Live from Oklahoma City Before an Important Movie Premier

We're live in Oklahoma City and the phone lines are open wide. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, welcome to the Line of Fire broadcast.

This is Michael Brown. What happened to my voice? Here we are live from Oklahoma City. If you're watching on Facebook or YouTube, it's audio only today.

We are not broadcasting by video. I just finished a one-hour plus online dialogue debate about how Christians should vote. And all was good there. I took a little break, was on the phone. All was good. And suddenly we start the radio broadcast and my voice is a little scratchy. But just all the talking. We are good and glad to be with you. Here's a number to call 866-34-Truth, 866-34-87-884. I guess the key is to never stop talking, right?

Because when I took a break from talking for about 20 minutes, suddenly my voice sounded very hoarse. All right. I am opening the phones for all subjects today, like we do on Friday.

So it's often difficult to get through on a Friday. But any question you have of any kind, anything you want to ask me about biblically, theologically, socially, culturally, politically, anything you want to ask me about in any area of expertise we have, by all means give me a call 866-34-Truth if you want to probe me on something, if you want to challenge me on something, if you want clarification on something, by all means give me a call today. So I'm in Oklahoma City for the premiere of a documentary that I hosted called In His Image. It's a major documentary put together by the American Family Association. And even though I've been part of some excellent documentaries in the past dealing with what the Bible says about homosexuality, dealing with testimonies of folks who've come out of homosexuality and transgenderism, this is definitely a unique documentary.

What it hits on and how it hits on things is very, very unique. Now, it's the preview tonight in front of a live audience. Then I'll be part of a panel discussion afterwards with some of the producers and participants. But one week from today, October 20th, is the release of this movie, Free Online. That was originally going to release in movie theaters, as well as online.

But because of COVID and which theaters are open or closed, there was this decision made not to do that. So it's going to be online and it's free. So this is something you'll want to watch, maybe get a church group together, maybe everyone watching it in your different homes together talking about it afterwards.

But you'll find it to be of tremendous importance, tremendous help. Here's how you get your reservation. Go to InHisImage.Movie.

It's that simple. InHisImage.Movie. I believe if you make a donation of any kind, you'll get a DVD with a lot of extra footage and material. Some of it I haven't even seen.

Probably much of it I haven't seen. But everyone can watch for free. Just give your email.

You'll get a notification. This is wonderful for those who want more biblical grounding as to why we hold to what we hold to theologically and scripturally. This is wonderful for those who are struggling with same-sex attraction or unwanted gender identity confusion. This is wonderful for those in ministry to the world we live in today. This is wonderful for families who have a family member, maybe out and proud, gay, or in the process of transition. You'll find this to be biblically sound, culturally alert, but above all full of compassion, full of grace, full of truth. So go to InHisImage.Movie.

Do that. We'll be having some special interviews in the weeks ahead with some of the folks who are part of this movie. So, really excited about doing this later tonight.

If you happen to be listening and you're anywhere near Oklahoma City, and it's today, October 13th, as you're listening live, then join us tonight. The details are on my website AskDrBrown.org. Okay, the hearings with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, I'd say they're going just as expected, right? As Lindsey Graham said yesterday, we know the vote of the Judiciary Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee. All the Republicans are going to vote for Justice Barrett. All the Democrats are going to vote against Justice Barrett. It'd be a shock if any of the Democrats change their view. And it's interesting as she's been pressed, well, how would you rule on this?

How would you rule on this? She's using what's called the Ginsburg rule because Ruth Bader Ginsburg, although clearly to the left, clearly known as a progressive icon, she said, hey, it's not proper to say how you'd rule and you have to look at the individual case and evaluate it independently and things like that. So, Amy Barrett's doing that while addressing issues that are being raised. Interestingly, she was asked about the George Floyd video. And if she watched that, she said she did. And she was asked what kind of impact that had on her. And she mentioned that her husband was away with some of the kids on an outdoor trip of some kind.

And she was home with her 17-year-old daughter, so that's an adopted Haitian daughter, and I think another daughter, maybe 10. And she said they watched it together. And she and her 17-year-old, she said they watched it and they wept together.

It was very moving for them as a family. She said, look, they've lived in a certain cocoon where they haven't faced some of the hatred that's out there. She said racism still exists.

