Tell Me Where I’m Wrong

Well, tell me where I'm wrong.

Tell me where you disagree. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Hey friends, this is Michael Brown. Welcome to today's broadcast on the Line of Fire. We're doing things a little differently today. A couple days back, I went on Facebook, on the Ask Dr. Brown Facebook page, and I said, listen, tell me an area where you differ with me, where you disagree, where you have a problem with something I teach or hold to, be it biblically, theologically, spiritually, practically, culturally, even politically.

And post your comment, and I'll get to as many as I can over the course of this broadcast. So I'm not taking calls today, not commenting on breaking news, however major it may be, and not taking any new comments on social media. This is all done several days ago in terms of soliciting what we're covering on the air. So may the Lord bless you, and may you find this helpful and encouraging and strengthening as we go. All right, so let's see.

Some folks just posted questions, but others made clear where their differences are. We'll start with this one from Eugene. I think it would be a heavy blessing if you did even a light investigation in what Copeland teaches and why many believe, including myself, that he is a false teacher. Mike Winger did an excellent, humble job, for example. First, I really appreciate the work that Mike Winger does, that although we have some differences in terms of our beliefs and the gifts and power of the Spirit for today, I really appreciate his spirit and what he does, his pastoral concern, his desire to be faithful to Scripture. So apparently he's done that with regard to Kenneth Copeland's teachings. I appreciate that.

I'll only say this. I am called and burdened to do hundreds of different things. I am always reading a multitude of different books on a multitude of different subjects, and my interests are such that through eternity I get to explore a lot of them. And God has not primarily called me to study this ministry or that ministry or this ministry to find the error in that ministry. There are so many other things he's called me to do, and there are only so many hours in a day. Now, when I'm burdened in a particular area, then I dig in. For example, when I felt burdened by the Lord to address the issue of hyper-grace, then I began to read teacher after teacher after teacher and preacher after preacher and prominent folks on TV and other things to understand what they held to, to make sure that I was looking at it rightly. I would even pray, Lord, if they have something I'm missing, if they see something I don't see, help me to see it.

If there's error in them, help me to see it. So that was my posture coming at it with humility. But then I really focus on that subject. Or can you be gay and Christian?

And what were people teaching that claimed to be followers of Jesus? And dig in deep there. So I've done that in other areas. I've never felt particularly burdened just to focus on Word of Faith teaching or the errors in Word of Faith teaching.

I was exposed to those circles and the good and the bad in that years back. But it's just never been my particular burden to do that, and so many others have. So I appreciate what you're saying and why some people say Kenneth Copeland is a false teacher teaching heresy. And if I do dig deeper at a certain point and discover that, great. But please understand I'm not diminishing the importance of your question, Eugene. It's just that even requests we get are endless. I'm sure you could understand that. Here, just on a weekly basis, we'll get numerous requests for me to please review a manuscript, endorse a manuscript, write a foreword to a manuscript, watch a video, check out this teaching.

What do I think of this one, that one? I mean, over the course of a year, we're talking about many thousands of requests like that. So I simply have to do what I feel burdened to do. And when I wrote my book Playing with Holy Fire, I pulled no punches in terms of addressing errors in the body. But in that context, I did not name names as I explained why. In other contexts, I have named names. And now with some of the current charismatic controversy with failed prophecies about Donald Trump, I've played clips from different leaders and said, hey, this is error.

This is wrong. This needs to be accounted for. So it's all a matter of what I'm burdened to do and feel called to do. All right, let's see. OK, Johnny Mac, why do you not believe in unconditional election when Paul speaks of faith being a gift of God and crediting Abraham's faith to give from God himself his righteousness? So there are myriad other examples. If faith is a gift of God, then salvation by faith alone is also a complete gift of God. Ah, there are plenty of reasons why I don't believe in unconditional election. I take it seriously the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times in the Bible that God calls us to choose and he commends those that choose rightly and condemns those that choose wrongly and is pleased with those who choose rightly and displeased with those who choose wrongly because these are choices he has called us to make in his sovereignty.

He's given us choices. John 112, as many as received him to them, he gave power to become the children of God. And verse 13 is not talking about unconditional election. It's talking about this is not by human birth, but by divine birth.

That's all it's talking about there. So for every one verse you could give me that might point to unconditional election, I give you 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 that would go in a different direction. Even if you have faith being a gift from God, what if faith is a gift from God to those who humble themselves? What if that's the case? That you don't have the ability to save yourself or believe, but you say, I need help.

I need help. And there's also a debate in terms of Ephesians 2. Is it saying that faith is a gift from God or that the grace of salvation is a gift from God?

