up all that much.

It's kind of self-evident. Even the idea of carrying in Jeremiah 17 is not a matter, once again, of if I pick up a pen, am I carrying? Or as I was told when I was with Lubavitch Hasidim in the fall of October of 1975 to spend Yom Kippur with them, and in those days I used to suffer from hay fever, and I took some tissues with me to walk across to the synagogue, and they said, oh no, you can't carry. That's carrying? That's carrying?

Yeah, you can't carry. But when you get over to the synagogue, there'll be pre-ripped tissues in the bathroom, so you can't tear. No, that has zero to do with scripture. People may be very sincere in their devotion, and this may be very, very meaningful to them in their own lives.

I'm not denying that it has value and beauty in the life of a traditional Jew. I'm simply saying these are added traditions that are absolutely never God's heart or mind or intent. That's why Jesus reduces things to simplicity when it comes to the Sabbath, when He teaches on it. So, the reason I don't get into a lengthy explanation is because it's not supposed to be a lengthy explanation.

For the most part, it's self-evident. When you look at Jeremiah 17, the prohibition of carrying had to do with work. You're carrying loads in on the Sabbath. No, don't do this work. Don't do that.

Wasn't it to put a tissue in your pocket that's carrying? No! All right, but I appreciate the question. Let's just see here. These are questions, but these are not differences yet. Okay, Michelle, it's a question, but I'll answer it briefly. How do you align the nature of God specifically to morality, goodness and justice, with Exodus 21, so the laws of slavery, Leviticus 25, laws of slavery, when talking to unbelievers?

Yeah, so here's the way I'd approach it. Number one, the laws of slavery within Israel were highly humane. For the most part, this was being an indentured servant, and there were laws to protect the person. Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world, and the Israelites had just come out of being slaves in Egypt, so God said, hey, you are not to put others under the same system. In other words, it was a massive improvement from what was.

A massive improvement. Slaves rested on the Sabbath. Slaves would go free after six years. Even if they had massive debt, they'd go free after six years.

If you got angry and punched the guy in the face and knocked a tooth out, he'd go free over that. So these are things that were wonderful compared to the system they came out of. Leviticus 25 does allow for Israel to purchase slaves from foreign nations.

That is true. Now, you could argue that once they were in Israelite possession, Israel was still required to treat them in the humanitarian way. But we tell them, listen, Jesus said that there were things under the law that were given because of human weakness, like divorce. They were not God's ideal. They were not God's ultimate best plan.

So he comes and brings us into a new and better covenant, and then you can say, so, there were things under the Sinai covenant, and there were things that existed with human nature being what it was, but God was always calling us to something higher. And then I'd say, by the way, what's your view on abortion, for example? Well, maybe they think it's fine. It's like, well, you know, actually, I can make a case that you support mass murder of unborn children, and yet you're pointing a finger at biblical morality.

You know, what's your view about sleeping together out of wedlock? What's your view about this or that? Well, I could show how modern morality falls short in a hundred different ways compared to biblical morality. So there are some things that were there that were temporary, and then we've now moved on and moved to a higher morality by God's grace, and there are plenty of things under the law that are a million times better than our contemporary morality.

I'd far rather raise a kid in ancient Israel in terms of safety and morality than in modern America in terms of the atmosphere. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, friends, to The Line of Fire broadcast, Michael Brown, delighted to be with you, taking some challenges from you where you have differences with me on different theological issues, moral, cultural, political issues. I've asked you to post them on Facebook, Twitter. This is already done.

This is before the broadcast, so don't post anything now, not taking calls, but we're digging in. Look at some of these differences. I think you'll find this really, really interesting, and I'm going to go over to Twitter where John raises this issue, challenging my view about Israel and the church. He says, Israel was always the church. Three times in Genesis, at three crucial junctures of the book, Israel is defined as a company, kahal, of people's nations, 28-3, 35-11, 48-4. The true Israel was always the church, not an ethnicity.

All right, very, very wrong statement. When you say the church, you are now importing something else completely different, really having no scriptural basis, even in terms of the word that's being used, and something filled with Christian connotation. If you wanted to say Israel was the ecclesia, which I'm assuming is your point, okay, that's a whole other argument, that you would say Israel is always the ecclesia, the congregation, the assembly, which gets mistranslated as church ultimately, okay? But let's say that's your argument, that Israel is the ecclesia and it's not ethnic. Well, no, that is also inaccurate. The first thing is, when those verses speak about Israel being a company of people's nations, there's some other tribes of Israel. It's not talking about foreign nations there. There's some other tribes of Israel.