And, you know, her 17-year-old daughter is thinking, okay, what's it going to mean, say, for me bringing a child into this world or what would that look like? So, I found it interesting that when I was looking at headlines, and if you look on a liberal site, you get one impression, a conservative site, another impression, but that story was mentioned on CNN. So, obviously something that was considered moving. Now, what's interesting is that the cop involved with the brutal mistreatment of George Floyd, we don't know if he did it as a racist or if he did it just as some irresponsible policeman or someone that practiced brutality on others. Was it 99% race? Was race not the issue? We don't know that.

We know it's horrific. We know it's an example of police brutality that must be addressed. But to this day, do we know for sure it was based on racism?

Just a point. My point is, in her eyes, it was a racist issue, and that's how she and her daughter process that. But, look, everybody's moved by individual stories.

Everybody's moved by what happens in your own life, and you share about these things personally. So, I would think that, you know, that would help humanize her. But the one thing we know is that these hearings, even though there have been questions about her faith and the media trying to attack the group she was part of, people of praise, and make them like this extremist crazy cult, mind control, and attacks on her adoption and all this, for the most part, just being a mother of seven, two adopted children from Haiti, and the track record that she has, even the American Bar Association rating her as well qualified. The minority of you qualified, the majority statement, well qualified. This is this recent statement from American Bar Association. So, just evaluating her credentials, capabilities, this is a much less divisive hearing than the Kavanaugh hearing.

Even though the potential consequences of this are even greater, and her views are even more strongly known, the nature of the case is such that she can't be attacked the way Kavanaugh was attacked. So, we keep praying for God's best in this situation. I did a debate on Capturing Christianity webcast earlier today with Dr. Justin Crumit, Professor Crumit. And, excuse me, we were discussing, I guess Professor, he's doing postdoctoral research, Notre Dame, elsewhere. Anyway, he believes that we should make an alliance with our enemies, and in this case, vote Biden-Harris rather than Trump. And, for him, it's a matter of biblical justice, and the marginalized, and the poor, and the hurting, and whose policies will save more lives, whose policies will help more people. And, in his view, Biden-Harris, of course, I categorically disagree just starting with the abortion issue.

But, you can watch that on Capturing Christianity, and we'll be posting a link to that later on. All right, much more to talk about, but we're going to go to the phones early today, and we start in Rockford, Illinois. Lewis, welcome to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown. Thank you for taking my call. You're welcome. My question is, well, first of all, I'd just like to say what an influence you've been on my life, and I've just been matriculating down through the schools, and I finished my master's in divinity, and I'm now trying to get my PhD from Liberty in biblical exposition. So, you've been an inspiration to me. Congratulations. Where did you get your master's?

Grand Canyon University. Okay, well, excellent. Yes, it's recently been upgraded to a seminary, but yeah. So, I started a paper and a research paper on Amos, and I was looking at the Septuagint reading of Amos versus the Masoretic text, and I noticed that in chapter 9, verse 11 and 12, that there's a pretty different reading in the Masoretic text versus the Septuagint, and I was kind of wondering what the original, what you believe the original reading would have been, and why do you think that it was changed in the Septuagint, and kind of contrasts that with Acts 15?

Right, right. So, let's start with how it reads in the text. Now, the principal things that caught your attention in terms of the differences were what? Well, in verse 11, there are different suffixes that are male and female, and so there's confusion about translating that, and why it's that way. I believe it has to do with referring to the tabernacle and to David, and so I think that that's why there's different types of suffixes in that first initial verse, but in the second verse, it mentions Edom, and in the Septuagint, it's humanity. And so I was wondering about why it was translated that way, as opposed to the way you see it in the Hebrew text. Right, and I was just getting the various versions in front of me, so I'm going to read first from the new Jewish version, new JPS, which is going to be based on the Masoretic textual tradition. Alright, and I've got to spell Amos correctly there to do that. So, it translates verses 11 and 12 as follows in Amos 9, and that day I'll set up again the fallen booth of David. I will mend its breeches and set up its ruins anew. I will build it firm as in the days of old, so they shall possess the rest of Edom, and all the nations once attached to my name, to clear as the Lord, who will bring this to pass.