So even that is debated. But when I was a Calvinist, I argued the Calvinistic arguments and extolled the beauty of the God of Calvinism and the glory of the God of Calvinism and our utter lostness. I still believe in our utter lostness without Jesus. I still believe in the utter and absolute glory of God. But I was overwhelmed when I stopped being a Calvinist in 82.

I was overwhelmed when I just stepped back. To me, the whole testimony of Scripture. God is grieved by our disobedience because it's our choice, not because He destined us to disobedience.

He is pleased with this one. He commends this one for believing because that was a choice that they made. So we cannot save ourselves. Salvation is a gift from God.

I could also argue based on Romans 12 that God has given to every one of us a measure of faith. So I differ with your interpretation of Scripture there and many, many, many, many, many other verses. Mark says this, the only thing I would say that I differ with you in is on eschatology. I lean more towards a victorious view, post-millennial, partial preterism, if one would want to tag a title to it.

Hey, Mark, obviously, just like with Joni, we can have these differences within the body, different perspectives within the body. But what I argue here is that you can have a victorious end time view without being a post-millennialist. So a post-millennialist, for those not familiar, believes that the millennial kingdom is something that basically happens through the preaching of the gospel. That as we go and make disciples of the nations, that the nations of the world will turn to God, will be, quote, Christianized, and will have that millennial kingdom of God's rule and reign over the entire earth. So the gospel triumphs, right, the leaven that's put in four loaves until they all grow, or the mustard seed, this little seed that grows into a giant tree and the birds of the air flock there and put their nests there. That that's like the growth of the gospel worldwide, as in Adam all dying, so in Christ all will be made alive, and that this will be the triumph of the gospel of the whole earth afterwards, so post-millennial, after which Jesus returns and we go into eternity.

I understand that victorious aspect. However, I hold to an absolutely victorious eschatology and I'm premillennial. I believe that we will see the greatest attacks of Satan the world has ever known. I believe that the end of the age will be parallel extremes, that Jesus says that the kingdom of God is like a great net, and a good fish and bad, and they get separated at the end, and the wheat grows along with the tares until the end, and when Jesus returns, 2 Thessalonians 1, he's going to destroy those that don't obey the gospel, so there'll be plenty of non-believers here. I mean, I find scripture abundantly clear that there will be wickedness at the end of the age. Zechariah 14 and Zechariah 12, that the nations of the earth will come against Jerusalem and God will come and fight.

That's his return, so that's certainly not post-millennial. That's premillennial, and from there he rules and reigns in Jerusalem. I just see the plain sense of an abundance of scripture going against the post-millennial view, and to me that's the reason why all the early church fathers that taught on this were premillennial, and that also expect us to go through hellish times. However, there's victory in the midst of that. We are overcomers. What's the message to the churches in Revelation in the midst of hardship and persecution and obstacles?

To him who overcomes, to him who overcomes, to him who overcomes, we're more than conquerors. I believe we'll see the greatest outpouring of all time, the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, all Israel being saved, great outpouring of the Spirit in the midst of all types of satanic attacks. So I hold to a very victorious eschatology, but as I understand scripture, premillennial. And don't forget Peter said that everything the prophets spoke of would come to pass after Jesus returned.

He must remain in heaven until that time for the restoration of all things spoken about by the prophets, starting in Acts 3, 19, you'll find that. Let's see, David, not necessarily a disagreement, but I'm interested to hear your take on how to reconcile post-tribulation, premillennialism with Christian Zionism, as I understand you to hold to both of these positions. And normally Christian Zionism goes hand in hand with pre-tribulation, dispensational premillennialism.

It only goes hand in hand since dispensationalism rose up. But you had Puritan leaders and some of the early church leaders, speaking of the return of Israel, the regathering of the Jewish people. You had people like Spurgeon in the 1800s powerfully laying this out or J.C. Ryle, so Anglican leaders, Baptist leaders, Presbyterian leaders like the Bonars, Andrew and Horatius Bonar, clearly spoke of Israel's return, clearly anticipated their physical return to the land, and were not dispensationalists. So to me it's just biblical promises, just biblical promises. God keeps his word. As per the return from Babylonian exile spoken of in Ezekiel 36, that the Jewish people came back from exile still in unbelief, but this was so God's name would not be blasphemed, so they hadn't repented, but he brought them back anyway for his name's sake.

And then in the land said, I'll pour a clean water on you. We're seeing the same thing happen with the increase of the gospel in the land, and more and more Jewish people, Israelis, coming to faith in Jesus, Yeshua. So yeah, In Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, the new edition, the 2019 edition, or Christian anti-Semitism. Both of those books, I've got some great quotes from Christian leaders of the past that held to and believed strongly in a physical restoration of the Jewish people. JC Ryle said, from what I can see, they'll be brought back to the land physically first, and then spiritually will turn to the Messiah. So these people were anything but dispensationalists.