How do I know? God tells Abram, I'm going to make you a great goy. Well, goy is Gentile, all right? Is he now all Gentiles on the earth or descendants of Abram? No, I mean, obviously not, we understand that. So, when it talks about that, a company of nations, it's because of the expansion, going from a handful of people to millions and millions and millions and millions of people.

That's what it means. So, when God makes a distinction, he makes it very clear, for example, in Isaiah 42 and Isaiah 49, the Messiah is told not only will you be a covenant for the people of Israel, but a light to the nations. Who are the nations if Israel is the nations?

Are you getting the point? In Romans, the 11th chapter, when Paul's writing about Israel to make sure the Roman believers understand, what does he say plainly there? He says, I'm writing to you Gentiles, you people of the nations.

Why? Because I want you to provoke Israel to jealousy. Who is Israel then? In Romans 15, Paul quotes from Deuteronomy and elsewhere, where the Gentile nations are called to worship God together with Israel. So, you can say that saved Israel and the saved nations make up the ekklesia, the body of Messiah.

That's true. So, saved Israel and saved Gentiles make up the body of Messiah, the body of Christ, what we call, quote, the church. But to say Israel is the church, no misnomer. And again, gives no meaning now to Gentile in the New Testament or in the Old Testament.

Again, simple question, sir. If the Messiah is to be a covenant for Israel and a light to the nations, then who are the nations? And when the nations come streaming into Israel's light, for example, Isaiah 62, who's Israel?

Why the distinction there? And what's the meaning of Jeremiah 31, verses 35 to 37, where after God makes a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and these are ethnicities, why Israel and Judah? You could be joined to them, you could be a foreigner like Ruth and be joined to them, but otherwise these are physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What's the use of God promising, I will preserve you always, no matter what, if you can just switch the people? And they'll bring in, theoretically, bring in all Gentiles and have no physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he kept his promise.

The promise now becomes utterly and completely meaningless. That's why Jesus is coming back to a physical Jerusalem. That's why there have always been physical Jews persecuted and hated. Who was it that God drove out of the land in disobedience? It was the people of Israel and the Jewish people.

Who was it that he brought back? That same people. So, yes, a Gentile could be joined to them and then come under the Mosaic law, but that was a tiny minority. And yes, there were others that joined in, you know, came out of Egypt and the mixed multitude.

They became part, but then it became part of the physical descendants. Even if they're talking about seed of David or seed of Abraham in a physical sense, what does that mean if there's nothing ethnic about it? What does Paul mean in Romans 11.25 that after the fullness of the Gentiles, or on the heels of the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, all Israel shall be saved, which he then defines in terms of that specific people. Quoting from Isaiah 59, and then saying explicitly, explicitly, that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, and that's why God has included both Jews and Gentiles under a belief that he may have mercy on all. What's the distinction between a Jew and a Gentile then? Power of God to salvation. Everyone believes first the Jew, then the Gentile. So you take these passages, I'm sure in all sincerity, and now put a totally Christian interpretation on them which would have been utterly foreign to Moses and to the patriarchs and to the prophets and to Jesus and the apostles. So we are one family in God, one ecclesia, one body, Jew and Gentile together in Messiah, equal heirs, but Israel remains Israel and the Gentile nations remain Gentile nations.

That's simple truism. Alright, let's see, there is a, let me try to get to this one, differing with me about imprecatory prayers, prayers of cursing, so let me just see if I can find that on Twitter, then I'm going to go back over to Facebook. Let's just see, here we go, and is it coming up, there we go. The other Paul, I disagree with your take against imprecatory psalms. I believe the widespread opposition to such relies more on a modern cultural feeling than any commandment from scripture. The first Timothy command is most commonly raised in response to this, but first we need to understand that it is a positive command to pray for kings, not a positive command against implications.

Or did you mean imprecations? While the former may imply contradiction to the latter, I think to do so ignores the massive prevalence of nomic statements in the scriptures that three, do not necessarily apply in every single situation. For example, when Paul gives us his reasoning in Romans 13 that authorities are a terror to evil, this may be true generally or ideally, but not absolutely unless there may be times to refuse submission. Four, likewise with respect to prayer for leaders, we need to consider that our rulers are among the most destructive in history, and Paul may not have opposed imprecations against such oppressors. Praying for their destruction is praying for mercy for those under their boot.