So, the first thing, and then I'm going to read from Acts 15 in a moment, the first thing is Edom and mankind is very easily understood, because you have the same consonants for Edom, which is Edom and Adam, which would be humanity or mankind there. So, we'll come back on the second, well, right after the break, we'll come right back and finish this answer. Stay right here. is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks, friends, for joining us on A Lot of Fire Today. This is Michael Brown coming away live from Oklahoma City, and phone lines are open for any kind of question you want to ask me. 866-342-866-348-7884.

So, we go back to Rockford, Illinois, and Lewis. So, when we read the New Testament citation, Amos 9, 11, and 12, quoted in Acts 15, beginning verse 16, the biggest issue, as Acts is following the Septuagint, the biggest issue is really in verse 17, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord. Now, the Hebrew text as we have it says, Edom, Edom, and it's spelled with a vov, telling you it's Edom. The fact that Septuagint translates as it does with Anthropon is telling you that the text that they had did not have the vov there. It just had the consonants aleph, daleth, mem. So, it would be what's called a defective spelling.

And the question would be, well, how would that drop out? Edom would normally be spelled with the vov. So, the argument could well be that the earlier text was just Edom, mankind, humanity, that that's why it's reflected there that the Masoretic reading represents a later reading, this would be the argument, and that the parallel in the second half of the verse, kol hagorim, all the nations would indicate it's the remnant of mankind. Now, it's an unusual expression, the remnant of mankind, remnant of Adam, which seems to be the better reading. You could make a case for the Masoretic text because of the remnant of Edom and some of the larger context in Amos and God dealing with the nations, but just looking at it and not getting it into a massive depth, in other words, you know, taking many weeks to unpack everything, which is what you have to do.

I would say you could make a strong case for reading Edom, mankind. And I'm just looking at the most recent critical edition of this, what's called Biblica Hebraica Quinta, and the textual notes here. Yeah, for defense of the originality of Septuagint's presumed forlaga, the original text that it was dealing with, you know, there's a whole book with a number of pages devoted to it. Yeah, and again, there are academic arguments both ways.

If I had to lean one way or the other, I might lean with the Septuagint in this case, but to get into it in any more depth here would bore everybody and not help. But keep up your studies and keep up the good work there, Lewis. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thanks for answering my question.

Alright. 866-3-4-truth. Hey, listen, I do my best to answer questions in a way that's useful to the caller.

If the caller has more of an academic background, I want to answer in a way that's helpful without being unhelpful for everyone else, so hopefully we can strike a balance there. Let us go over to Curtis in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We're not that far apart, both in Oklahoma today. How you doing?

I'm doing good. Thank you for taking the call. Sure thing. My question is about something that I heard years ago by a Jewish woman that was supposed to be a prophetess, and it had to do with the birthing pains of the end of days.

Alright. What specifically is the question, just what the concept means, or what? Well, in what I had heard years ago, which I cannot remember her name, just the subject, she said that when Obama was in office and him holding prayers with Muslim imams, that was one of the marks of the end of days, and that just had me confused. The more I tried to find out about it, the more confused I got.

And I was just wondering if you knew anything about this subject, not particularly that part, but any kind of... Right. So let's look at two separate issues, Curtis. Let's look at what Scripture says about birth pangs and the end of the age, and then secondarily what you remember hearing this woman say. So Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24, very well-known words, his disciples asked him after he's told them that the temple will be destroyed. He said, okay, these great stones are all going to be cast down. And they said, well, when's this going to happen? What's the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? So in their mind, it's all going to happen at the same time. And they couldn't imagine the temple in Jerusalem being destroyed, the city being destroyed, and that not being the end of the age, and Jesus coming in final judgment.

So they're asking him these things. What will these things be? Well, it will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age. And Jesus answered them, see that no one leads you astray, for many will come in my name saying, I am the Messiah, and they will lead many astray. And you'll hear of wars and rumors of wars, see that you're not alarmed, for this must take place. But the end is not yet, for nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of birth pangs.

Now, if you go over to Luke 21, we just have one extra word added in, which is of interest, as Jesus is answering this same question. He says, when you hear of wars and tumult, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once. Nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom, there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences, and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.