So premillennial dispensationalism has gone around the world and become famous, but disposition is biblical, and before pre-Trib teaching, before dispensational teaching, a premillennial, non-pre-Trib doctrine of Israel's return, I can find in the Bible and throughout church history as well. Okay, back with more of your questions and challenges on the other side of the break. Thanks for joining us on this special edition of The Line of Fire today. I'm not taking calls, but I've specifically asked, did this a few days ago, asked folks to post on Facebook where you differ with me. So I'm not answering your questions on Facebook, but specific areas where you differ, and I'm just going in the order that they were posted, and I'm getting to as many as I can. So if you posted a question, I'm not answering a question, but saying, here's where you differ, I'm interacting.

All right, so this is from Waru. This is a long one. ...with you on your methods that appear to be double standard and biased toward interpreting Scripture to suit your own preformed Christian doctrines. In your series of videos on answering Jewish objections, you formulate a standard of thought when addressing one issue and then go completely backwards on it when addressing another issue. There seems to be no consistency on your frame of thought, but rather a convenient flexibility to interpret Scripture to fit your already preconceived notions. Now, let me just jump in and say thank you for being so forthright in the way you presented things.

This is what I asked for. So thank you for being so forthright. I am 100% sure that I'm consistent and that I lay out my rules of how I'm engaging and why, and if I'm interpreting something literally metaphorically, I'm giving you the reasons for it. So I would say either I haven't made that clear enough or you're missing my point, one of the two.

But I'm quite sure I'm not inconsistent. But let's see the examples that you get. But thank you for being so blunt. This is what I asked for.

So thank you. The two instances I'm talking about are the videos on answering Jewish objections on Isaiah 7-14 and Deuteronomy 6-4. When addressing Isaiah 7-14, you argue that the word Alma can mean a virgin in the context of the verse, even though you admit it in the same video that it doesn't convey sexual purity. Despite there being another more precise word, betulah, that could have been used to convey virginity if the author was intending to convey virginity.

Okay, well, nothing inconsistent in my argument there, sir. I'm quite plain and quite direct in laying that out. That the word betulah in and of itself does not mean virgin in the Hebrew Bible. That it must be in a legal context dealing with virginity. Otherwise, to be absolutely clear that you're talking about virgin, you have to use circumlocution or periphrasis.

You have to give an explanatory clause. Betulah, who never knew a man. That would be how you'd say it.

Okay? Alma, in and of itself, is not about sexual purity, but about sexual development, so coming into puberty. And this is the most likely word, and the male LM is not in and of itself speaking of a virgin, but a young man. Alma, a young woman. However, you can make an excellent argument that, based on the usage, that she would be expected to be unmarried or not having had her first child. And Rashi, the foremost Jewish commentator, traditional Jewish commentator who lived in the 11th century, said that the sign was that she was an almah. That some said the sign was she was an almah and not expected to or incapable of having a child.

She's too young. And in the context, I said that it could well refer to an almah, to a virgin, because it is speaking of some type of supernatural sign with the birth. But that what I said plainly was that in Biblical Hebrew, almah in and of itself, or betulah in and of itself, did not mean virgin. It would have to be qualified, either of those words.

I'm quite explicit, quite plain, so go back, sir, and listen again. And all I'm saying is, there's a reason that Septuagint translated with Parthenos, which meant virgin at the time of the translation. And Matthew quotes that because Miriam, in fact, was a parthenos, was an almah. But the verse in and of itself is not an explicit prediction of a virgin birth.

If that was the case, it would have to have added either use almah or betulah and then qualify it with saying who never laid with a man or never knew a man. So I'm quite consistent on the video on that. Go back and listen again, sir.

All right. You then say, when addressing Deuteronomy 6.4, you do a complete 360 on your standard of logic and argue that echad, in the context of said passage, conveys a complex unity and not a singularity, even though it does mean a singularity as well as meaning to unite since it is a homonym. Because, as you argue, a more precise word, yachid, would have been used if the author intended to convey a singularity. Sir, there's no change in standard of logic at all. And echad, I said, does not necessarily mean exclusive one or plural one in and of itself.

And I give examples. Genesis 1, there is evening and morning, yom echad, one day, day one. What does it consist of?

Morning and evening. Genesis 2. And the man and woman, the two become one flesh, so the two become one.

Rex's 35, the different piece of the tabernacle put together and make one tabernacle. So I said echad, in and of itself, does not mean absolute singularity as yachid would. Now, the fact is, betulah, in and of itself, does not mean virgin unless it is in that context. Just look at every example of it in the Hebrew Bible.