Five, so the key point I propose here is that Paul's statement is nomic, general command not necessarily applicable to every situation, in the same vein that first Timothy 2.12 is binding but nomic, for example, compared to Deborah's judgment. Okay, so, God, I'm not going to go through every detail to explain it to those who didn't follow. Thank you for laying it out so clearly. So here's why I categorically reject that position. Number one, you are telling me that God wants you to pray prayers like Psalm 109, praying down curses on the children and grandchildren of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. That's what you're telling me. I say categorically that it's contrary to the spirit of what we were taught in the New Testament, categorically.

You say we're just being sentimental. No, I understand the issue of evil. Listen, I'm an Old Testament scholar.

That's my area of scholarship, and I'm Jewish. I understand these issues. I understand how Jewish people pray as well.

I thoroughly understand these. I've looked at the imprecatory Psalms for decades in terms of where they fit or what. We are praying for the return of Jesus, which ultimately means he comes in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who don't know God. He's going to come and destroy the ungodly. When we say, even so, come, Lord Jesus, maranatha, maranatha, your kingdom come. We are praying for God to come and fire and bring judgment, but we are praying for mercy until then. We are praying for mercy to be extended until then.

Let me go further with this. We know that according to Proverbs 6, God hates a lying tongue. According to Scripture, it is detestable to him. And he hates hands that shed innocent blood, and he hates haughty eyes. Well, you might say the Democrats are shedding innocent blood, but Donald Trump was caught in lie after lie after lie, and certainly walked in great pride.

So should we be praying down judgment on him and praying down curses on his grandkids? You've got to be consistent, man. You've got to be consistent. That's one. Two, Jesus explicitly tells us, you've heard, hate your enemy.

That wasn't value. Like Psalm 139, don't, I hate those who hate you, Lord. I hate them with a perfect hatred. In Qumran, Ditzy Scrolls, there was teaching to that effect. So Jesus is saying, you heard, hate your enemy.

I'm telling you, don't do that. Love your enemy. So there's a difference in attitude. And then Paul, not just in 1 Timothy 2, tells us how to pray, but in Romans 12, he tells us what our attitude should be. And the blessing those who curse. Look, when Jesus says, pray for those who persecute you, you think he means pray the imprecatory Psalms? Lord, for those, Lord, I pray you smite them and judge them and crush them and destroy them and destroy their children and destroy their grandchildren.

May they all be beggars and homeless. Is that how the church prayed? No, how did they pray in the book of Acts?

Here, let's take a look in Acts, the fourth chapter. Jesus said to pray for those who persecute you. That could be Boko Haram chopping people's heads off in Nigeria. That could be Kim Jong-un in North Korea torturing Christians in the most horrific, unimaginable ways.

That could be ISIS burning people alive. Jesus says pray for those who persecute you. What does Stephen say? What does Stephen say to God as he's dying after being stoned? Lord, don't lay this sin at their church, forgive them. And how did the apostles pray?

What do they pray? Acts 4, 24, when they heard this, the persecution, they raised their voices, their believers together in prayer to God. Sovereign Lord, you made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.

You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant our Father. What do the nations rage and the people's plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed one. So they speak about Psalm 2.

Indeed, Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in the city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. They don't say consider their threats and smite them and destroy them and wipe them out.

No, consider their threats and enable us to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus. How do you think Saul of Tarsus came to faith? The early church must have prayed for him. They didn't pray for God to destroy him and wipe him out and curse him.

Have you had kids or grandkids to wipe them out? No, they prayed that God would bring them to repentance. I have no problem saying, God, intervene.

God, stop evil. You know how to do it. But otherwise, I have explicit instruction in terms of what my attitude is to be and explicit instructions into how I am to pray. And remember, when Paul's writing 1 Timothy, Nero is the emperor.

And that's how he says to pray. Case closed. Welcome back to The Line of Fire. I cannot believe how quickly time has flown.

Didn't fly, flow, flown. Time flies. And you're having a good time, as they say. So, we'll just dig back in. We're going through issues that you've raised, questions that you, where you differ with me.