But before all this, these various things will happen in terms of you being persecuted. So, some have said, well look, we're living today, we've got world war, we've got earthquakes, we've got famines, we've got pestilences. Yeah, I wouldn't say that we have all of these things happening on this level. And we've had times of much worse world war, with World War I, World War II being the most notable in the last century. And we have had earthquakes, famines, pestilences, we've had to say that we have terrors and great signs from heaven.

I wouldn't say that we have that clearly now. But even so, if that was the case, Jesus is saying the end is not yet, but these are the beginnings of birth pangs. So, maybe we are entering a situation with the world upheaval, with the nature of the pandemic, with the whole order of things being so dramatically shaken, America being more shaken than any time in our modern history, that maybe we are entering the beginning of birth pangs, meaning that as the return of the Messiah is getting closer, it is like a woman in labor. So, she is in labor, but the baby is not coming yet.

But it is getting closer. And you will know that it is the case because it is going to get more and more intense with more and more rapidity, just like labor. You know, if you are married, you had children, you remember your wife thinks maybe she is in labor, she is right around nine months, nah, nah, it just passed, that wasn't it. And then another day, no, it is not it.

Okay, this is it. I am definitely in labor. So, then the labor pains will get more intense and closer and closer together until the baby is born. So, if things go pretty much back to normal a few years from now, and life is kind of the way it was a few years back, then I would say, okay, we are not in the beginning of birth pangs.

If this subsides for a little while, and then boom, something else more intense, and then boom, something else more intense, then I would say, okay, it is getting closer. But that remains to be seen. I honestly can't tell you if we have 10 years left of world history, or 100 years left, or another number.

I honestly can't say. I would say this though, as far as this woman saying that Obama praying with Muslims was a sign of birth pangs, I see no scriptural evidence for that. In other words, that to me would be something that she believed the Lord was showing her, but I see nothing in scripture that would give me that indication, that would tell me that is a certain line that was crossed.

And then you test that word by watching what happens in the years that follow. But that in and of itself, I see nothing in scripture that would tell me that, okay, that is a specific thing for the entire world that we are in the birth pangs. All right? So, I wouldn't worry about that at all. Okay? Well, like I said, it just had me confused because I couldn't find anything.

Yeah, well, it is certainly not anything that became a major prophetic word that was heard by many different prophetic people around the country and that is something that we are really expecting. So, don't even trouble yourself with it. Don't even look for it. 866-34-TRUTH. All right, Christian in Toledo, you will be next, but I don't want to take your call now and not be able to answer it fully. Phone lines are open if you are just tuning in.

We are giving some extra space for phone calls as I am out here in Oklahoma City and we are audio only. I am not playing clips from the hearings. There is so much that could be played. We kind of know again where things are going to fall. And what is interesting though is that a number of the Senators in their time, so they have got a half hour to make their presentation, to interact with Judge Barrett, to go back and forth, that obviously each has an agenda. And some, the main agenda is to score points against Trump or to score points against Biden, you know, or in other words it has got almost nothing to do with how Justice Barrett or potential Justice Barrett would rule on the court or what is her judicial philosophy. It is just I want to scare everyone into thinking that four more years of Trump and you are going to lose your health insurance and you are going to die of a pre-existing condition and that is what I am going to use my time for. And someone else, I want to use my time to show why we need to vote for Donald Trump for the future of America.

It would be kind of like, I don't know, I am asked to give my take on who is going to win in a sports event and instead I give five reasons why everyone should vote for this political candidate. But that is what you expect. So, yeah, a lot of conservative liberal shows, you are just getting all the news clips, but that is available. Go look it up. Go check it out.

Nothing we are really learning from the hearings except what we knew before. And as for Judge Barrett, how she is conducting herself, the way I thought she would. Highly professional, even in tone, maybe even winning some people over a little bit.

Could be. 86634. We will be right back. Send the fire. It is the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks so much for joining us on the Line of Fire. This is Michael Brown coming away live from Oklahoma City. Remember friends, the moment you have a chance, go to inhisimage.movie. Inhisimage.movie. In his image as in the image of God, our Creator.

Go to inhisimage.movie. Sign up to be notified that you can watch the free release of this online trying to reach the maximum number of people. The American Family Association did a tremendous job.