You'll just see sometimes young men and young women. And then you could argue Joel 1-8, speaking of the betulah, mourning for the husband of her youth, does that mean she was a spouse to him or she was married to him? You make a good argument she was married to him. So I'm being utterly consistent and meticulously so, to be honest. So on the one hand, you argue that a precise word doesn't have to be used in Isaiah 7-14. The other, you argue that a much more precise word would have been used in Deuteronomy 6-4. The whole point is, if the rabbinic argument was true that Deuteronomy 6-4 was speaking of God's exclusive unity and not complex unity or anything else, that it would have used a different word.

That's the point there. I'm rebutting that argument. In Isaiah 7-14, I'm rebutting the argument that betulah in and of itself would absolutely specify virgin any more than almah in and of itself, whereas I'm saying both words would need qualifiers. So the issue is not, sir, that I'm being inconsistent, but that you are coming at it perhaps with your preformed ideas and therefore not actually hearing my arguments, so that should disturb you. The fact that you're misunderstanding and misinterpreting my arguments means that there's—is there a bias against what I'm saying?

You'll have to dig and see. All right, let's see here. Okay, James, I believe that followers of Christ should not get involved in worldly politics, and you do not. I also believe God's word shouldn't be altered by man, and you do not.

You know, James, you're 100% wrong on the second one. God's word should not be altered by man. So wherever you think we're contradictory, unless you're King James only, in which case God's word's already been altered by man because it's a good translation, but it's imperfect. So I absolutely believe God's word should not be altered by man. So you're 100% wrong about my position there, sir. I have no clue why you'd say that unless you're King James only or something else.

No clue why in the world you'd say that. That's 100% wrong. So the question is, we should not get involved in worldly politics, so therefore we shouldn't vote, correct? We shouldn't pay taxes because that supports the government, correct? We shouldn't give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. We shouldn't do any of that? Well, maybe you mean we shouldn't get political. Well, I don't believe that as followers of Jesus we should get caught up in the political system, but we're involved with it, and there are some people that God calls to run it.

Let me ask you a question. If Paul instructed believers to pray for kings, rulers, for them to be saved, once they get saved, should they step down? What if you're praying for the president to get saved? Donald Trump, now Joe Biden. You're praying for him to get saved, truly born again, come to the knowledge of the truth.

Should he quit once he gets born again, or should he be a godly influence? I believe we can get way too political. I warn against it constantly. That's one reason that I comment on political things, to warn us not to get caught up in that, to keep our perspective in the right place.

But looks like we have a difference there. All right, Jeff, prophets there are zero today who operate as did in the Bible, not a one. No one's rate of success is required in scriptures, 100%. None of this, they aren't false prophets, they're just prophets of prophecy, cop out. I'm aware of the minuscule amount of passages where it appears they may have done so, and I'm fully aware of the explanation as to why it appears that way. Hey, Jeff, thanks for stating things as clearly as you did, but you're quite wrong. You're quite wrong. Number one is not a cop out to speak of people prophesying falsely without calling them false prophets.

I'm a word person. I believe what's written in scripture, and I don't go beyond that. Jesus told us that false prophets are wolves in sheep's clothing. Just like Paul said that false apostles were servants of Satan, and Peter said that false teachers brought in damnable heresies. A false prophet is not a believer who prophesies falsely. Paul says, I want all of you to prophesy, and because anyone can potentially prophesy, New Testament prophecy must be tested. I go by the word, my brother, and Paul said, don't despise prophecies, test everything, hold fast to that which is good, don't put out the Spirit's fire. Well, that's explicit. So someone claims to bring a prophetic word, we test it, doesn't say brand them a false prophet, throw them out, stone them, excommunicate them, doesn't say any of that.

Test it. We believe the Lord was saying some of it, that we sense this is the Lord, but we reject that part. No, no, we don't believe that's the Lord, but this is the Lord.

What does it say in 1 Corinthians 14? That two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully. So there are prophets speaking, but others have to weigh carefully to discern critically what the Lord is saying and isn't saying. New Testament prophets are not called to operate the same as Old Testament prophets did. You'd be blown away, Jeff, by people who prophesy, can give personal prophecies to everybody in the room, and 50 people in the room, and they're all stunned.

They're all stunned by this very specific word from the Lord that was very applicable in their lives and very helpful. Then that same person may start to get into political predictions, they stepped out of their lane in calling, so we reject that. So I will call out a false prophecy. I will call out someone who falsely calls themselves a prophet.