And I ask for this so that every so often we do a show, we just try to dig into these. When I ask for folks to call who differ with me, I don't get as many calls. When I ask them to post, it tends to be much more free to post because you don't have to worry about being ready to respond to an argument.

You can just raise your issue and let me respond. So, hey, let me just say this. Thanks to all you who pray for us, support us, listen to what we have, read our articles, and you have disagreements, but you stand with me on the big things. Hey, that's family. That's being the body. All right, James on Facebook posted this.

Here's mine. You are a theologically sound man in many areas, and I as a cessationist have no problem with a fellow believer believing the gifts continue. That being said, you believe in small A apostles or small P prophets, even though Scripture doesn't create two classes of these, and I believe this partially discredits your position. Also, you tend to associate with ministers who blatantly twist Scripture to suit their theological presuppositions like Chaon, Bill Johnson, Jennifer LeClair, and company. People who lead others from sound doctrine and teach things contrary to Scripture. What I don't understand is why you are strong on social issues, but what I would call semi-soft towards false teachers, prophets, and apostles. Would love to hear your thoughts. You're a godly teacher who I benefited from tremendously, and you are a sage for Christ in the midst of a hostile culture.

God bless Dr. Brown. Hey, James, thank you for being so gracious in the midst of differences, and obviously this perplexes you from your viewpoint. So, let me go through in order. I believe that apostles and prophets exist today because the New Testament speaks of them as continuing. That's why.

So, how we sort that out, capital A, small A, which I'll explain what I mean and what you mean by that in a minute, how we sort that out is secondary. The first thing is, Scripture says it. For example, Ephesians 4, beginning in verse 8, tells us that when Jesus ascended to Heaven, he gave gifts to men, and that he gifts those as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, until when? Until we come into the fullness of the knowledge of the Son of God and no longer tossed to and fro with every wind and knock. In other words, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers will continue until Jesus returns. I mean, here, let's just read it. Let's read Ephesians chapter 4 together, and let's answer that simple question, have we reached that point yet?

Some have tried to argue about nuances in the Greek. I simply don't see it, anything that would diminish this. So, Messiah himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors, and teachers to equip his people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up until, right, so he gave these gifts until we all reach unity in the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attending to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then will no longer be infants tossed back and forth by the waves, blown here and there by every wind of teaching, etc. So, we haven't gotten there yet. We haven't gotten there.

These are put in the body until, it's the first thing. Second thing, we see people called apostles outside of the 12. Some have come up with lists that would argue as many as 20 or 25 different people were called apostles in the New Testament. Remember, it's just, a Greek apostolos is just an emissary, okay? We make it into this big thing, it's an emissary. In Hebrew, shaliach.

And it's not that big of a term. But look at this, Acts chapter 14, verse 14, but when the apostles Barnabas and Saul heard this, so Barnabas is called an apostle. So, right there you've got more than 12, okay? And depending where you put Paul, but just Barnabas, he's extra. And then there are others that, when Paul's writing from the apostles, and he's including Timothy, there are others that are spoken of as apostles. So, the New Testament makes the distinction between the ones called the 11, right? First the 12, and then the 11. So, the New Testament makes that distinction. So, there are none of the 12 alive today.

Or none of the 11. Here, let's go to Matthew chapter 28, okay? Matthew chapter 28, and we go down and it says in verse 16, then the 11 disciples went to Galilee.

Right? So, you know, just being known as the 11. Here, Acts 1 26, they cast lots, the lot fell to Matthias, so he was added to the 11 apostles. Acts 2, then Peter stood up with the 11.

So, the Bible, I didn't come up with this idea of, we just distinguish big A, small a to make it, it's a human way of saying it. But there's the 12, and then there are other apostles. What do you do with the fact that not only does the New Testament speak of apostolic ministry being here until we reach the fullness in Christ, which is obviously the end of this age and when he returns. So, not only does the Bible speak of that, but it speaks of others outside of the 12. So, to make sure that people understand, we're not talking about the 12, we're just talking about others that are called apostles, emissaries, have this planting, fathering, founding, pioneering role, we talk about big A and little a.

That's our human distinction. So, instead, let's say you have the 12, and then all the apostles after that. I believe there have been apostles in every generation.