This project was worked on over many months. I worked closely with them as the host of the documentary. Tremendous guests sharing their testimony, their background.

Different guests weighing in theologically, biblically, exegetically. Just wonderful, powerful, compassionate, truth-filled. So, so needed in the body today. By all means, check it out. Inhisimage.movie. It will be officially released next week on October 20th. You can watch the trailer there. You can watch some of the interviews with some of the people involved. It is a great watch, just what is there already.

The whole film will be maybe two hours. We will be screening it tonight in front of a live audience and having a panel discussion if you're anywhere near Oklahoma City. With that, we go back to the phones. 866-34-TRUTH. Christian in Toledo, Ohio, you are on the line of fire. What's going on, Dr. Brown?

Hey, man. I have a question about Acts 2-38. Me and my brother in Christ, we were talking. My brother had a conversation with a Pentecostal, and she was saying that you need to be baptized for salvation, right? And she went to Acts 2-38, right? And me and my brother in Christ, we were talking about it, and we were like, okay, well, Peter said in Acts 2-38, what you know is, repent and be baptized. Every one of you, you know, they spoke about basically your sins will be forgiven and you shall receive the Holy Ghost, right? Well, if you go ahead and I believe it's Acts 10-44, when Peter is speaking to the Gentiles, they receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by just believing. So let me know if I'm wrong, I'll get on the phone with my brothers after this call and repent in front of them, in front of all of them. I said that Peter had to have made a mistake, had it been wrong, because here he said you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by repentance and baptism, but the Gentiles are only received by believing.

So what's your take on that? Yeah, so the answer is that we are required to put our trust in Jesus, which includes repenting, you know, turning away from sin, asking him to save us from our sin, and that's how we're saved, you know, as it is in Acts 16, what must it do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus, you and your household, and you'll be saved. We're justified by faith, not by works. We understand that, that's the gospel, and the proof of it is just as you said in Acts 10, that the Gentile believers heard, they were obviously saved, and God confirmed it by pouring out a spirit on them. Now, baptism in water is a command. It's something that's very important, and we cannot neglect it and walk in harmony and fellowship with God at the same time. So it is an important command, and it is something that we do as an outward sign, that we have died with Christ, and that we are now risen with him in new life.

It symbolizes the washing away of our sins. These are all important things, and in the Jewish world of that day, ritual immersion was very important, but salvation happens the moment our faith is put in Jesus. So that's why the thief on the cross could be told by the Lord, today you'll be with me in paradise, simply based on his faith. So baptism is required, is important, but no, you can receive the Holy Spirit before you are baptized. Here, let's say we're on a plane together, and I'm sharing the Gospel with you, and we're in the midst of a 15-hour flight, and you receive the Lord right then and there, I mean genuinely born again with tears, repenting, and I pray for you right then, Lord, fill my brother with your spirit. And it would not surprise me if right there on the plane next to me you began to speak in tongues as a sign of the outpouring of the Spirit. And it's like, hey man, as soon as we get back, let's get you plugged into your church, you need to get baptized, etc. But of course, Acts 10 is perfectly clear proof on that.

Peter's not giving an order. First you repent, second you're baptized, third you receive the Spirit. He's saying you are called to repent and be baptized. You put your faith in Jesus and everyone is required to be baptized, and you'll receive forgiveness of sins, you'll receive the Holy Spirit. It's not saying you won't be forgiven until you're baptized. It's not saying that either. So yeah, you're right to use Acts 10, and that's one of those interpretations that goes beyond what Scripture says. It deduces more than we should just based on one verse.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So basically, I was wrong, Ben, for saying that Peter made a mistake, because I was under the assumption that since the way he formed it, because you made it very clear, but just the way he formed it out, he brung up repentance, he brung up being baptized, and then he said afterwards, you'll receive the Holy Ghost. So was I wrong just assuming that he meant that? I'm sorry I didn't address that more clearly.

I thought you were saying it kind of in a rhetorical way. No, Peter made no mistake. Peter was speaking by the Spirit, so he absolutely did not make a mistake. But the idea that you can't receive the Spirit until you're baptized, that's false. Or the idea that you're not truly saved until you're baptized, that's false. So you're saved, as you rightly argued, the moment you put your trust in Jesus to save you from your sins, and you might receive the Spirit at that moment.