There's no copping out, I'm just being scriptural. I honestly don't know why some people are pushing me day and night to brand people unsaved and hellbound if they're brothers and sisters who made mistakes. Maybe that person should never prophesy again the rest of their lives. Maybe that person should only speak a word and submit it to leaders, and only if the leaders affirm it, it should be released. Maybe this person is falsely calling themselves a prophet, just like someone else falsely calls themselves a pastor, and they're really not.

The rest of them are gifting and calling. But just like you have pastors that do a bad job of pastoring and hurt the flock, I don't call them hellbound sinners, wolves in sheep's clothing. I tell them you're in the wrong work or the wrong ministry.

So the same here. There's no cop-out. I'm just being scriptural. And unless you have inside information that all these people are hellbound, don't call them false prophets either. 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 to the special edition of The Line of Fire. Not taking calls today, but just responding to people who told me where they differ with me, told me where they think I'm wrong. And I've asked them to post. And the more blunt you are, the better. That's just great. That's wonderful.

So praise God. Thank you for being candid. So I asked for this on Facebook, on the S. Dr. Brown Facebook page.

That's where I solicited it. I did this a few days ago to get the comments that I'm going to interact with today. So don't post anything.

You don't call. But thank you for doing what I asked and posting where you differ. OK, we're going to go to Michael now.

Michael said this. I differ with you about the Torah. You think it is abolished and done away with. However, I think God's commandments are forever, as he states in the Torah itself.

Ah, once again, I'm being misrepresented, which is fine. I don't believe the Torah is abolished or done away with. I believe it's fulfilled in Yeshua. And we're now under the new and better covenant, the new covenant in which God puts his Torah on our hearts.

And those things which are fulfilled are fulfilled. That's why we don't have blood sacrifices. That's why we don't need a physical temple to meet with God. That's why Yeshua is our high priest. Doesn't Hebrews seven say that if Jesus is our high priest and he's not from the tribe of Levi, that that means there has been a change in the Torah? Do you need an Aaronic priest? Do you need blood sacrifices? If not, then you're not saying that every commandment of the Torah is forever. You might say, no, some are fulfilled. OK, well, I believe the Torah finds its full expression in Yeshua, that he takes the moral commandments of the Torah to a higher level. But for example, the seventh day Sabbath, nor is that given to the Gentile believers as a command in the New Testament. But Jesus has come to me and find rest. The Sabbath rest finds its fulfillment in him. But here's the real challenge I have for you.

Here's the challenge I have for you. Are you really living by every aspect of Torah law? Are you? For example, all the specifics about not trimming the corners of your beard and so on. So do you look like a rabbinic Jew? Well, maybe you interpret it differently, but obviously you can't be clean shaven, obviously, because you'd be in disobedience. And if you're married, do you and your wife practice exactly what's written in terms of sexual purity laws in Leviticus 15?

And what do you do if you have mildew in your house? Do you follow the laws of Leviticus 14? And if you have a persistently disobedient and rebellious teenager, do you stone them to death?

And on and on and on it goes. No, you're not living by everything in Torah. Do you stone adulterers?

Do you burn witches? I could go on, but many, many, many, many of those, if you will look, 75 percent of those laws in the Torah, which are said to be forever for all time, for all generations, 75 percent require a functioning temple, priesthood and Jewish sovereignty in the land to carry out. Has it been that God has not allowed us to keep 75 percent of the forever commandments or are they fulfilled in Yeshua?

Are they fulfilled in Yeshua? All right. Let's see.

Let's go to Tari. Honestly, I don't know your biblical stance on a lot of doctrine, but I would like to say I disagree with your stance on Zionism and Christians supported it. Again, thank you, all of you, for being clear and stating your differences as I asked. OK, I do not support everything Israel does. I'm not an enemy of the Palestinians, but I am 100 percent sure by scripture that the only reason that the state of Israel exists today is by the sovereign will of God and that the God who scattered the Jewish people from the land brought them back. That to me is Zionism. God brought his scattered people back to the land as he promised and that Jesus will return to Jerusalem, not anywhere in North America or in Asia or Africa, but he will return to Jerusalem and he will rule and reign from there.

So let me ask you a question, my brother. If we understand God's principles, when he blesses, no one can curse. When he curses, no one can bless. When he heals, no one can smite. When he smites, no one can heal. When he scatters, no one can gather. When he gathers, no one can scatter.

Correct? Well, if he scatters the Jewish people in his wrath, who brought them back? Satan can't do it. UN can't do it. Jewish people can't do it. That would be undoing what God did, undoing his curse. He's very explicit about this. So what's your answer?