They just haven't been called that. You know, from Hudson Taylor, John Wesley, to my friend Yesupatam in India, planting 7,000 churches in tribal regions, a region that was completely unreached, now totally reached. Every village, completely unreached to totally unreached. I mean, dangerous tribal areas where people get killed for preaching. And where there are man-eating tigers. Our first trip there, we had to stay in at night because of a man-eating tiger.

He couldn't go out on certain roads. And then he's planted new works in other nations. So, regardless of what we call them, let's recognize their existence. So, one, the New Testament speaks to them functioning in an ongoing way. Two, there are others outside of the 12 in the New Testament called apostles. And I could also, here, let's also look at the end of 1 Corinthians chapter 12, as Paul is discussing aspects of order in the church and the way God's established things. He says in verse 28, God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles.

Now, if you are, let's leave this text up for a moment, those watching. If you want to be a cessationist, you get rid of apostles and prophets. They don't exist anymore. Third teachers.

Good, you got teachers. But now miracles, next. Then gifts of healing, then of help, guidance, and different kinds of tongues.

So, hang on, you've got woven in together here. Teachers, miracles, healing, help, administration, tongues. So, it's all interwoven together because it was never God's intent that these things stopped.

All right, we didn't take that text down. Acts, the second chapter, beginning in verse 17, the Spirit will be poured on all flesh. What?

In the last days. So, this will exist from that time until Jesus returns. And what will happen?

What will happen? Your sons and daughters will prophesy. There will be ubiquitous outpouring of prophecy. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions. Your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I'll pour out my Spirit in those days and they will prophesy.

What days? In the last days! So, prophecy is to continue. And Paul tells us, eagerly desire prophecy. Eagerly desire, don't forbid tongues, but eagerly desire prophecy. And then he tells us elsewhere, don't despise it.

So, I'm a worried man. I'm absolutely going to affirm prophecy gifts for today, and I'm absolutely going to affirm apostolic and prophetic ministry for today. What the New Testament makes clear is prophetic ministry has a very different function.

A very different emphasis. And it functions differently in that the prophet is not the only one who can hear God. And the prophet's words are tested by the people. And the prophet's greatest goal is the testimony of Jesus.

So, you say, okay, what about Bill Johnson, Che on, Jennifer LeClair? First, I can make an argument that cessationists terribly twist the scripture. And if you think that this is something important, that God said by his Spirit is crucial and important, and you wouldn't have a book of Acts without the moving of the Holy Spirit, and you wouldn't have Paul's ministry without the moving of the Holy Spirit, and all these things. If God says it's essential and foundational and really important, then to deny it or to say it's ceased, would that make that person a false teacher? If someone uses the bizarre argument virtually unknown in church history until like 100-some years ago that 1 Corinthians 13, that when that bridge is perfect comes, means the completion of scripture, and that when the canon of scripture is complete, the gifts would stop.

I mean, just a notion that would have been completely unknown to the early church and even Augustine in the fourth century having to revise his views on miracles because of all the miracles they saw has to change as he's writing because they document 70 miracles in a couple years. But should I brand all those people false teachers? Bottom line is, find out what Bill Johnson actually believes and teaches. Same with Che on, same with Jennifer LeClair. I have differences with them on different points, just like I have differences with my friend Dr. James White. He's a Calvinist and a Cessationist.

I honor him as a brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier and a true friend, a true friend. So I have differences on the Cessationist side. I have differences with friends who believe in a pre-trib rapture, but Bill Johnson and Che on. Jennifer, I don't know her teaching as well in terms of major teaching or doctrine, but I'm sure I have differences with each of them on different points.

But I know Bill and Che better, probably Che best, Bill second, and then Jennifer third. But to the best of my knowledge, they are true believers. They affirm the fundamentals of the faith. And you might say, well, what about this wacky thing or that wacky thing?

Well, I'd say, what about the wacky thing of denying the gifts of the Spirit for today? In other words, these are differences we have. These are differences we have.

And I will work with a wide range of people if we agree on the fundamentals. So, sir, just like you can honor and respect me with differences, I can honor and respect them with differences. I do not see them as false teachers, heretics, hellbound, unsaved.

If so, if I saw them like that, I would not work with them. I see the differences we have being differences within the faith, and I encourage you to just find out what they believe in more depth. And if your differences are even deeper then, then fine. Then come and ask me a follow-up question with specifics. That's what I hold to what I hold to and why I fellowship and work with these folks. God bless. Thank you for your questions and challenges. Another program powered by the Truth Network.