Baptism is something that is important and should be done. Okay? All right, one more thing real quick, if I can. Yeah, yeah, sure.

Go ahead. Remember when Jesus was speaking about, oh, and this one thing, just to add to that, it's not a, you know, because I believe 100% I agree, actually. But the reason I think I had jumped to that, because remember, Peter made a mistake about the circumcision thing, and Paul had to kind of correct them. So I was just assuming, okay, maybe Peter made a little mistake here, and then, you know, he was corrected by God in front of the Gentiles, in front of himself, by them receiving it without the... Ah, okay.

Yeah, I see the reasoning. But yeah, preaching under the anointing of the Spirit at Pentecost, he certainly didn't make a mistake. Plus, that's reaffirmed elsewhere in Scripture, repentance and faith, repentance and baptism. Yeah. All right, that's good.

All right, I'm happy I got that cleared up. So remember when Jesus was speaking to, who was he speaking to? It just slipped my mind. Remember, he basically said, you must be born of the water and of the Spirit. Yeah, yeah, Nicodemus. Yeah, Nicodemus, there you go.

That's the one right there. I have not, and I don't say this like in a rude way, but I have not heard a clear, good answer to this. I heard some people say that he meant that you must be born of a woman and of the Holy Spirit, you know, when her water break. I heard a couple other things, but I never really heard a real reason why, on how this is not Jesus saying that you must be baptized and believed to go to heaven.

I haven't heard anyone say yet that, or give me a good answer on why it's not that. It seems like he means that you have to be baptized and you have to receive the Holy Spirit to go to heaven. Right, so the answer to that would be that there is the symbolism of being washed by God, washed by the water of the word. For example, we have that in Ephesians 5, that we are washed by the water of the word. So when you look in Ezekiel, the 36th chapter, and it gives you the imagery there of the new heart and being washed and cleansed. So there is a two-fold work that takes place. Now some do argue, again, that, as you said, it's water natural birth, spirit spiritual birth.

That's one position. But another position is word and spirit. That the water symbolizes the washing of the word, and that the spirit symbolizes the new heart that we receive by God. And that would be water and spirit. And as a first-century Jew, especially with some of the imagery that we have in the Old Testament, that that would have been self-evident to him. So again, another argument would be, there's water baptism and there's spiritual baptism, but that's just one of several possibilities. And word and spirit, washing in the word, is one that I think is a very strong argument. So Christian, I appreciate the questions.

They're important questions, for sure. God bless you, man. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go over to Burlington, North Carolina. Mike, welcome to the line of fire.

Thank you, Dr. Brown. Listen, I read the apostle's creed Sunday morning, and I've seen the verse, I mean, in the sentences, that Jesus descended to hell. Did Jesus actually go to hell? Yeah, so it's so interesting you ask this because I was writing a foreword to a book, and the book was emphasizing the importance of recapturing words like holiness and repentance and brokenness and humility and the blood of Christ and so on. And then it was talking about the importance of preaching resurrection power. And in that chapter, it mentioned Jesus descending into hell and what happened when he was in hell. So I said in the foreword, look at what the early church taught on this. Look at what the Greek Orthodox Church teaches on it. Examine it by scripture and come true on conclusions, but that's not a major focus of the book, so don't get hung up on that point.

But what's interesting is that I just happened to look at it afresh, revisit it just a few days ago. So what we have in scripture is a few statements. We have in Ephesians 4, when it says that he ascended on high, quoting from Psalm 68, if he ascended, then he must have descended first into the lower earthly regions. Does that mean that he descended into the netherworld at his death or does that simply mean he came down from heaven all the way down to earth and that's all it means?

So let's just say that's debatable. 1 Peter 3, though, says that he went by the Spirit and preached to the spirits who were in prison. Now, he didn't evangelize. It doesn't use the Greek word for evangelize, but rather he preached to the spirits who were in prison. So at the very least, it's speaking about the spirits of fallen angels and others who had been lost.