What do you think? If he scattered the Jewish people, who regathered them? Who brought them back? Oh, it's got nothing to do with God. Well, no, no, he said, I'm scattering you in my judgment, my anger.

You'll be scattered to the ends of the earth. And then he also says, I'm going to regather you in my mercy, not for your sake, but for mine. So this is the work of God. I recognize the work of God. I also recognize that much of the world gives false reports about Israel, that much of the media gives false reports, that you get much misleading information about Israel and the Jewish people. So if you haven't been to Israel, by all means, go and check things out firsthand and see what's happening in the land and Israel's desire to live at peace with its neighbors. But bottom line to me is scriptural.

God did it. That's why I'm a Zionist. He brought his people back to the homeland. Again, it doesn't mean I support everything Israel does. Israel needs the Lord. Israel sins like other nations sin, and Israel does good like other nations do good. But I'm a Zionist because I believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. He promised it for a thousand generations. It was based on his oath. Paul writes in Galatians 3 that the law which came 430 years after the promise cannot annul the promise.

So, in any case, yeah, I believe what God says. Let's see here. Okay, rapture.

We won't get into that. All right, thanks for the prayers. Okay, here we go.

Julius, thank you, sir. Politically, one can be a Christian and support the progressive agenda of the Democratic Party or the left generally. The world is imperfect and we are not saints. Okay, so to be perfectly clear, I believe you can be a Christian and vote Democrat. You can be a Christian and vote Republican. But I personally, my perspective, so I'm not judging someone else, and I appreciate you bringing that up, sir. I'm not judging someone's salvation or walk with God. But if I am convinced that one party will work against the slaughter of the unborn and another party will make it easier to slaughter the unborn, I cannot see how you can vote for that party.

Now, I'm not telling you that God says you're not saved or you're not one of his. All I'm telling you is my perspective, just like in the days of slavery, all right? In the days of slavery, I don't see how you could have voted for the party that is pro-slavery if another party was anti-slavery. Now, maybe the anti-slavery party had so many other bad qualities that you couldn't vote for either. But that's just my perspective. And so the existential things that we're facing, the real, real threat to our freedoms in America, the ongoing war against the unborn, the horrific radical LGBTQ agenda in terms of how it impacts everyone else and the impact on marriage and family definitions, the larger impact on the world as a whole, the potential of Iran getting a nuclear bomb and trying to destroy Israel or radical Islam in general and the tyranny of China. So to me, a hundred to one, the Republican Party was better than the Democrat Party.

A hundred to one on those issues. So to me, I had no problem with saying I can't vote for either party. I think Trump is a very destructive human being. And as a very destructive human being, I can vote for him even though I like his policies. And I obviously can't vote for the Democrats because I'm voting for the codifying of the shedding of innocent blood or the war on gender distinctions and on and on and on. So I'm going to cast a third party vote or not vote for presidential candidate at all. I respect that. But I personally have a deep, profound difference with anyone that casts a vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

That's my own opinion. Now, we could fellowship around Jesus, my brother. We could go out and share the gospel with the lost.

We could pray and fast together for God's mercy on America. And I would have a profound difference with how you vote. And you might have a profound difference with me. I'm just I'm being candid. I'm not saying we're not brothers in the Lord.

Right. And obviously you're not saying that to me. And I look I wrote a chapter in a book explaining why Christians vote Democrat. I disagree with the reasons, but I wrote a chapter as to why Christians can do it. And look, overwhelmingly, black believers vote Democrat, white believers vote Republican. And we each have our reasons.

And we can we can worship Jesus together and we could serve our communities together and have those differences. So that's my strong opinion. Right. So you have an opinion on the other side, but that's my strong opinion, which I don't apologize for. But I'm not your judge. That's just my opinion. I'm not your judge. And you're not my judge. We stand before God and I'm glad you're not my judge and I'm sure you're glad that I'm not your judge. So I'm just being perfectly kind. But thank you. Thank you, Julius, for stating that. Um, OK. I tell you what, that was a little bit long.

Let me see if I can. Seth, I differ with you genetically, but less than 10 percent more than likely. Genetically. How can you differ with me genetically?

Genetics is our physical makeup. How about this one, Johnny Ali, your support for Biden? I don't support Biden. I voted for Trump. I oppose Biden's activist leftist agenda, but he's my president and I pray for him.

Are people unable to get that? The fact that I recognize Joe Biden as president does not mean I support his agenda. He is my president. Like Donald Trump was my president. Barack Obama was my president.

OK, whoever gets in and is by our courts and our Congress and is recognized as president. I recognize Joe Biden as my president. Why do you say I support Joe?

But what are people on it? Did you not read my article the other day saying those who voted for Biden? Didn't you see where this was going to go? Didn't you see the things he was going to do? Were you that unaware of it?