Excuse me just one second. So at the very least, he's speaking in those ways that he went down to the netherworld and declared his victory, declared his victory over all satanic power, and then was raised from the dead. But there are others that believe that Jesus went into hell. Calvin, for example, says that on the cross, basically, if I really understand Calvin and his institutes, that on the cross Jesus suffered the wrath of God as if he was feeling the pains of hell. Others would say, no, he died on the cross, fulfilled everything that had to be done, but then, after death, descended into the netherworld and either conquered the forces of hell or displayed his victory or experienced some level of separation from the Father and then was raised from the dead. So it's an open question exactly what happened between the cross and the grave.

There's some mystery to it. Stay right here, though. We'll come back. It's The Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Get into The Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks, friends, for joining us on The Line of Fire. I apologize for the hoarse voice today. Trust me, it's not COVID. It's not sickness.

It's just a hoarse voice from some speaking and a little traveling, but it should be clearing up, I trust, pretty soon. Mike, there is a view that I categorically reject. A view that claims that Jesus descended into the netherworld, suffered as if he was a sinner himself, took on a sinful nature, died spiritually, and then was raised as a glorified man. I categorically reject that as a heretical view. Heretical view. It's taught by some factions within the Word of Faith movement.

Hopefully, it's been abandoned. I want to read this to you. It's a little bit long. James White, if you're listening, this is the longest Calvin quote I've ever read on the broadcast.

You tell me what it sounds like Calvin is saying. I sent it to James for clarification, but didn't hear back from him. Here we must not omit the descent to hell, which was of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption. For although it is apparent from the writings of the ancient fathers that the clause which now stands in the creed was not formally so much used in the churches still, and giving a summary of doctrine, a place must be assigned to it as containing a matter of great importance which ought not by any means to be disregarded. Indeed, some of the ancient fathers do not omit it, and hence we may conjecture that having been inserted in the creed after a considerable lapse of time, it came into use in the church not immediately, but by degrees. This much is uncontroverted, that it was in accordance with the general sentiment of all believers, since there is none of the fathers who do not mention Christ's descent into hell, though they have various modes of explaining it.

But it is of little consequence by whom and at what time it was introduced. The chief thing to be attended to in the creed is that it furnishes us with a full and every way complete summary of faith, containing nothing but what has been derived from the infallible word of God. But should any still scruple to give it admission into the creed, it will shortly be made plain that the place which it holds in the summary of our redemption is so important that the omission of it greatly detracts from the benefit of Christ's death. There are some again who think that the article contains nothing new, but is merely a repetition in different words of what was previously said regarding respecting burial, the word hell and furnace being often used in Scripture for sepulcher.

I admit the truth of what they allege with regard to the not infrequent use of the term infernus for sepulcher, but I cannot adopt their opinion for two reasons. And then he goes on to speak of, as it seems, his descent into hell and his suffering, the fate of the lost there. Now as Calvin is saying it spiritually happens on the cross, or he actually descended into hell, it is an interesting read and interesting to try to figure that out.

But something happened that we don't often talk about. Was it simply his descent into the netherworld to declare his victory? Was there any aspect of freeing the righteous who were waiting for his redemption before ascending into heaven? As some Christians believe, was it a descent into hell? And Acts 2 speaking of the pains of death couldn't hold him, that his suffering on the cross continued in some level in the netherworld where he suffered the fate of our eternal punishment and was raised from there by the Father.

That is some of the debate that is going on. But something happened for sure between the cross and the grave of great mystery and of great importance. Okay, now he told a thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise.

Right, exactly. So the question is, the question is, does Jesus descend into the netherworld and there was a paradise of the righteous there, as some of the Church Fathers believed, and that that is where Jesus was initially, and then he proclaims his victory over all the forces of darkness, and then he ascends to heaven spiritually with the souls of the righteous, and then he is physically resurrected after that? Or is he saying, you will be with me in heavenly paradise today? Then how would he have descended into hell? So these are some of the things that remain mysterious in terms of exactly what the chronology was between what happened physically, his death on the cross, and his physical resurrection. We know that his blood pays for our sins. That is for sure that he did not need to make an additional payment beyond that, but is there any level of identification in our sufferings in abandonment by God that he experiences in the process of redemption?

That is where the debate is. So keep digging into it, Mike, and look also, if you want to just get an overview, look at the Harrowing of Hell. Just search online for the subject, the Harrowing of Hell.

There is actually a decent article, Harrowing, H-a-r-r-o-w-i-n-g, the Harrowing of Hell, and you will get a number when you look at that, even on Wikipedia, a number of the different views that have been held to, okay? Okay. Alright, thank you for the call. Thank you very much. Yep, you bet.

86634truth. If you are in Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox churches, you know that is a major thing that you are involved with, the focus on the Harrowing of Hell and Jesus' victory over the powers of darkness and declaration of that, etc., in between the cross and the resurrection. Let us go to, is it cliche in Seidel, Louisiana? Welcome to the line of fire. Yes. How you doing?

How do you pronounce your name? Yeah. It's cliche. It is cliche, right, as Rachel spelled it for me.

Yes, go ahead, please. Yes, I just had a question about judges, chapter 11, verse 29 through 40, or maybe that whole little chapter basically about Jephthah, explaining that more, and then on top of that, because it goes into the New Testament in the book of Hebrews, I think it's chapter 11, and it's talking about the great people of faith, and I think his name is mentioned in Hebrews, chapter 11, verse 32, but I think whoever wrote the book of Hebrews, he didn't have a lot of time to express all the great people of faith, so that's all I just wanted to ask about. So the question is, how does Jephthah get mentioned when there's this horrific thing where he makes a stupid vow, and if we read the text, literally, that he sacrificed his daughter to God.

I mean, it's just an abominable thing. So the first thing is Hebrews is giving a list, and it's obviously not everybody, but some of the people are kind of ordinary, people that God used that believe God, and that's how Jephthah would be in there. I mean, his mother was a prostitute. The fact that God raised him up to lead the nation was an unusual thing because he certainly wasn't a qualified kind of person or the one that you would have thought would be chosen, and yet he makes it in that list in Hebrews 11. So there's the one aspect to take heart in, that it's everybody and anybody that puts their faith in God can be used, even people who are flawed in many ways. I mean, if you think of it, Samson is on that list as well. The first recorded words of Samson in the Bible are, I've seen a woman, and he gets in deep trouble. It costs him his eyes.

He's blinded. It costs him his life, ultimately, but he's fooling around with Philistine women, and yet he's in the list. So some of the judges, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, the prophet. So there are exploits that God worked through these people, some of them very ordinary. As for Jephthah's vow, you know, he comes back from victory and says, hey, the first thing that walks out of my tent I'm going to sacrifice. Obviously thinking, you've got animals. They're kind of living in the same place. Come walking out. His daughter comes walking out, and he says, well, I made a vow.

I have to keep it. There are some interpreters who believe that she was consigned to never marry, and that was what she was mourning and grieving over, and that is the pain that she suffered and that he didn't actually sacrifice her. That would be nice if that was the case, but it's very hard to deduce that clearly from the text. It seems to point this out as just part of the God that he was and the reckless nature of his leadership and yet used by God. I mean, we look at President Trump today and we see things that can be reckless and words that can be reckless and yet other ways that he's been used positively. It's a reminder that God works through human beings.

Our goal in Jesus is to be as much like the Son of God as we can in our words and actions and deeds so that there is less collateral damage through us in leadership and ministry. Hey, thank you cliche for the call. Much appreciated. Hey, listen. When it comes to the elections, you say, how should you pray? Pray the prayer. That's always the right prayer to pray. Lord, in America in 2020, may your name be hallowed. Pray the Lord's prayer.

Make application. Lord, may your name be hallowed here in our nation. Whatever will bring most glory to your name, bring that about. Lord, your kingdom come. May your kingdom influence, your kingdom righteousness, your kingdom truth, may it impact, may it come more and more to America through these elections in 2020. May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, meaning just as it is done perfectly in heaven, Lord. May it be carried out here on earth. So, Lord, your will be done with the 2020 elections. Your will be done. The president to local city council, whatever offices are open for vote, your will be done in the courts and your will be done above all in your people.

I tweeted this out yesterday. What does the world see when it looks at the church today? Does it see the image of Jesus?

Does it see love, hope, truth, purity, a better way? May God help us to step higher and live better. May God's name be hallowed through you and through me. All right, we've got a very important broadcast tomorrow. We're going to look at our lives compared to the word of God. God bless you.