So I'm glad you posted it with the explanation. But Johnny, do you care about truth or not? But come on. If you're on my Facebook page, if you listen to the radio show, if you if you've read my articles, you know, I voted for Trump with concern about his character. This is what I voted for Trump. You know, I've warned about the leftist agenda, the Democratic agenda and the Biden-Harris agenda for months and months and months and months. And before them for years with others on the left, you know, I've done that. So the fact I recognize him as president now means I support. I recognize this president and pray for him and wherever he does right. I commend that we just wrong. I'll call it out.

Same as with President Trump in that regard. All right. More when we come back. Stay right here. 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.

Boy, I wish I could do this every day. I love interacting with folks who differ with me. You know, if you've listened to the show for years and watched how often I say, hey, if you differ with me, call, call, call. Critics can call way and call.

Tell me your differences. And we don't hear from folks. So posting on Facebook, I asked for that. Thanks for doing it. I'm not taking calls. Not looking for new posts. This was done a few days ago to get all the posts up that I'm going to interact with.

And I've just been going through basically the first ones that were posted, read through them and get into as many as I can. Tony, I'm not sure how you believe regarding this topic, Dr. Brown. Many today believe that our gospel of grace and the kingdom gospel are the same. But I believe that the two are different from each other. The kingdom gospel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for Jew only.

This does not mean that non-Jewish don't study them because they're still there for learning. But I believe that the gospel which we're saved today is the gospel of grace. First Corinthians 15, one through four penned by the apostle Paul speaking of that gospel. OK. No, I differ with you.

So that was Kathy, it looks like at the end that posted that. Yeah, I differ with you there. The gospel of the kingdom is the gospel of grace. It's one and the same. And that's why the kingdom is preached in the book of Acts as well. That Paul spoke about the kingdom, that that was part of the message.

It's one of the same. It's a dispensational view that I don't hold to that one was just for the Jew and the other for everyone else. And in fact, if you look, if you take the time to look in the book of Acts in the 20th chapter, all right, Acts, just go through it on your own. The 20th chapter where it goes on with speaking of Paul and his and his message. And oh, let's just say, starting in verse 20, I did not shrink back from proclaiming to anything that was profitable or from teaching you in public from house to house. I testified to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God, faith in our Lord Jesus. Now I'm on my way to Jerusalem, bound in my spirit, knowing that while I encounter there, not knowing what I'll encounter, except that in town after town, the Holy Spirit testifies to me, the chains and afflictions are waiting for me. But I count my life with no value to myself, so that I may finish my course in the ministry I received from the Lord Jesus to testify to the gospel of God's grace. And now I know that none of you will ever see my face again. Everyone I went about preaching the kingdom to.

Isn't that interesting? Two consecutive verses. He speaks of the gospel of God's grace, and I've been preaching the kingdom. It's one and the same message.

There may be different aspects or emphases, but one and the same message. Let's see. Lynn, I hope there'll be a transcript as I dislike videos. You can look, you can put up for captions on YouTube, maybe on Facebook. For transcript, if you'd like to support someone transcribing the show every day, it's a lot of words, a lot of work. But if you'd like to support that, we'd welcome it. Otherwise, yeah, it's a video.

But you can normally click for captions on either Facebook or YouTube and they'll come up. Let's see. OK, Julia, this is not so much a disagreement, but you made a very quick comment recently on church congregation at Klesia. All I think stemming from Matthew 16, 18, and that you differed from a Klesia teaching. Perhaps you meant certain Klesia teaching. Could you please clarify, as I think in my non-expert thinking, the church has missed something here and it's not taken up the role the Lord intended.

And as a result, been weakened and distracted. Yes, I differ with. I differ with the idea that the Greek word Klesia refers to a ruling government council. That Klesia primarily has to do with governing authority.

That is a usage that occurs sometimes in in ancient Greek and classical Greek. But there is no evidence of it in the New Testament Klesia as far as believers. Moreover, Klesia is sometimes a translation of the Septuagint from Hebrew aida, which is just congregation or kahal, which is just congregation, which in and of itself has no ruling or governmental authority. So all authority in heaven and earth belongs to Jesus. So we derive our authority from him. And we are called to advance his kingdom on the earth through the preaching of the gospel and through signs and wonders displaying and manifesting his kingdom and through service to the poor and the hurting, demonstrating the character of God to this world. But the Klesia is not a ruling governing authority that has authority over nations or things like that.

All authority is given to Jesus. And then we serve. We serve others. We don't take over. We serve.

So I think we do have a difference on that based on what you said. And I did a whole show. If you just check on our YouTube channel, Ask Dr. Brown or on our website, askdr.brown.org and just search for Klesia. You'll see I did a whole teaching on it. Search for Klesia or church, meaning of that.

I did a whole teaching. I went through all the lexical evidence and it's simply not there. This is a wrong teaching.

It's very popular these days. The rule of the Klesia, the ruling council, but it's not biblical. It's not a New Testament concept or usage either. All right. Here's a nice one. Robin, I don't differ with you on very much. Really love your consistent, wise and balanced approach to so many things. You're an anchor in time of stormy seas. God bless you, Dr. Brown, and keep up the good work. Hey, thank you, Robin, for the good word. I appreciate it. And by God's grace, we're here to serve, especially the stormier it gets, the steadier we want to be.

And we've got a great team, wonderful team working together to serve as many of you as possible. James, I think sometimes you like to pontificate. Well, that's your opinion, which is fine. You can have that. I do my best to speak what I know and to speak what the Lord gives me to help others when I'm burdened and directed to, otherwise to zip it. So if I got something to say, I'll say it. If not, I won't. But generally speaking, correct me if I'm wrong, the reason you listen to a certain person speak is to hear what they have to say.

Would that be right? The reason you buy somebody's book is to see what they wrote. The reason you listen to someone preach is to hear their message. The reason you flip on the radio to listen to whatever you do is to hear what they have to say. Right.

So that's why I say what I say. All right. Let's see what we've got here. Wade, you've rightly identified the destructive outcome of all these failed presidential prophecies. You've even called for the need of accountability, and this is good. But could you address what this accountability should actually look like beyond a simple apology and admonition of wrongdoing, especially since I would be willing to bet that these same people also have numerous other false prophecies? There's no point mentioning the need for accountability if there is no description of what process should require. OK. This is not a disagreement, but it's asking for clarification.

So I'll I'll do that. It's such an important subject. I've been calling for accountability for many, many years. And I've worked with leaders who've been calling for accountability for many, many years. And we can't force someone to be accountable. Now, if if someone worked for my ministry and was unaccountable, then we could deal with that. They either repent and submit, get things right, or they no longer work with us or for us. We can do that. Or if we had a denomination and someone refused to be accountable by those standards, then you can say, OK, you're no longer part of our denomination.

You release them. You put out a public statement about that. But there are many independent ministries and we don't have power authority over them. And I'm not claiming to be the charismatic pope. I know God's given me a certain amount of weight and authority in the body, but I'm just one person and I'm not the leader. There is no the leader on the earth aside from Jesus. The leader of the body. So what accountability would look like is this.

We are going to call for it and urge for it and put out as many statements as we can and guidelines as we can, with the hope that others in the body can see this and structure things accordingly. So prophets would not just be independent. There would be part of local congregations and part of leadership teams. And before releasing words that would be of a national level or major consequence would submit those words to other leaders, either on the leadership team or some type of national accountability for wisdom and discernment.

And if people refuse to submit to those guidelines and operate by them, then that would be known. For example, we were involved in a situation with one minister last year, Todd Bentley, the year before, and it ended in early 2020. And I have no authority over his life, no authority over his ministry.

I've sat down and talked to him at length really once in my life. And that was in this process. None of the people that served on an accountability team or a panel to evaluate had any authority. I oversaw the team and then they put out a statement. But together we issued a statement saying that he was disqualified from being in ministry based on his history. And under no circumstances did we believe that he should lead his own ministry. And that if he was to be in ministry, that there would have to be a lengthy process of restoration and proving himself under others over an extensive period of time because of the history of alleged sin and ministerial malpractice, you could say. Now, that statement went out.

It was widely circulated. I just saw that this same individual is now saying he's gone back in ministry and the Lord's visited him. I have no authority over that. What he does is between him and God. But we've made a statement on behalf of major leaders in the body, having reviewed the evidence carefully, and saying he should not be leading his own ministry and he should go through much fruit of repentance and restoration before he could step into any type of ministry under others in the future. So we would do the same thing in terms of prophetically. If someone is prophesying falsely and they're called to account and they don't submit and they don't listen, now we just make that statement.

We find them to be unaccountable. Again, those who are going to follow them are going to follow them. Jesus said the wheat and tares are going to grow, so you're always going to have good with bad in the body.

That's how it existed from New Testament times on. But we do our best to set standards, to evaluate, to call for certain responses, and then from there, people are going to make the choices that they make. All right. I wish I had time for more, but thank you for posting, for questioning, for being blunt, for getting to your points, for expressing differences. And hopefully this has been a good edifying learning experience for all. I'm back with you right here taking your calls tomorrow.